- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump is not happy about SCOTUS and tariffs
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:52 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:52 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Ivory is a tad more reasonable than VOR but it is a thinly veiled disguise of being SFP combined with VOR.
Thanks:)?
I call em like I see em. I didn't say Mamdani's speech was "reasonable." His policies are both legally impossible (for instance, the state of New York controls tax rates) and doomed to failure. I just said that his speech wasn't "hateful."
Same with this. I think the Trump's tariffs are a great idea. So is giving me a million dollar tax refund. Neither are legal. Doesn't mean I'm against Trump or me getting a million dollars.
0
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:57 am to udtiger
465 people[congress] cannot agree to a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels without shutdowns, yet the Supreme Court will ask the 465 to manage trade relations with 180 countries covering 5000 products.
that is way to absurd even for sfp to justify
that is way to absurd even for sfp to justify
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:59 am to Timeoday
quote:I thought the purpose of the tariffs was to eliminate the income tax, and refinance the debt at cheaper rates?
If a POTUS can stop trade can he also limit trade?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 9:59 am to Rip Torn
quote:
If you are claiming to be a lawyer then your naive and ignorant opinions make even more sense Temu VOR
Are lawyers not allowed to have opinions about the law? You are a weird, angry dude. Watch your blood pressure. God bless.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:01 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
there has to be a check to this unilateral declaration of emergencies.
Elections?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:03 am to JimEverett
quote:
Elections?
Voters would vote against the constitution at every turn.
Incumbents are elected at a 95% clip and their approval rating is below 20%. The voters are idiots.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:03 am to JimEverett
Yes we need a Congress who cares about decreasing the power of government, which will require voters who care about decreasing the power of government
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:03 am to trinidadtiger
quote:I thought foreign countries paid all of the tariiffs?
Im game. Since you say it is a "tax" on Americans, how would you ensure all 340 million got a refund proportionate to what they paid?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:03 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
I thought the purpose of the tariffs was to eliminate the income tax, and refinance the debt at cheaper rates?
No, no, no...it's to protect NATIONAL SECURITY!!!
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:03 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
His fixation on tariffs is pretty odd,
especially his need to exaggerate the“benefits” that are mostly illusory so far…
especially his need to exaggerate the“benefits” that are mostly illusory so far…
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:04 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Question, can POTUS unilaterally remove existing tariff?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:04 am to IvoryBillMatt
every body with a rectum is allowed to have opinions. Not all opinions are useful
may you have fair winds and a following sea in your lifes journey
may you have fair winds and a following sea in your lifes journey
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:05 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Are lawyers not allowed to have opinions about the law?
Not when they become activists and are in a position of power to enact.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:05 am to Trevaylin
quote:
that is way to absurd even for sfp to justify
You apparently have not been reading this thread
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:06 am to Trevaylin
quote:
465 people[congress] cannot agree to a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels without shutdowns, yet the Supreme Court will ask the 465 to manage trade relations with 180 countries covering 5000 products.
that is way to absurd even for sfp to justify
It's a good thing that isn't my argument. Nice straw man, though.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:06 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Not when they become activists and are in a position of power to enact.
Cool. I don't have any power over tariffs.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:07 am to udtiger
quote:
You apparently have not been reading this thread
Bro
You conflating legislative power and a judicial declaration was bad enough, but now you're giving credence to obvious straw man arguments?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not even a good strawman. There's no Constitutional basis for the "Congress didn't do anything, so the president gets to do whatever he wants".
Nice straw man, though.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think the government should be able to keep money it seized illegally?
It’s being distributed to the people. $2000 tariff rebate checks. Good luck trying to get that back.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:08 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Cool. I don't have any power over tariffs.
I would trust you more than those dipshits on the bench who think they have superhuman powers.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News