Trump Neurosis Thread

[putnam6]

when you drain swamp beware what you find there

[Image: https://cdn.drawception.com/images/panel...qdcz-2.png]

ha hate it when I don't get a meme I didn't get the reference even Google image search was no help...

I did find this

[putnam6]

https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/191...6829117638

Interesting thread here, I do not know what will happen here with this case, but Trump is making sure all branches of Government are working.

Feels like nothing but a power struggle, which is endemic for DC. Which has led to a pandemic of political lawfare.

Whose winning?

The law firms 

Whose losing 

The general public, if this descends into daily court filings and injunctions. 

Democrats are so desperate.... It's kind of pathetic on some levels, but I suppose just another norm transitioning to our new reality. 
 

 
 
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
2h
6/ I hadn't read SCOTUS as limiting removal on other basis but it technically is that broad because the proposed class says 
"were, are, or will be subject to" proclamation & all tDa members are "subject to proclamation," but could still be removed a different way.
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
2h
7/ And SCOTUS order says Trump can't remove any member of putative (wanna-be) class and doesn't say don't remove for that reason!
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
2h
8/ As I noted earlier in another thread, the district court said it was prepared to enter a decision on Plaintiff's request for a class TRO when ACLU filed appeals. Will SCOTUS step off and allow district court to enter its decision?
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
2h
9/ This was the fundamental flaw with SCOTUS entering it's order:
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
2h
10/ And again, point I made earlier:
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
1h
11/11 SCOTUS has created another mess because it is clear it shouldn't have entered its order because: a) no class certified; b) no class can be certified; and c) "norms" would be to allow lower court to rule. BUT if SCOTUS vacates order, Trump will likely immediately deport.
gz17
@totalizingtrial
·
1h
The stay will stay.  Why?  Because the Administration is playing games trying get another plane in the air by limiting class members opportunity to seek and obtain habeas review. Seeing that maneuvering, the Supreme Court lacks trust in the Trump Administration.  Therefore, the
Show more
brian.moriarty
@brianXmoriarty
·
2h
Looks like court and not potus has authority to orders removal or not  after “full examination” 
 
[1] the several courts of the United States,  … shall have authority, upon complaint against any alien enemy …
 
[2] and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint, and
Show more
Daniel R. Street
@DanielRStreet1
·
49m
@ProfMJCleveland
 Seems to me the USA should implement a policy giving everyone removed under the Proclamation some minimum amount of notice, say 30 days or something along those lines.
 
That would afford people notice of removal and time to seek relief if they have grounds.
Show more
SchizoTitan
@SchizoTitan
·
34m
These are supposed to be the best legal minds in the country; their arguments defy logic.
Trebor
@TreborJoss
·
1h
This whole thing seems to be odd since the Trump administration is trying to remove those who are actively breaking US immigration laws just as a result of being present in the USA without invite.  And the judges are accepting arguments that illegal aliens can't be deported
Show more
Benjamin Martin
@BenMartin070476
·
57m
Filthy lawyers and corrupt judges playing games with American Lives!
 
The US Judicial system is Rotten to its core and will need to be reigned in, including by Military Force, if we are to survive as a Country!
Angela
@MissSipLady
·
50m
@threadreaderapp
 Unroll, please!
cfromthewoods
@cfromthewoods
·
1h
The Courts have decided there is a "Trump exception" to all laws and legal precedents. I've lost any hope of them doing the right thing and ruling according to the Constitution. Previous Presidents have been afforded the rights of power given to them in the Constitution. Courts rule differently now because Trump is President. That's just a fact. Democrats know that and plan to use it to thwart Trump's policies for the next 4 years.

[putnam6]

[Maxmars]

I wish I could share in the Trump hope... but I can't...

As with Obama, so with Trump... I just can't find them... hopeful(?).
More "imminent" and "coming from sideways."
More like "watch out!"

I watched last time, as the megalithic corporate engine whispered "COVID CURE FOR SALE"...
Trump "sold" their vision-turned-globalist-schematic... whether he recognized it or not.
Shades of Wilson and the Fed...

The "party" street fight is amusing and all...
But at some point I just found it all too 'reality TV-produced."
Too... WWE.

I long for the day when we can talk about "media-politics" as different from "politics."

[AngryOldBrewer]

I've learned so much that I want to share, here in Trump country (at my wife's sister's place for Easter this year)! Did you know that when the founders wrote the 5th amendment of the US constitution, they only intended to apply it to "Americans"? That's what the word "person" means. I am a little afraid to ask what makes you "American" in this house though . I was told at the door of my in-laws, before I was allowed to enter "2 things in this house. Trump and Jesus. If you have a problem with that, then leave now. " Didn't want to be a RINO so I said hell yes (also noticed Trump came before Jesus)! So maybe I can ask I can ask here! What makes you "American"?
Seems like a legit question since we are now deporting person's who we say aren't Americans, some who have been here legally for years. I guess a more specific question is what is the difference between "person" as mentioned in the constitution and "American". Would love to share more but getting the evil eye from Gramma. We are from California so already the enemy knocking on heavens gate.

Also, apologies for not always responding. My free time is typically sporadic at best, along with my bandwidth lol

[UltraBudgie]

I guess a more specific question is what is the difference between "person" as mentioned in the constitution and "American".

The usual argument I've heard is that "people" doesn't refer to all humans of course oh no that would be silly. It refers only to the "We The People" in the preamble of the Constipitution. After all, the sacred right of the People to keep and bear arms obviously doesn't apply to furners, does it?

[Shoshanna]

So I found this looking for something else and I thought I would share it here because it's vaguely relevant. NOW. I don't claim this is true myself because I don't have time right now to do further research on this but here

From 1990 to 2018, Democratic presidents deported over 3.9 million people, with an annual average of 246,006. In contrast, Republican presidents deported about 2.7 million, averaging 205,453 annually. These figures highlight a notable difference in the deportation rates between the two parties, with Democrats overseeing higher numbers.

What accounts for these differences in deportation strategies? The answer lies in the varying approaches and priorities of each administration. Democratic presidents often emphasized comprehensive immigration reform, which included enforcement as a key component. This resulted in higher deportation figures, as policies aimed to balance enforcement with pathways to legal status. In contrast, Republican administrations have traditionally focused on border security and enforcement, yet their strategies sometimes resulted in fewer deportations. This could be attributed to shifts in focus towards preventing illegal entry rather than increasing deportations of those already in the country. These strategic differences underscore the complex dynamics of U.S. immigration policy and its execution across party lines.

https://infographicsite.com/infographic/...tatistics/

So it seems like neither party actually wants all the illegals in the country. They just go about things differently. Personally I think a strong border is just smart not only because of illegal immigrants but also people smuggling drugs, people, guns whatever. Even terrorism. I mean. If we don't know who is coming into our country with what from where we are pretty screwed. But that's just my opinion. I have also read that it is very difficult to verify the identity of some of these people.

Don't get me wrong I am all for immigration. Just illegal immigration is a crime that's why they call it illegal. Even though perception is that it's a crime that doesn't hurt anyone [that's not MY perception but I can see why people think that] the way to fight unjust laws, if they think the immigration laws in this country are not giving a fair shake to immigrants is to change the laws or change the lawmakers. Not whatever they're trying to do now.

[RickyD]

So I found this looking for something else and I thought I would share it here because it's vaguely relevant. NOW. I don't claim this is true myself because I don't have time right now to do further research on this but here


https://infographicsite.com/infographic/...tatistics/

So it seems like neither party actually wants all the illegals in the country. They just go about things differently. Personally I think a strong border is just smart not only because of illegal immigrants but also people smuggling drugs, people, guns whatever. Even terrorism. I mean. If we don't know who is coming into our country with what from where we are pretty screwed. But that's just my opinion. I have also read that it is very difficult to verify the identity of some of these people.

Don't get me wrong I am all for immigration. Just illegal immigration is a crime that's why they call it illegal. Even though perception is that it's a crime that doesn't hurt anyone [that's not MY perception but I can see why people think that] the way to fight unjust laws, if they think the immigration laws in this country are not giving a fair shake to immigrants is to change the laws or change the lawmakers. Not whatever they're trying to do now.

Isn't it obvious...when dems are in control they get to "vet" who stays and who gets the boot...so if you benefit them you stay...like someone they think will illegally vote dems in office. If you aren't useful you get the boot. When its republicans they cry foul at every turn because they aren't controlling who gets to stay and a lot of their likely useful people get the boot and more so prevented from entry all together. At least that sure is how it appears to me...

[Maxmars]

Isn't it obvious...when dems are in control they get to "vet" who stays and who gets the boot...so if you benefit them you stay...like someone they think will illegally vote dems in office. If you aren't useful you get the boot. When its republicans they cry foul at every turn because they aren't controlling who gets to stay and a lot of their likely useful people get the boot and more so prevented from entry all together. At least that sure is how it appears to me...

That's how "politics" helps governance... 

(But they swear the system works, and their "sponsors" keep smiling.)

[RickyD]

That's how "politics" helps governance... 

(But they swear the system works, and their "sponsors" keep smiling.)

As long as the money flows the right way nothing ever changes. As soon as you start messing with the money everyone goes berserk!