President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

[LSU-SIU]

So who was fired and what was the rationale to fire those particulat 400?

Also, given the error in hastily firing people in charge of nukes you'll forgive us if we don't just accept what the chaos administration tells us.

Well, I guess the alternative is we could go back to Mr. Potato Head and start funding and militarily supporting known enemies (terrorists) of the U.S. which have killed Americans.

 

[LouderVol]

What business is it of the United States government what businesses do with their money in other countries?

“public money” should be used for public things.

I always thought you were a fiscally conservative and small government. I guess I was wrong

Legislating International commerce is one of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Here i thought you cared about the Constitution, guess I was wrong.

Not a fan of EOs in general. Especially when they overstep the Constitutional bounds.

Congress wants to rewrite some laws, cool. Trump wants to EO him some sleepy business deals, not cool.

I find it very telling that Trump EOs away foreign bribery and then immediately crawls into bed with Ukraine for their REMs. You know the same Ukraine bribing Biden and taking USAID. But as always I am sure it's different this tie because it's Trump.

And the justification in the EO is that we rely on that foreign trade for national security. I also thought Trump wanted to push America first, and not rely on foreign goods or manufacturers.

I keep telling you guys, it's not so much what Trump does, but how he does it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Imagine getting taken to the woodshed by AOC of all people

 

[Buddy’s Bandit]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Imagine getting taken to the woodshed by AOC of all people

View attachment 722894

View attachment 722890

 

[LouderVol]

Imagine getting taken to the woodshed by AOC of all people

View attachment 722894

View attachment 722890

The 4th protects from unreasonable searches and seizures.

They have a reason. They suspect someone is an illegal. Just like if they think you stole something or hurt someone they can arrest you.

What is tricky is the "harboring" aspect but I don't think the 4th touches that.

 

[n_huffhines]

The 4th protects from unreasonable searches and seizures.

They have a reason. They suspect someone is an illegal. Just like if they think you stole something or hurt someone they can arrest you.

What is tricky is the "harboring" aspect but I don't think the 4th touches that.

A "reason" or a suspicion doesn't hold up in court every time, tho. They're brown? Sus! <---- That doesn't work. The courts decide if it's unreasonable or not. I can tell a cop he can't search my vehicle and he can force it, but it's not hashed out until the courts decide. Explaining to people they have 4th amendment rights, which they do, is not "harboring."

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Let's have more meltdown from the democrats who hate everything Trump's doing.
Democrats are only fighting to keep the bureaucracy & the established elites in place.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Imagine getting taken to the woodshed by AOC of all people

View attachment 722894

View attachment 722890

Huff I don't know the particulars of this, but generally no you can't help people avoid getting arrested for crimes committed. If she is telling people at large their rights, there isn't anything wrong with that depending on the details.... if she is telling people to how to avoid arrest for crimes already committed, its possible to be violation of law. I would say generally its against her oath and impeachment would be the correct avenue.

She should be telling criminals to turn themselves in or nothing, as a generalization.

Its 2025, this shouldn't really be a subject for adults.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

But let's all go out and stand on the street corners & protest the evil that this brings.
Let's have angry rallies of protests & stop cars in the streets to protests wildly to stop it.

 

[Buddy’s Bandit]

“But,but,but…..this is small compared to our overall budget!”

 

[LouderVol]

A "reason" or a suspicion doesn't hold up in court every time, tho. They're brown? Sus! <---- That doesn't work. The courts decide if it's unreasonable or not. I can tell a cop he can't search my vehicle and he can force it, but it's not hashed out until the courts decide. Explaining to people they have 4th amendment rights, which they do, is not "harboring."

I was and still am skeptical about it all, but I haven't seen any cases of someone being rounded up because they are brown. That is just unsupported fear mongering.

The cops/ICE can arrest someone before a court rules on it. The court case typically comes after the arrest. No 4th issue there either.

My understanding was AOCs instructions weren't targeted because she was pointing out the 4th amendment. But because she was telling them how to hide and lie effectively. That is a completely different issue beyond the 4th. The 4th doesn't give you the right to lie to cops nor to avoid arrests.

 

[RockyTop85]

A "reason" or a suspicion doesn't hold up in court every time, tho. They're brown? Sus! <---- That doesn't work. The courts decide if it's unreasonable or not. I can tell a cop he can't search my vehicle and he can force it, but it's not hashed out until the courts decide. Explaining to people they have 4th amendment rights, which they do, is not "harboring."

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)

Syllabus
The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. Pp. 422 U. S. 878-887.

(a) Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. Pp. 422 U. S. 878-882.

(b) To allow roving patrols the broad and unlimited discretion urged by the Government to stop all vehicles in the border area without any reason to suspect that they have violated any law, would not be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 422 U. S. 882-883.

(c) Assuming that Congress has the power to admit aliens on condition that they submit to reasonable questioning about their right to be in the country, such power cannot diminish the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens who may be mistaken for aliens. The Fourth Amendment therefore forbids stopping persons for questioning about their citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens. Pp. 422 U. S. 883-884.

​

 

[Vol737]

I guess we can forget free speech in Germany. Back to their old ways??

German Prosecutors Tell ’60 Minutes’ That An Insult Is A Crime. JD Vance Blasts ‘Orwellian’ Law.

Vice President JD Vance blasted a trio of German prosecutors who said during an interview with “60 Minutes” that insults — both in person and online — are illegal in their country. The “60 Minutes” segment that aired on Sunday reported on Germany’s enforcement of its “hate speech” law, which has...

www.dailywire.com

 

[utvolpj]

I guess we can forget free speech in Germany. Back to their old ways??

German Prosecutors Tell ’60 Minutes’ That An Insult Is A Crime. JD Vance Blasts ‘Orwellian’ Law.

Vice President JD Vance blasted a trio of German prosecutors who said during an interview with “60 Minutes” that insults — both in person and online — are illegal in their country. The “60 Minutes” segment that aired on Sunday reported on Germany’s enforcement of its “hate speech” law, which has...

www.dailywire.com

When did Germany have free speech?

 

[n_huffhines]

I was and still am skeptical about it all, but I haven't seen any cases of someone being rounded up because they are brown. That is just unsupported fear mongering.

The cops/ICE can arrest someone before a court rules on it. The court case typically comes after the arrest. No 4th issue there either.

My understanding was AOCs instructions weren't targeted because she was pointing out the 4th amendment. But because she was telling them how to hide and lie effectively. That is a completely different issue beyond the 4th. The 4th doesn't give you the right to lie to cops nor to avoid arrests.

We're not talking about what's happening. We're talking hypothetically about how the 4th amendment works.

How can we be talking past each other this badly? Of course ICE officers can arrest someone. People can still decline to allow ICE agents in their homes and claim 4th amendment protections. If ICE agents decide to break in, they better have enough reason. The law will back them if they do. It will not if they don't.

You got links to what AOC said specifically? Please share them if that's what you want to talk about.

"Unsupported"
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/29/native-american-immigration-raids-navajo-nation

Trump’s Deportation Dragnet Widens and Puerto Ricans Are Getting Caught in It

The collateral damage increasingly appears to be lawful U.S. citizens.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[Vol737]

When did Germany have free speech?

Well, don’t know what their constitution says, but it’s more in regard to speech considered an insult being a crime. I thought their speech would be more free than that. What a shame.

 

[Orangeburst]

Well, don’t know what their constitution says, but it’s more in regard to speech considered an insult being a crime. I thought their speech would be more free than that. What a shame.

I have learned so much getting these youtube feeds... a travesty and they boiled the frogs pretty good over there. It mirrors what Dems want here.With the 1A here, they try it thru cooperative platforms.

 

[LouderVol]

We're not talking about what's happening. We're talking hypothetically about how the 4th amendment works.

How can we be talking past each other this badly? Of course ICE officers can arrest someone. People can still decline to allow ICE agents in their homes and claim 4th amendment protections. If ICE agents decide to break in, they better have enough reason. The law will back them if they do. It will not if they don't.

You got links to what AOC said specifically? Please share them if that's what you want to talk about.

"Unsupported"
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/29/native-american-immigration-raids-navajo-nation

Trump’s Deportation Dragnet Widens and Puerto Ricans Are Getting Caught in It

The collateral damage increasingly appears to be lawful U.S. citizens.

www.thebulwark.com

The article mentions three cases. 2 which worked out as the should, ICE came in was shown documentation and then left. one case where someone was taken they were released before they were even processed, and it was the one story not to mention names.

None of that rises to a 4th ammendment issue. No one is arguing not to protect the rights, there just isn't evidence ICE is violating rights. Even in the article claiming there is wrong doing. *granted the Navajo article was redirecting me so maybe there is something there*

 

[Vol423]

Presidents Day means nothing more to 99.9% of Americans than a paid day off for some. Mainly .gov employees and banks.

Comparing Independence Day and Presidents’ Day is stupidity of the 1st degree.

Well, consider to whom you were posting.

 

[n_huffhines]

The article mentions three cases. 2 which worked out as the should, ICE came in was shown documentation and then left. one case where someone was taken they were released before they were even processed, and it was the one story not to mention names.

None of that rises to a 4th ammendment issue. No one is arguing not to protect the rights, there just isn't evidence ICE is violating rights. Even in the article claiming there is wrong doing. *granted the Navajo article was redirecting me so maybe there is something there*

Bro, what are you even talking about? The articles demonstrate that people get harassed by ICE simply for being brown. I see now you are holding me to a standard that you created. At no point did I say people get "rounded up" for being brown. You said that. I guess I needed to specifically stomp that out to make the point. It's still a situation where 4th amendment rights can be invoked, regardless of how these situations played out.

You distract from the point, miss the boat on the 4th amendment, claim AOC was saying something else, don't back it up, and glom onto this aside. The point is Homan is completely wrong about the 4th amendment and AOC has done nothing wrong, unless you can produce something that says otherwise.

 

[Vol423]

Really? This again?

Lawgator is just like his leftist buddies in Hollywood. He's in desperate need of new, innovative material. However, he's just too lazy. He continues to recycle the same tired material that never should be have been recycled.

 

[LSU-SIU]

When did Germany have free speech?

Never really, just not as blatantly obvious as now.

 

[eVOLve]

FDA gonna be crying tears when they can’t keep their secrets

 

[just bob]

When did Germany have free speech?

Um, that's what led to the holocaust you f'n bigot.