Cobbvol
| Favorite team: | Tennessee  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 224 |
| Registered on: | 6/29/2020 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Trump tariffs and the Supreme Court
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/21/25 at 8:36 am
quote:
Tariffs aren't "foreign policy"
Tariffs are part of a foreign policy. You said they were not in your quote above which is laughably false.
:rotflmao:
0
re: Trump tariffs and the Supreme Court
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/21/25 at 7:57 am
quote:
Name me a tariff passed without a statute of Congress or Treaty authorizing it.
Tariffs can and do influence foreign countries and are part of our foreign policy like tanks, aircraft carriers, and F18 Hornets.
re: Trump tariffs and the Supreme Court
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/21/25 at 7:53 am
quote:
Tariffs aren't "foreign policy", as I explained above.
:lol:
re: We now have the dissent of Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/20/25 at 2:30 pm
quote:
The test is to prove whether the American people, or Congress, will care enough if the Executive branch Signals that they will not even attempt to abide by the Supreme Court.
This is speculation on your part.
I speculate that if he did bring him back that you and others would claim Trump got an obvious quid pro quo and another Col. Vindman would appear.
re: Tennessee police in 2022 busted Maryland thug with trafficking 7 women
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/16/25 at 10:26 pm
quote:
But what I really don’t want is for this to ever happen again. Whether it’s this admin (or any admin), cutting corners and not giving due process (in the eyes of scotus, which they unanimously agree he didn’t get) is no good.
No corners were cut. We are currently having to deal with the fallout from the last administration that based their immigration policy on the ability to walk long distances and swimming rivers.
re: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/16/25 at 9:09 am
quote:
No. That's absurd.
There's a HUGE gap between "asking once with a wink" and "kidnapping" him.
Speculation
re: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/16/25 at 8:29 am
quote:
Factual? Sure
It shows the admin isn't working towards the goal they were given and their sincerity in following the order.
You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, but it's still a pig at the end of the day.
:lol:
re: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/16/25 at 8:18 am
quote:
As professor Maraist would say, "that dog won't hunt"
Of course what I posted is all factual.
Doing what you want would probably lead to some quid pro quo allegation in an article by The Atlantic and another Colonel Vindman arising.
My advice for you to stick to fishing and avoid hunting.
re: All this talk about 47 "shredding the constitution" yet no specific examples...
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/16/25 at 8:11 am
quote:
Requires the government to facilitate his release. What have they done to do so?
Met with the President of El Salvador in the WH. This was one of the topics discussed. Bukele then advised he would not release Garcia.
re: Univ faculty member attacks Native American MAGA student
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/15/25 at 6:31 pm
Is that a hammer and sickle on his lapel?
re: So who on here was saying this whole tariff business was about China prior to today?
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/9/25 at 10:01 pm
quote:
I see a lot of people now saying it was always about China. But who was saying it before? I’ll start paying more attention to their posts.
re: Trump triggers race to offer US concessions before tariffs hit
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/4/25 at 9:44 am
No, it is #4 which is to lower the manufacturing output of China spread to other nations and away from our economic and potential military adversary.
re: Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on using AEA to deport Venezuelans.
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/8/25 at 7:53 am
quote:
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163-164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.”
Thankfully, that judicial review and deportation procedures occurred in Texas.
re: Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on using AEA to deport Venezuelans.
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/8/25 at 7:13 am
quote:
The USSC didn't change that law. It just ruled the district court was incorrect in some procedural areas.
Like not instructing the plaintiffs to file in Texas and then try to get involved in military flight operations involving national security.
re: Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on using AEA to deport Venezuelans.
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/7/25 at 6:54 pm
So Boasberg is not the CIC and an authority on national security?
re: I asked grok how much did the bond market gain last week.
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/6/25 at 2:37 pm
quote:
If it's a good policy now, being sold to the flock wouldn't it have been a good one then?
Or, from the opposite direction, if people wouldn't have voted for Trump due to this policy in November, why would they support it today?
Like buying a used car. After 2-3 months you may realize the previous owner did little to maintain it and drove it real hard.
re: So do you think Trumps tariffs will succeed in bringing back manufacturing to USA?
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/4/25 at 3:32 pm
It will succeed in reducing manufacturing in China with firms further moving supply chains away from China.
re: Trump triggers race to offer US concessions before tariffs hit
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/4/25 at 9:44 am
No, it is #4 which is to lower the manufacturing output of China spread to other nations and away from our economic and potential military adversary.
quote:
o. That's not what I said
I said the plainly stated goal of the policy. Not your potential echo chamber interpretation of that goal.
Is this trade war to:
1. Bring jobs back
2. Create "fair trade" by having other countries lower tariffs
3. Generate revenue to replace the income tax
Those are the 3 most common goals. They cannot all co-exist, in fact, they may not all be able to even overlap, really. There has to be one goal, so which is it?
re: The tariffs will make or break the Trump presidency.
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/3/25 at 10:33 am
quote:
Maybe, but I tend to think keeping the border closed and keeping us out of corporate foreign wars will make or break his Presidency.
He can always take the loss and back off this tariff shite, but if he loses control of that border or takes us to war, then he'll be viewed as a tremendous failure.
Agree. Securing the border and deportation of illegals were front and center throughout the campaign. Hiccups there would be a disaster, hence the current efforts of the leftist/globalists.
re: Ontario Premier Just Said They Would Remove All Tariffs
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/2/25 at 2:38 pm
quote:
No, dude, but in the context of this discussion, which is about tariffs, it's just an excuse.
Tariffs are not going to solve border security and drug trafficking. Tightening border security is going to solve border security and drug trafficking, which does not require tariffs.
In the context of imposing these tariffs, fentanyl is an excuse.
As you know in the context of this tariff discussion, tariffs can be and are used to influence foreign governments to change their actions. In this case with Mexico, it is to do more with border security than they have in the past.
re: Ontario Premier Just Said They Would Remove All Tariffs
Posted by Cobbvol on 4/2/25 at 2:05 pm
quote:
The fentanyl is just the excuse to declare a state of emergency in order to give him the authority to impose the tariffs.
So fentanyl is just an excuse in your mind and not a national issue we need to address?
Popular
23
