Trump 2.0: MAGAA

[kalm]

Nice victim blaming.

[kalm]

Now weed is bad again.

[BDKJMU]

Now weed is bad again.

Lol Kalm quoting the retarded lying Congressman who can’t tell the difference between strawberry and pot plants who said ICE was going after immigrant farm workers who feed America. They were not, they were going after illegal aliens working on a weed farm who were brazenly committing felonious assault with deadly weapons against law enforcement.

[BDKJMU]

Just like the tards who said the market was going to crash and inflation was going to skyrocket.

[DSUrocks07]

Trump is really bad at this whole "being a sleeper Russian agent" thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfol ... ne-reached

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.
...
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
...
The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures.

Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions.
...
The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.

They're down to the B and possibly the C team.

[kalm]

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.
...
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
...
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
...
The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.

They're down to the B and possibly the C team.

Good read.

[BDKJMU]

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump's election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.
...
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
...
"Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system," said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump's second term. "How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?"

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.
...
The exits include at least 10 of the section's 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.

They're down to the B and possibly the C team.

Sounds like the Biden era holdovers, including the woke trans DEI hires, have all quit or been shown the door. That means the ‘A’ team is left. 69 of 110 is probably not even all the ones that contributed to and voted for Harris. Heck 90-100 of 110 going would sound better. Anyone who defended Biden’s policies should be shown the door.

[UNI88]

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

They're down to the B and possibly the C team.

Sounds like the Biden era holdovers, including the woke trans DEI hires, have all quit or been shown the door. That means the ‘A’ team is left. 69 of 110 is probably not even all the ones that contributed to and voted for Harris. Heck 90-100 of 110 going would sound better. Anyone who defended Biden’s policies should be shown the door.

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies. DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

[BDKJMU]

Sounds like the Biden era holdovers, including the woke trans DEI hires, have all quit or been shown the door. That means the ‘A’ team is left. 69 of 110 is probably not even all the ones that contributed to and voted for Harris. Heck 90-100 of 110 going would sound better. Anyone who defended Biden’s policies should be shown the door.

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

I don’t care. Anyone who defended:
-Landlords not being able to evict tenants who hadn’t paid rent for up to 1.5 years.
-The Fed govt being able to force employees (including private) to take a novel vaccine, including for people who had superior natural immunity, with liability immunity given to the manufacturers, leaving civil no recourse for negative side effects.
-Biden’s wide open border policies.
-Taxpayers being screwed so irresponsible student loan borrowers didn’t have to repay their student loans.
-Biden’s DEI policies
etc, etc, etc, etc.

Should 100% be shitcanned. I don’t care if the next donk admin (whenever that might be lol) shitcans those who defended Trump’s policies. Each admin has the right to put their own people in place, including legal teams who will defend their policies. They shouldn’t have to have legal teams asked to defend in court that which they don’t believe in.

[kalm]

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

I don’t care. Anyone who defended:
-Landlords not being able to evict tenants who hadn’t paid rent for up to 1.5 years.
-The Fed govt being able to force employees (including private) to take a novel vaccine, including for people who had superior natural immunity, with liability immunity given to the manufacturers, leaving civil no recourse for negative side effects.
-Biden’s wide open border policies.
-Taxpayers being screwed so irresponsible student loan borrowers didn’t have to repay their student loans.
-Biden’s DEI policies
etc, etc, etc, etc.

Should 100% be shitcanned. I don’t care if the next donk admin (whenever that might be lol) shitcans those who defended Trump’s policies. Each admin has the right to put their own people in place, including legal teams who will defend their policies. They shouldn’t have to have legal teams asked to defend in court that which they don’t believe in.

So we should have tested the entire population superior natural immunity first?

[kalm]

Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are DEi hires.

[DSUrocks07]

Sounds like the Biden era holdovers, including the woke trans DEI hires, have all quit or been shown the door. That means the ‘A’ team is left. 69 of 110 is probably not even all the ones that contributed to and voted for Harris. Heck 90-100 of 110 going would sound better. Anyone who defended Biden’s policies should be shown the door.

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies. DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

Name the holdovers who served under the previous Trump administration from 2017-2021 that were kept on by the Biden administration through 2025?

Or did they "willingly resign"?

Once again, people are turning a blind eye to the fact that Trump was already President before when he was "a threat to the republic" then as well.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

At least try and make your lies believable.

[UNI88]

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies. DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

Name the holdovers who served under the previous Trump administration from 2017-2021 that were kept on by the Biden administration through 2025?

Or did they "willingly resign"?

Once again, people are turning a blind eye to the fact that Trump was already President before when he was "a threat to the republic" then as well.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

These are career government employees, not political appointees. Hiring and firing for these positions should be based on merit not ideology or loyalty to whoever is President.

[Bobcat]

Disagree.

Nobody that has a federal job should be there more than 12 years. Fire them and get new people. I don't want entrenched people in government.

They should also not be allowed to get another job in federal government after they leave. Same with Senators and House Reps

[GannonFan]

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

Well, for question 1, of course he's a selfish narcissist - that's his defining feature and his guiding principle. With that said, all the "executive power he's establishing" isn't as broad as some would make it out to be. We just saw that a federal judge followed the playbook the SCOTUS laid out on how to still block, nationally, the birthright citizenship thing. Most of what the SCOTUS has allowed has mostly been on procedure and mostly on letting the lower courts do their review and rulings before it getting to SCOTUS. The argument from the majority on that principle of approaching the law was far more persuasive than Jackson's rant on not liking it.

And as for question #2, there is no way that there isn't an election in November of 2028 and a new President in January of 2029. Those things are going to happen and there's nothing Trump can do to stop that from happening. Sure, if there was even the slightest of chances it could happen that would be Republic endangering, but there's not even the slightest of chances. There's no overturning of the 12th and 22nd amendments in the next 3 years and no chance that SCOTUS does that behind the scenes either. The Republic will have an election in 2028, count on it.

[UNI88]

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

Well, for question 1, of course he's a selfish narcissist - that's his defining feature and his guiding principle. With that said, all the "executive power he's establishing" isn't as broad as some would make it out to be. We just saw that a federal judge followed the playbook the SCOTUS laid out on how to still block, nationally, the birthright citizenship thing. Most of what the SCOTUS has allowed has mostly been on procedure and mostly on letting the lower courts do their review and rulings before it getting to SCOTUS. The argument from the majority on that principle of approaching the law was far more persuasive than Jackson's rant on not liking it.

And as for question #2, there is no way that there isn't an election in November of 2028 and a new President in January of 2029. Those things are going to happen and there's nothing Trump can do to stop that from happening. Sure, if there was even the slightest of chances it could happen that would be Republic endangering, but there's not even the slightest of chances. There's no overturning of the 12th and 22nd amendments in the next 3 years and no chance that SCOTUS does that behind the scenes either. The Republic will have an election in 2028, count on it.

Agree on 1.

I think there could be more to 2 then you do. Fomenting descent, sending the Marines to LA, etc. could be considered steps towards declaring an emergency so he can suspend posse comitatus. How will SCOTUS rule if he foments unrest to a boiling point?

I'm also concerned with his attacks on Constitutional principles that are a foundation for the freedom we enjoy - freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process, extortion/attacks on law firms, etc.

He is taking a wannabe banana republic dictator approach to governing. Hopefully you are right and our systems will withstand this assault but it is the greatest threat to our Republic that I can remember (I was too young to remember Nixon).

[kalm]

Well, for question 1, of course he's a selfish narcissist - that's his defining feature and his guiding principle. With that said, all the "executive power he's establishing" isn't as broad as some would make it out to be. We just saw that a federal judge followed the playbook the SCOTUS laid out on how to still block, nationally, the birthright citizenship thing. Most of what the SCOTUS has allowed has mostly been on procedure and mostly on letting the lower courts do their review and rulings before it getting to SCOTUS. The argument from the majority on that principle of approaching the law was far more persuasive than Jackson's rant on not liking it.

And as for question #2, there is no way that there isn't an election in November of 2028 and a new President in January of 2029. Those things are going to happen and there's nothing Trump can do to stop that from happening. Sure, if there was even the slightest of chances it could happen that would be Republic endangering, but there's not even the slightest of chances. There's no overturning of the 12th and 22nd amendments in the next 3 years and no chance that SCOTUS does that behind the scenes either. The Republic will have an election in 2028, count on it.

Agree on 1.

I think there could be more to 2 then you do. Fomenting descent, sending the Marines to LA, etc. could be considered steps towards declaring an emergency so he can suspend posse comitatus. How will SCOTUS rule if he foments unrest to a boiling point?

I'm also concerned with his attacks on Constitutional principles that are a foundation for the freedom we enjoy - freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process, extortion/attacks on law firms, etc.

He is taking a wannabe banana republic dictator approach to governing. Hopefully you are right and our systems will withstand this assault but it is the greatest threat to our Republic that I can remember (I was too young to remember Nixon).

It wouldn’t take much. Violence against ICE agents would be one such justification.

Election manipulation would be another concern. Even if he’s not a candidate you can bet he will attempt to control the outcome and determine who is successor will be.

There are very little brakes left on the clown car. He has compliance bred of fear at every level of the federal government and he will push the legal limits as far as he can.

I suppose congressional R’s will continue to just hope that they are not brought down by his coattails.

None of this may happen and he could go quietly but It’s just weird that he and MAGA are acting without any concern of what happens if the D’s take back the house in ‘26 and win the presidency in ‘28. There’s seemingly little long term strategy.

[BDKJMU]

There you go prioritizing the MAQA yahoo version of (what they claim is) DEI - loyalty to trump over competence.

The next Democratic administration would be justified any showing the door to anyone who defended trump's policies. DHS, DoD, etc. could be gutted.

Question for Ganny (hopefully he's lurking):
Why do you think trump could be doing this?
1) He's a selfish narcissist and doesn't care about what Democrats might do with the executive power he's establishing after he's gone?
2) He's not planning for there to be another election where the Democrats could retake the White House?
3) Something else I'm not thinking of?

1 & 2 are pretty damning and lend credence to the argument that trump is a threat to the Republic.

Name the holdovers who served under the previous Trump administration from 2017-2021 that were kept on by the Biden administration through 2025?

Or did they "willingly resign"?

Once again, people are turning a blind eye to the fact that Trump was already President before when he was "a threat to the republic" then as well.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

Bingo.

[BDKJMU]

Name the holdovers who served under the previous Trump administration from 2017-2021 that were kept on by the Biden administration through 2025?

Or did they "willingly resign"?

Once again, people are turning a blind eye to the fact that Trump was already President before when he was "a threat to the republic" then as well.

Sent from my SM-S928U1 using Tapatalk

These are career government employees, not political appointees. Hiring and firing for these positions should be based on merit not ideology or loyalty to whoever is President.

Not if their job is to defend your EOs/policies in court. That is a totally political role that should be based on merit and ideology. No Commiela voters should be kept on.

[UNI88]

These are career government employees, not political appointees. Hiring and firing for these positions should be based on merit not ideology or loyalty to whoever is President.

Not if their job is to defend your EOs/policies in court. That is a totally political role that should be based on merit and ideology. No Commiela voters should be kept on.

Their duty to the Constitution "trumps" their duty to defend a president's EOs/policies in court. Justice should be blind.

DoJ members should be giving advice on what is and isn't Constitutional, not trying to find ways around the Constitution in order to placate a POTUS who wants what he wants and doesn't like being told "no" like he's a toddler who wants another kid's toy.

[GannonFan]

Well, for question 1, of course he's a selfish narcissist - that's his defining feature and his guiding principle. With that said, all the "executive power he's establishing" isn't as broad as some would make it out to be. We just saw that a federal judge followed the playbook the SCOTUS laid out on how to still block, nationally, the birthright citizenship thing. Most of what the SCOTUS has allowed has mostly been on procedure and mostly on letting the lower courts do their review and rulings before it getting to SCOTUS. The argument from the majority on that principle of approaching the law was far more persuasive than Jackson's rant on not liking it.

And as for question #2, there is no way that there isn't an election in November of 2028 and a new President in January of 2029. Those things are going to happen and there's nothing Trump can do to stop that from happening. Sure, if there was even the slightest of chances it could happen that would be Republic endangering, but there's not even the slightest of chances. There's no overturning of the 12th and 22nd amendments in the next 3 years and no chance that SCOTUS does that behind the scenes either. The Republic will have an election in 2028, count on it.

Agree on 1.

I think there could be more to 2 then you do. Fomenting descent, sending the Marines to LA, etc. could be considered steps towards declaring an emergency so he can suspend posse comitatus. How will SCOTUS rule if he foments unrest to a boiling point?

I'm also concerned with his attacks on Constitutional principles that are a foundation for the freedom we enjoy - freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process, extortion/attacks on law firms, etc.

He is taking a wannabe banana republic dictator approach to governing. Hopefully you are right and our systems will withstand this assault but it is the greatest threat to our Republic that I can remember (I was too young to remember Nixon).

We say all of this, and the irony is, the chance that the Dems take back the House in 2026 is far greater, by several orders of magnitude, than it is that we don't have elections anymore. We will have elections this fall (local and state), we'll have federal elections next year, and we'll have a Presidential election in 2028. Kalm's thing about rigging election results is also baseless - we have 50 different states with 50 different elections. Half of those states are Democratic majority. We'll have issues here and there, but we've always had issues here and there. Despite our protestations to the contrary, voting and elections in this country have been somewhat messy since, well, forever. But they will still happen.

As for his attacks on freedoms - heck, I don't think his attacks on the press are any worse than the press being in lockstep with the previous administration. Our real issue with the press is journalistic integrity - hopefully we get that back sometime. How is freedom of assembly being threatened? Didn't we just have a nationwide "No Kings" protest that some on here were calling the biggest of all time? How can that happen if freedom of assembly is under threat? And the law firms can push back whenever theyt want - the ones that don't are just making business decisions, but those decisions can change with the wind and the next election.

Where we do have an issue is with the issue of due process and with a chaotic and unorganized attempt to curtail illegal immigration, and that's real and it's terrible for those involved, and even more so for the innocents that are caught up in it. That's where the attention should be and it's where Congress should be. We have a real problem with immigration and it's a problem that both parties have purposely avoided trying to solve because they like having it as an election issue every other year. The answer is clearly that we should have a pretty big, and a very legal way for people to immigrate into the US. Immigration helps us as a country and we're one of the main countries in the world where people do want to come. Once we have that, everything else is illegal and should be dealt with easily. Sure, we have to deal with the past 40 years of inadequate immigration policy, but we have to start somewhere.

[kalm]

Agree on 1.

I think there could be more to 2 then you do. Fomenting descent, sending the Marines to LA, etc. could be considered steps towards declaring an emergency so he can suspend posse comitatus. How will SCOTUS rule if he foments unrest to a boiling point?

I'm also concerned with his attacks on Constitutional principles that are a foundation for the freedom we enjoy - freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, due process, extortion/attacks on law firms, etc.

He is taking a wannabe banana republic dictator approach to governing. Hopefully you are right and our systems will withstand this assault but it is the greatest threat to our Republic that I can remember (I was too young to remember Nixon).

We say all of this, and the irony is, the chance that the Dems take back the House in 2026 is far greater, by several orders of magnitude, than it is that we don't have elections anymore. We will have elections this fall (local and state), we'll have federal elections next year, and we'll have a Presidential election in 2028. Kalm's thing about rigging election results is also baseless - we have 50 different states with 50 different elections. Half of those states are Democratic majority. We'll have issues here and there, but we've always had issues here and there. Despite our protestations to the contrary, voting and elections in this country have been somewhat messy since, well, forever. But they will still happen.

As for his attacks on freedoms - heck, I don't think his attacks on the press are any worse than the press being in lockstep with the previous administration. Our real issue with the press is journalistic integrity - hopefully we get that back sometime. How is freedom of assembly being threatened? Didn't we just have a nationwide "No Kings" protest that some on here were calling the biggest of all time? How can that happen if freedom of assembly is under threat? And the law firms can push back whenever theyt want - the ones that don't are just making business decisions, but those decisions can change with the wind and the next election.

Where we do have an issue is with the issue of due process and with a chaotic and unorganized attempt to curtail illegal immigration, and that's real and it's terrible for those involved, and even more so for the innocents that are caught up in it. That's where the attention should be and it's where Congress should be. We have a real problem with immigration and it's a problem that both parties have purposely avoided trying to solve because they like having it as an election issue every other year. The answer is clearly that we should have a pretty big, and a very legal way for people to immigrate into the US. Immigration helps us as a country and we're one of the main countries in the world where people do want to come. Once we have that, everything else is illegal and should be dealt with easily. Sure, we have to deal with the past 40 years of inadequate immigration policy, but we have to start somewhere.

Elections can be rigged in a variety of ways. Voter suppression, redistricting etc. As you acknowledged, “issues” occur every election and indeed it is messy. At what point do they become a more serious issue? What’s our tolerance for manipulation? Is the SAVE act no big deal or is it worthy of concern and legal challenge?

[Caribbean Hen]

The biggest problem with immigration is not the policy. It’s ignoring the policy. Thank you Joe Biden.

30 years ago Bill Clinton was all about enforcing the border

Of course the policy is not gonna work when you have Democrats facilitating free stuff for the entire world and telling them the border is wide open