calling him racist, white supremacist…
conveniently forgot? or conveniently not fed to you through mommy media
poor tay tay huh?
1 Like
“After stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency, you have the nerve to feign moral superiority before threatening violence?”
read that again, sir.
thanks for helping make my point
sir
How dare a younger woman speak the truth. She must therefore be attacked… for her looks… by an octogenarian.
oh. shes allowed to call him racist, etc but heaven forfend trump clap back
great time to be alive in politics. been waiting for this for a long time
same for dumbass Springsteen.
1 Like
She didn’t call him a racist. She said he stoked racism. Which he did.
And he, a man twice her age, “clapped back” by discussing … her looks, not her claims. 5 years later.
splittin them hairs huh?
nice try
such victims they are
shut up and sing.
1 Like
i love it. these idiots did the same thing to bush and didn’t get any pushback
this one slaps back. go cry, babies.
1 Like
Showing the truth. The thin-skinned old man can’t help but attack a woman for her looks.
if she cant take it then she should refrain from making nincompoopic “the view” level comments and leave it up to the late-night talk show betas in between their tears
1 Like
the President of the United States is so thin-skinned he attacks a woman less than half his age - not for policy, but because she’s not “hot” (sick ■■■■■■
an actual traditional “king” would jail or kill anyone who makes such childish accusations against him. but a babified narrative is all that matters
they have no idea.
at least he didnt call her “fat” or a “dog face”
no one’s that thin skinned huh? (just for asking a tough question)
spare us your outrage
No, he saves that for other women.
you’ll have to point to the spot in the Constitution that says the President is supervised by the SC. I can’t seem to find it.
And it is Congress, and ultimately the people who are the final arbiters, not 9 black robed tyrants. The SC gets their say, if however, the Congress disagrees they can strip the court of jurisdiction.
2 Likes
Most of his ‘billionaire buddies’ as you like to call them are directly adversely affected, because they make products overseas.
How is something that affects them, protecting them?
On another note, there is something legitimate to call Trump out on.
The problem with Trump’s logic is the fact that Walmart has a profit margin of less than 3%.
Now, if you have a profit margin of 3%, and tariffs are raising prices 10%, how in hell can you be expected to eat said tariffs?
Look, unfortunately, we will have to pay more for certain items. That is just a fact that cannot be avoided.
Congress makes laws, if challenged the SC determines if those laws are constitutional. Its ruling are binding and only a constitutional amendment or a new SC decision can overturn them.
The people do not decide if a law is constitutional.
Jurisdiction stripping is not going to work for Trump because Congress cannot strip the SC jurisdiction which results in violations of other constitutional provisions, such as due process.
Even if Congress strips the SC jurisdiction, lower courts can still rule on constitutional issues, and their decisions arw going to be binding unless Congress then tries to limit their jurisdiction. That will lead to all sorts of nonsense as we will end up with inconsistent decisions across the US. So no Congress is not going to strip the SC jurisdiction just so Trump can get his way.
Like I said if Trump is stopped by the SC he is free to try another tactic to reach his ultimate goal but he has to abide by the SC decision.
But you know all this.
