President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#81
#81
jmacvols1 said:



“The deplorables and garbage people won again. Can you believe it?

I've been contacted by the Trump transition team to hold some sort of position within the USDA and have accepted one of the six "Advisor to the Secretary" spots. My favorite congressman, Thomas Massie from Kentucky, has agreed to go in as Secretary of Agriculture.

He's been the sponsor of the PRIME ACT, which, if pushed through, would be the biggest shot across the bow of the entrenched industrial meat processing system we've seen in a century. Let liberty ring. Wouldn't that be a change of fortune for Big Ag?

If RFK Jr. goes in as Sec. of Health and Human Services, everything will be inverted. Talk about the coolest turn about. He'd be the boss of the Faucis and Francis Collins--the whole covid anti-science crowd. Wouldn't that be a change of fortune for Big Pharma?

And if Elon Musk goes in as a Government Waste Czar, do you think he could possibly find something?

Here's an interesting tidbit. All the income taxes in the U.S. are $2 trillion a year. Government spending and borrowing are so out of control that if we eliminated $2 trillion from the budget, it would only set us back to 2020. Does anyone think returning to government spending in 2020 would destroy things? Of course not. So all we have to do is cut federal spending to 2020 levels and we can eliminate income tax. Period. Done. How would that make you feel?

Most people don't know enough history to know that the federal government was to be financed entirely from tariffs and excise taxes. In fact, as a nation we operated just fine for nearly 150 years without an income tax. The only president who eliminated the national debt was Andrew Jackson, and he did it by eliminating the second bank of the U.S. Nearly 100 years later we got the third bank, known as the Federal Reserve, plus the income tax.

During that time, tariffs averaged 40-50 percent. After the income tax, tariffs dropped to an average of about 7 percent, where they remain today. If we went back to 40 percent, like we had for nearly 150 years, we would bring production home and free our citizens from impoverishing taxes.

Dear folks, this is a watershed moment to take a creative and serious look at the sacred cows in our nation and fry some serious burgers. We don't know history. We don't know liberty. We don't know earthworms or aquifers or immune systems. I'm hoping this election is an opening to discovery. Perhaps we could even figure out how to put negative occurrences like jails, pollution, and cancer on the nation's balance sheet, as a liability rather than an asset (Gross Domestic Product--more jails? wonderful, pour more concrete and make more jobs).

Perhaps we'll eliminate federal involvement in education, from kindergarten to college. Make every teacher accountable to performance. Eliminate ALL federal intervention in the food system, in farming, in energy. The Constitution (read it) doesn't allow for any of this and it's time to examine all of it. Shut down foreign military bases; bring them all home. Stop ALL foreign aid, from USAID to military aid. Sell stuff is fine; giving it isn't.

I think whatever taxes we pay should be able to be designated to certain departments. That way we the people could support or defund departments directly. The reason we have K street is because all our freedoms are for sale. Eliminate government manipulation and the lobbyists all go home. These are simple things. Let's do it.”

CELEBRATION

thelunaticfarmer.com
Click to expand...



100-150 years ago, goods from the other side of the planet took months to arrive at our ports. Now some items can make that journey in less than a day. I don’t know if tariffs from that era can be compared to the modern economy. 40% is fine to target product dumping and to penalize rogue nations. Across the board seems extreme. We have a lot of businesses relying on exports for revenue and others need to import to make their manufacturing run smoothly. But we should also NEVER be in position to be held hostage by places like China for critical consumer goods like medications or medical supplies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcbvol and Vol737
#84
#84
CobbVol said:
Immigration to be front and center it looks like ...

Click to expand...


No amnesty for anybody that didn’t wait their turn to be processed.

End the anchor baby incentive.

Ramp up the screening process and bring in more fully vetted immigrants as long as there are opportunities for them to contribute to society and tge economy.

Be tough on crime. Build more prisons if necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, TN-POSSUM, Vol737 and 6 others
#85
#85
Franklin Pierce said:

Lawyer in running to be Trump's AG says he wants to 'drag Democrats' bodies through the streets'​


A lawyer close to president-elect Donald Trump's circle has claimed he wants to drag the 'political bodies of Democrats through the streets' following an Republican electoral win.

Mike Davis, a controversial right-wing lawyer and commentator, is reportedly on the running to serve as Trump's attorney general, as reported by Politico and the Washington Post.

'I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)'

Davis, who was a clerk for supreme court justice Neil Gorsuch, had previously said: 'F**c unity... We have the votes. And they tried to kill Trump.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

Possible Trump AG wants to 'drag Democrats' bodies through streets'

Mike Davis, a controversial right-wing lawyer and commentator, is reportedly on the running to serve as Trump's attorney general.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
Well these people did commit treason and try to overthrow a nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs
#87
#87
volfanhill said:
That's not something he has the power to do
Click to expand...
Why not? The executive branch is given very broad powers when it comes to the border and security, and the 14th hasn't really been tested on this matter (re: illegal immigrants). Logically it's hard to say extending American rights to whoever wants them, actual citizen or not, is sensible or the intent of the Constitution in any way.

In the end you can't say he doesn't have the power to do it when nobody has actually tried or debated it out in an actual legal way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#88
#88
volfanhill said:
That's not something he has the power to do
Click to expand...
Agreed. My guess is the goal is to get this issue in the court system because you know the dems while file suit that same day. They probably have no issue with this getting to the USSC.
 
#89
#89
Thunder Good-Oil said:
No amnesty for anybody that didn’t wait their turn to be processed.

End the anchor baby incentive.

Ramp up the screening process and bring in more fully vetted immigrants as long as there are opportunities for them to contribute to society and tge economy.

Be tough on crime. Build more prisons if necessary.
Click to expand...
Reinstate stay in Mexico.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, tbwhhs and Thunder Good-Oil
#91
#91
ButchPlz said:
Why not? The executive branch is given very broad powers when it comes to the border and security, and the 14th hasn't really been tested on this matter (re: illegal immigrants). Logically it's hard to say extending American rights to whoever wants them, actual citizen or not, is sensible or the intent of the Constitution in any way.

In the end you can't say he doesn't have the power to do it when nobody has actually tried or debated it out in an actual legal way.
Click to expand...
The 14th amendment is pretty clear. You'd be as guilty as those on the left who get cute with the 2A.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, 85SugarVol and McDad
#92
#92
ButchPlz said:
Why not? The executive branch is given very broad powers when it comes to the border and security, and the 14th hasn't really been tested on this matter (re: illegal immigrants). Logically it's hard to say extending American rights to whoever wants them, actual citizen or not, is sensible or the intent of the Constitution in any way.

In the end you can't say he doesn't have the power to do it when nobody has actually tried or debated it out in an actual legal way.
Click to expand...
It's not really unclear language

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, McDad and volfanhill
#94
#94
volfanhill said:
The 14th amendment is pretty clear. You'd be as guilty as those on the left who get cute with the 2A.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Click to expand...
The bolded is what will be litigated in the courts if it gets there, which I hope it does. This should have been clarified decades ago versus allowing the left to define it because IMO it was never meant to be a "thing".
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz and Volnbeers
#96
#96
utvolpj said:
It's not really unclear language
Click to expand...

volfanhill said:
The 14th amendment is pretty clear. You'd be as guilty as those on the left who get cute with the 2A.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Click to expand...
As was pointed out by @CobbVol, this is going to be what's argued.

Either way, we need a constitutional amendment to end this unquestionably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobbVol
#97
#97
CobbVol said:
The bolded is what will be litigated in the courts if it gets there, which I hope it does. This should have been clarified decades ago versus allowing the left to define it because IMO it was never meant to be a "thing".
Click to expand...
It's not unclear at all. This is more ridiculous than when gun grabbers claim the 2A was only meant for the states to have militias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, McDad and EasternVol
#98
#98
ButchPlz said:
As was pointed out by @CobbVol, this is going to be what's argued.

Either way, we need a constitutional amendment to end this unquestionably.
Click to expand...
Then they'd have to overturn precedent. We were also sold on these new justices being more strict which would not seem to be true. Not sure how any reading interprets this differently.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top