Cobwebs in Congress, Bigly Ballrooms, Tariff Tantrums, Dementia Denials - Trump Thread #150

[Spandauer]

And Epstein and his beautiful files are still trying to claw their way out of his grave

Previous thread :
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5416501-hes-a-very-good-friend-of-epstein-oh-yes-he-is-trump-thread-149

Does anyone on this thread subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson's Letters from an American?

Her substack blog dd 5 Dec looks back to history and the Monroe Document while postulating a chilling picture where implementing the updated US National Security Strategy, means effectively abandoning post WW2 alliances and instead pivoting towards Russia while aiming for total leadership/control of Latin America.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe?next=https%3A%2F%2Fheathercoxrichardson.substack.com%2Fp%2Fdecember-5-2025&r=320102

It joins the dots between Ukraine, Venezuela, Ice and tariffs.

Been reading her for many years

If you are supremely stupid, partnering with a failed state like Russia makes perfect sense.

China (who hate Russia more than the US ever did) must be pissing themselves laughing.

Me too

It's like the prize that's given for the team that comes last in a quiz event 😂

@Talkinpeace and @jumpingthehighjump What do you think of her blogs?
I have links with several Latin American countries, and honestly the last thing that rich but beleagured continent needs is more US interference in their politics and economics.

Ahhh, I don't agree with your view of the current China Russia relationship.

To me it's a now a pragmatic partnership after the border and propaganda 'wars' of the 60s to 80s. Russia is the main supplier of discounted oil that China needs, but looking at China's inroads into Latin America, especially Brasil, China is hedging its bet for the future.

I think what we are seeing is a political and economic carving up of the world. Colonialism by stealth for a new era.

She is one of my many sources of news.
She is very partisan and blocked me from commenting when I said that Harris was not the right Democrat candidate.

BUT
THe History stuff and the parallel drawing is really interesting
and its another perspective.

She still cannot see that the Democrats will not have a blue wave at the Mid Terms
but its a useful viewpoint

@Talkinpeace many people overseas also felt that Harris was too divisive to make a good D candidate.
What will it take for the Dems to get a strong, vote gathering leader?

But it’s the permanence and reliability of the [post-1945] system that has been such a great force for peace.
For instance, the fact that the British could not necessarily be relied upon to come to France’s defense in 1914 had a huge impact on German calculations. If the Kaiser had known for sure that the British were going to come in on the side of the French, he would not have gone to war.
This whole notion that we are trapped into wars by the commitments we make to our allies—I think the opposite of that is true. We have not had to fight for any treaty ally. It is the reliability of the commitment that is the source of stability. And right now, we are absolutely anything but reliable.

Comment from Morning Shots: A Bulwark Newsletter

Because I don't want an echo chamber, I wish Trump supporters would come on this thread too, for intelligent debate of their position.
Irl, everyone is avoiding political comment.

@logicisall
What will it take for the Dems to get a strong, vote gathering leader?
A total cultural change at the top of the DNC.

There needs to be a team of technocrats from all the states to assess the candidates and test interview them and see who to put their weight behind.
Then send four good ones out into the primaries
allowing external wildcards if they fancy it.

Sadly the HQs of most political parties (everywhere) are full of "Lanyard classes" who are ingnorant of their ignorance.

Speculation continues.

Trump last night had the complexion of a Thanksgiving turkey that was left in the oven too long and bandages were again visible on the back of his right hand.
bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m7gb5guvk22y

Something he deserves recognition for 🙄

Is it some sort of 'encircle China' policy?

It's more a hands off China and Russia policy and leave me to get on with my own agenda.
Which reminds me, I haven't checked the cross list for Project 2025 in a while...

Will FIFA ask for its Peace Prize back given today's news?
Or will this provide Trump with another war to end?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/8f3ce51ec5210031

Important case re presidential powers being considered by SCOTUS today.

www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-separation-of-powers-dispute-over-fired-ftc-commissioner?utm_source=cnn_Five+Things+for+Monday%2C+December+8%2C+2025&utm_medium=email&bt_ee=qh%2FEFmZxdVt52vNd1xbzn2tOm4zqOx7Q2Ktsd7yGieLdd6Ul2dIXQIVSc2d8u%2FsB&bt_ts=1765194418354

Could point the way as to how they will repeal the 14th judicially.

😂

Technically the SCOTUS can't repeal anything in the Constitution. The only way to overturn a Constitutional Amendment is to pass another Amendment through the Article V process (proposal by 2/3 of Congress or states, ratification by 3/4 of states).

But they can certainly make a dent in it via decisions putting a different interpretation on it or through overturning prior precedents like Dobbs overturning Roe v Wade.

I respectfully disagree.

The phrase to watch is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"

In particular that word "and".

Because it would be trivial for a court to say "Well obviously POTUS can decide who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (or at a stretch Congress).

Job done.

Let's put it this. I don't think SCOTUS have chosen to hear this case (because they cannot be compelled to hear any case) in order to preserve the citizenship of a load of people they don't like. If the 14th amendment was sacrosanct then they would have just left the lower courts ruling stand.

This time next year, there will be a lot of "former US citizens" and not by their choice.

Trump is giving another $12 billion of taxpayer money to bail out farmers again from his disastrous policies. Just like he had to bail them out in his first term from his disastrous policies. But they will continue to vote Republican, as long as they keep getting their welfare checks.

https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3m7iio7byas2i

@SerendipityJane

My post is that SCOTUS cannot repeal a constitutional amendment. That takes an act of Congress and a vote by the people. What they can do (as I stated) is interpret something differently than previous SCOTUS has done. That does not repeal anything. It remains part of the Constitution. It just changes the way it affects the laws of the land.

Previous precedent interpreted the 14th as 'if you are born here, you are a citizen'. This SCOTUS can change that interpretation and overturn the current precedent. But that does not change the Constitution, it simply changes the interpretation of the amendment. One of the 'jurisdiction' purposes is that children of diplomats and of certain foreign embassy personnel are NOT considered 'under the jurisdiction' of the US but of their parent's home country and are thus not US citizens at birth. It's possible he's using the spurious argument that an illegal or a tourist is not 'subject' to US jurisdiction thus their children are not US citizens at birth. But an 'illegal' immigrants and tourists ARE subject to US law (ie jurisdiction) in a way that a person with diplomatic immunity is not. So it will be interesting to see how this goes. To my mind SCOTUS will have to tie itself up in legal knots to interpret what was intended to keep diplomatic immunity 'safe' to include illegals and/or tourists.

But there's a lot more at stake than just the 14th. This is another attempt by this Administration to erode the checks on presidential power. If SCOTUS decides to 'reinterpret' previous precedent on who is actually 'subject to the jurisdiction' it opens another door to Trump (and future POTUSes) making similar declarations on other well known and accepted interpretations hoping they'll land in front of a 'favorable' SCOTUS.

Would a Democrat Potus actually do that though?

Carla Sands on newsnight isn't very bright.

Fucking hell, she is seemingly totally unable to listen, understand facts or even realise that the words coming out of her mouth are as far from the truth as anything the flat earth society could come up with in jest.

Rees-mogg needs to remember the shit show he was part of and shut the fuck up for fear of sounding almost as stupid as Carla Sands.

After Trumps divisive comments again today, I'm finding it harder to remember that America is supposedly an ally. They are sounding more threatening towards Europe everytime he fails to get his own way. Stupidity in the form of Carla Sands is infuriating.

Sure. FDR pushed presidential power pretty far during the 'New Deal'. In fact the SCOTUS back then ruled some of his New Deal programs as unconstitutional, ie the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) (1933) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) (1933). The difference is that he used the power of the POTUS for the benefit of the people who needed help, not for the fat cats raking in coin like Scrotus is.

FDR was also the 1st POTUS to propose 'packing' the SCOTUS via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill (1937) which ultimately failed.

It's also argued that Obama exceeded his authority by 'excessive' use of EOs. He did it to bypass a Congress that had vowed never to pass anything he supported. Clinton was criticized for the same plus bypassing Congress in certain instances.