related Biden warned against Trump preemptively pardoning family after 2020 election https://nypost.com/2025/01/21/us-ne...ptively-pardoning-family-after-2020-election/
Challenge every illegal EO like the ending of citizenship for people born here, which is a constitutional right. DD
and forcing people back to work. FIGHT THE POWER!! C.E.O.s, and President Trump, Want Workers Back in the Office Amazon, JPMorgan and others have been telling their employees that remote work is over. Now federal employees have been ordered to come to work in person, too. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/business/return-to-office-remote-work.html
the announcement was about a partnership formed by a new partnership formed by OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank How does the MAGA base feel about Trump giving a platform to a foreigner (Son of Softbank) and an openly gay man (Altman of OpenAI)
We work from home and we certainly work. Its forcing to people back to sit in offices, not to work. We're working.
But lets talk for a minute about how Trump raised drug prices for Americans. https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/donald-trump-to-raise-drug-costs-for-millions-of-americans.325209/#post-15561159
Well I suspect the Local Starbucks and Schlotzsky's are happy. My wife works from home. She is pretty on point. Myself I could never do it. He'll I'm on Clutchfans at least an hour a day throughout work.
and the former illegal alien, Elon Musk and his companies, are not involved !!!! 2 possibilities: either the former illegal aliens doesn't have the money/cashflow or Pentagon Blacklists EV battery mfg CATL For Chinese Military Ties, and Tesal and CATL had built the largest / most modern factory in the world , or both
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/trumps-executive-order-blitz/ Trump’s Executive Order Blitz Assessing the good, the bad, and the ugly. By THE EDITORS January 22, 2025 6:30 AM So relentless has been the release of Donald Trump’s first-week executive orders that, at times, it has been tough to keep pace with the news. Once upon a time, presidencies were judged after a year. Later, this became “One Hundred Days.” Now, it seems, our newly inaugurated executives operate in hours. Whatever criticisms one might plausibly marshal against Trump’s transition team, one cannot say it was unprepared. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous or problematic about executive orders, and, as such, one cannot judge them by their number. One thousand innocuous edicts are better than a single unconstitutional decree. Predictably, much has been made of the sheer scale of Trump’s Day One array, but, as ever, the devil lies in the details. That being so, it is useful to place Trump’s actions into three categories: (1) clearly legal; (2) probably legal — but deserving of more attention; and (3) presumptively illegal. Buried within the stack of papers that Trump has ostentatiously signed thus far lie solid examples of each. First, the good. We have long argued that it would be constitutionally preferable for Congress to take a more active interest in the details of legislation, but, until that happens — or until the Supreme Court restricts the scope of delegation and forces Congress’s hand — presidents will enjoy a great deal of power to fill in the blanks. A good deal of modern law is punctuated by phrases such as “the Secretary shall” or “the agency shall determine” or “in the judgment of the president,” and a host of President Trump’s orders reflect that. Among the salutary changes that Trump has legitimately made are the declaration of an emergency at the southern border; the return of the “Remain in Mexico” policy; the reimagining of the federal hiring process — including a freeze on the acquisition of new bureaucrats; the destruction of federal DEI programs; the ending of government efforts to censor or shape social media; the reversal of the electric vehicle mandate; the rescinding of rules that outlawed incandescent light bulbs; the restoration of military personnel whom Joe Biden fired for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine; the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate accords; the establishment of a policy “to recognize two sexes, male and female” and to ensure that “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology”; the promotion of classical architecture for buildings in Washington, D.C., and beyond; and the elevation of the water needs of the people of California over the desire to protect a small fish. These shifts are welcome, commonsensical, and likely to be popular. In the long run, it would be a good idea for Congress to make them permanent within federal law, but, absent that, Trump is within his rights to channel the words of one of his predecessors and agree that “elections have consequences.” Next, there is the good-but-questionable. There is no doubt that energetic action is necessary at the border. But it is as of yet unclear whether the invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act or the designation of Mexican drug cartels as “terrorists” is legally wise or statutorily defensible. “Enemy” is a term whose use has traditionally been limited to wartime. “Terrorist” has a meaning within American law that is not identical to “dangerous threat.” Certainly, the new executive ought to get much more serious about enforcing immigration law than was its predecessor. But that does not accord the president carte blanche. The same is true in the energy sector, which has undoubtedly been hampered by bad policy, but which is not necessarily in the state of “emergency” that President Trump has declared. In and of itself, the use of that word is innocuous. As a precursor to actions that bend or break the law, however, it requires scrutiny. Emergency powers exist to be used in extreme circumstances, not to reflect differences of quotidian political opinion. The challenge for the Trump administration will be to remember that. And, finally, there is the bad. On Monday, Trump announced that he would decline to enforce Congress’s ban on TikTok for 75 days while he looks for a buyer. By the plain terms of the ban — a ban that was upheld 9–0 at the Supreme Court — he does not enjoy this authority. It is true that Congress gave the executive branch the capacity to delay the implementation of the legislation for up to 90 days. But that grant came with strings — namely, that the delay be invoked only in such case as TikTok had a buyer who was under contract. Despite having been available for 270 days, TikTok is not under contract — or anything close to it. That being so, Donald Trump is obliged to honor his oath of office and faithfully execute the law. By declaring a pause that has no plausible basis in the statute, he has taken the opposite course. Worse still, Trump issued an order whose purpose was to reinterpret the Constitution. For more than a century, it has been understood that the 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship upon any who is born in the United States — except for the children of diplomats and members of Native American tribes (the latter of whom have been granted birthright citizenship by statute since the 1920s). Trump hopes to change this, by excluding not only illegal immigrants from the system, but temporary-visa holders, too. As policy, this is debatable, with the case for excluding illegal immigrants being particularly strong. As law, however, it is almost certain to be stopped in the courts. The Supreme Court ruled on this subject at the end of the 19th century, and it has not weighed in since. Neither has Congress. If, as Trump claims, there is some leeway in the meaning of the 14th Amendment, it is not leeway that can be resolved by executive command. It is simultaneously reassuring and alarming that, by offering up this mixed bag of directives, Trump is in keeping with modern practice. As with Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him — and, indeed, as in his first term — Trump’s flurry of orders is the product of a legislative branch that has been content to leave the spadework to the president, and to a presidency that has begun to take cynical advantage of that trend. Ideally, Inauguration Day would not herald a sea change in federal policy, and it would not be left to the courts to put a stop to presidential proclamations that were understood to be unauthorized at the time they were issued. For now, though, that is the arrangement under which we live, and Trump’s early actions are a symptom, not a cause, of that fact.
Newsom jumping on board the Trump corruption train Gavin Newsom plays nice with Trump after prez slammed gov over LA fires: ‘We’re going to need your help’ https://nypost.com/2025/01/24/us-ne...om-after-landing-in-la-to-survey-fire-damage/
This is when the grift from the President and politicians becomes bigger than we've ever imagined possible. Give me one good reason you are ok with this Trump voters? How can you agree lack of ethics or bribery for deals are a good thing for leaders?
