The Official "Damned Trump" Thread: Phase II

[arewethereyet]

UPS, the United Parcel Service, just announced that it is laying off 20,000 employees and closing 73 of its building by the end of June. It attributes the downturn to reduced shipping volume from its largest customer, Amazon, due to Trump’s tariffs.

When a division of Amazon considered telling consumers the truth, by posting the costs tariffs added to the price of each imported product, the mere possibility set the White House on attack mode.

https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigate...671883755/

I don't care what UPS wants to blame it on.  Amazon drivers can find my house.  UPS drivers think that my next-door neighbor and I are interchangeable.  Not to mention the delivery that was made across the street (by UPS).

Provide a reliable service at a decent price and you stay in business and make money.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, at least he brushed up on one little bit of the Constitution:

[Fireball]

UPS, the United Parcel Service, just announced that it is laying off 20,000 employees and closing 73 of its building by the end of June. It attributes the downturn to reduced shipping volume from its largest customer, Amazon, due to Trump’s tariffs.

When a division of Amazon considered telling consumers the truth, by posting the costs tariffs added to the price of each imported product, the mere possibility set the White House on attack mode.

https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigate...671883755/

I don't care what UPS wants to blame it on.  Amazon drivers can find my house.  UPS drivers think that my next-door neighbor and I are interchangeable.  Not to mention the delivery that was made across the street (by UPS).

Provide a reliable service at a decent price and you stay in business and make money.

UPS. Back when my eldest son still lived with us, he ordered some ammunition (back when one could still have ammunition delivered). They delivered it to a neighbor. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not like that bit about upholding the Constitution was in his oath of office.

Oh, wait.

To be fair, the oath isn’t binding - he didn’t have his hand on the Bible when he took it (probably because it would have caught fire).

Boru

So what? He says he didn't know he was to uphold the Constitution, but when he swore his oath of office those words were directly in his oath -- ergo, he's lying when he says he doesn't know.

Legally binding? Not sure, but it has little to do with the Bible. Two Presidents have sworn in without that book. But he may lose more than an ear in testing it. Impeachment seems to be the answer, but that doesn't seem likely in this era of a pusillanimous Congress. It may fall to the people to remove him from office.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Perryman Group, an economic research firm, has estimated that Trump's tariffs, along with reciprocal tariffs from Mexico, could potentially cost Texas - just Texas - 370 000 jobs and $46 billion in lost GDP.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...8a81&ei=38

Those 40 electoral votes could come in handy.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To be fair, the oath isn’t binding - he didn’t have his hand on the Bible when he took it (probably because it would have caught fire).

Boru

So what? He says he didn't know he was to uphold the Constitution, but when he swore his oath of office those words were directly in his oath -- ergo, he's lying when he says he doesn't know.

Legally binding? Not sure, but it has little to do with the Bible. Two Presidents have sworn in without that book. But he may lose more than an ear in testing it. Impeachment seems to be the answer, but that doesn't seem likely in this era of a pusillanimous Congress. It may fall to the people to remove him from office.

The Bible thing was a joke, mate. Of COURSE the oath is legally binding.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Trump Calls Foreign Films 'A National Security Threat'

"The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death," Trump . "Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!"

Gonna be hard to put WWMMIAA on those stupid red hats.

Boru

[Nanny]

So Donald J Trump, convicted felon, the man who exhausted due process to run out the clock on trials for his own crimes, says he doesn't know if he has to protect and defend the 5th amendment. Think about that. One set of rules for Trump and his bros, no rules if you fail the Peter Griffin color chart.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So what? He says he didn't know he was to uphold the Constitution, but when he swore his oath of office those words were directly in his oath -- ergo, he's lying when he says he doesn't know.

Legally binding? Not sure, but it has little to do with the Bible. Two Presidents have sworn in without that book. But he may lose more than an ear in testing it. Impeachment seems to be the answer, but that doesn't seem likely in this era of a pusillanimous Congress. It may fall to the people to remove him from office.

The Bible thing was a joke, mate. Of COURSE the oath is legally binding.

Boru

I looked around for the law making it binding. There's one for Congresscritters and lower-ranking officials, but it's a bit complex when it comes to Presidents:

The Constitution provides no standards for determining whether a President has violated their oath. The fact that other branches interpret the Constitution, and may do do inconsistently with the President, creates difficulties in determining whether the oath has been violated. Just as some Presidents have suggested that the oath may require them to disregard laws when doing so is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,1 some lawmakers have argued that the President’s oath requires them to execute all laws, regardless of whether the President believes them to be constitutional.2

The Supreme Court has not addressed these competing views, and the oath and its surrounding text do not suggest that questions about violations of the oath were intended for judicial resolution.3 The Court has held that the President is generally immune from civil or criminal liability for official actions taken while in office, which may impede judicial resolution of questions relating to a President’s violation of their oath arising during the President’s tenure.4 The Constitution’s justiciability requirements are another potential obstacle to resolution in federal court.5

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse..._00013936/

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

^Good to know.

Boru