Trump 2.0 official thread

[Captainquirk]

Is this a serious question?

You're coping pretty hard right now.

Yes there is a big material difference between 80% and 145% for certain products, especially key products that others cannot make.

But if there is no difference like you say, why did trump decrease it, making it look like he caved? Why not increase it instead to 200%?!? Or 300?!? To look strong, cause according to you, there is no material difference?

It makes no difference is exactly why he decreased it to 80% this early into the negotiation. lol.

 

[MortyandRick]

It makes no difference is exactly why he decreased it to 80% this early into the negotiation. lol.

So he just wanted to make it seem like he is caving? Lol

your logic doesn't make sense with all the mental gymnastics you are giving.

If it doesn't make any difference like you said, then the Chinese don't care and it wouldn't factor into their negotiations. Also if it didn't make a difference, why did trump initially push it up to 145% from 100% in the first place? To show that he means business?!?

Conversely if increasing tariffs to 145% does make a difference then decreasing it to 80% will also make a difference and again shows he caved.

Lol . How are you gonna spin logic?

 

[AssassinsMace]

Trump and the Trumptards think when they buy things from China, they're giving China money without getting anything in return. Then they claim there's a difference in value between what China sells to the US and what the US sells to China. China sells worthless cheap trinkets while the US sells what to China? Things they're okay with selling that don't threaten their national security aka things that are not of value. Money is money. It's doesn't matter where it came from. 70% of American businesses are small businesses and most can't buy inventory from China to sell to customers. Trump wonders why everyone is making a big deal over empty shelves in stores. Trump and the Trumptards are obsessed with stopping China from making 10 cents out of every dollar from what that American store sells. They don't see that 90 cents out of every dollar that the American store owner makes from a ten cent item from China. That's why the Republican'ts think there's only a certain amount of money in the entire world and all of it only belongs to the US and if anyone has any of it, they stole from them.

 

[FriedButter]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

White House’s Stephen Miller: ‘We are actively looking at’ suspending habeas corpus​

In recent months, the radicalism of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda has come into focus, leaving many to wonder just how much further the Republican White House is prepared to go. It was against this backdrop that CNBC reported:

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said Friday that the Trump administration is ‘actively looking at’ suspending habeas corpus, the right to challenge the legality of a person’s detention by the government. Miller’s comment came in response to a White House reporter who asked about President Donald Trump entertaining the idea of suspending the writ of habeas corpus to deal with the problem of illegal immigration into the United States.

“The Constitution is clear — and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land — that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion,” the presidential adviser said. “So, that’s an option we’re actively looking at.”

As part of the same comments, Miller went on to say that the White House’s actions will be guided by whether federal courts “do the right thing or not.”

In other words, if Miller and his colleagues are satisfied that judges are ruling in ways that satisfy the White House, then everything will be fine. If judges fail to make Team Trump happy, then Miller and his cohorts are “actively looking at” alternative ideas, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

There are legal experts who can speak to this with greater authority than I can, but the basic idea behind habeas corpus is that people who are taken into custody by the government have a legal right to challenge their detention. To suspend habeas — something that happened during the U.S. Civil War, for example — is to allow the government to lock people up without charges and without the ability to contest incarceration.

This, according to Miller, is a point of discussion in the White House.

When I spoke about this to my colleague Lisa Rubin, an MSNBC legal correspondent and a former litigator, she described Miller’s idea as “truly crazy,” adding, “Miller isn’t proposing suspending a statutory right; rather, what he’s talking about is triggering a specific constitutional provision, namely the Suspension Clause of Article I of the Constitution. That clause provides ‘The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.’”

Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, similarly explained that the Constitution’s Suspension Clause “doesn’t allow the President to unilaterally suspend habeas, especially when Congress is in session; applies only to cases of invasion or rebellion (this is quite clearly neither); and even then applies only ‘when the public safety may require it.’ (It doesn’t.)”

This is precisely why it was relevant throughout the 2024 campaign that Donald Trump and his allies would reference the word “invasion” as part of their anti-immigration pitch.

Time will tell whether the president is seriously prepared to pursue such an extreme approach, but that this conversation is even underway is a startling reminder of just how far the United States has gone down a radical path.

suspending habeas corpus, the right to challenge the legality of a person’s detention by the government.

 

[FriedButter]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump administration eyes charging three more NJ Democrats in ICE fracas​

• Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested Friday for allegedly trespassing at a federal immigration detention center in his city.
• The Trump administration said that more New Jersey Democratic elected officials involved in the clash could face criminal charges.
• House Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rob Menendez, and LaMonica McIver dispute DHS’s characterization of the incident outside the Delaney Hall ICE facility in Newark.

The Trump administration suggested Saturday that New Jersey Democratic lawmakers involved in a clash a day earlier with authorities at a federal immigration detention center that led to the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka also could face criminal charges.

“There will likely be more arrests coming,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told CNN in an interview on Saturday.

“We actually have body camera footage of some of these members of Congress assaulting these ICE enforcement officers, including body slamming a female ICE officer,” McLaughlin said.

She later tweeted a video of the chaotic incident outside the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark.

“We will not tolerate assault against our ICE law enforcement agents. By members of Congress or anyone else,” McLauglin wrote in the post on X.

Alina Habba, the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, in an interview on Fox News on Saturday, said, “I’m not going to get into the weeds about other things that may or may not be coming.”

The three lawmakers at the scene — Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rob Menendez, and LaMonica McIver — sharply dispute DHS’s characterization of the incident.

Menendez accused the Trump administration of spreading “lies and misinformation.”

“As Members of Congress, we have a legal right to conduct oversight at any DHS facility without prior notice, as we have already done twice this year,” Menendez said in a statement Friday.

“This is like nothing I’ve ever seen before, and I am shocked and disturbed that something like this happened in our community,” he added.

But McLaughlin accused the Democrats of a “bizarre political stunt.”

“Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities,” McLaughlin said on Friday.

She said it was “an evolving situation,” keeping the door open to further action.

Video shows an altercation between the lawmakers and apparent protesters with law enforcement by a security gate at the detention center.

Coleman said on X that the scuffle occurred after the lawmakers entered the facility.

“We entered the facility, came BACK OUT to speak to the Mayor, and then ICE agents began shoving us,” she said.

Axios first reported that DHS was considering additional arrests. CNBC confirmed the plans.

Baraka, who is running for governor of New Jersey, was released without bond Friday evening. He was charged in Newark federal court with one count of trespassing.

Habba, the interim New Jersey U.S. Attorney, accused Baraka of committing “trespass and [ignoring] multiple warnings” from DHS officials “to remove himself from the ICE detention center.”

 

[Eventine]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Stephen Miller is a bona fide Nazi; a Goebbels in search of a Hitler. Trump is not Hitler, as I’ve earlier argued, but it won’t stop Miller from his search. A man like him can never truly be king - he’s too in lack of charisma - but paired with a greater power, he is incredibly dangerous.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Last time we suspended habeas corpus was the Civil War. Does he want to FAFO?

 

[Michael90]

Those aspects of Japanese culture is just traditional Chinese culture.

So you mean China lost her traditional culture, while Japan still embodies it?

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

So you mean China lost her traditional culture, while Japan still embodies it?

Culutural Revolution was tragic.

Also while some cultural traits would be universal across a society, in pre-modern societies substantial elements of culuture would only be applicable to a small strata of society, ie the elites. As an example, Chinese culture places strong emphasis on education, yet 90% of the population during dynastic times would be illiterate. A French peasant during the late medieval period would be no more culutured or refined than his counterparts in Russia or the rest of Europe. China's modernization didn't really begin in earnest until after 1949, whereas Japan's modernization process started in the second half of the 19th century.

 

[manqiangrexue]

It makes no difference is exactly why he decreased it to 80% this early into the negotiation. lol.

Oh ok, it still makes "no difference" cus Trump supporters think that you can just repeat something into fact even if there is counter-evidence LOL