Trump 2.0: MAGAA

[Caribbean Hen]

Key Points of Trump's address to WEF:


Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
President Trump spoke to Davos by video. Here is what he told the attendees
I did not start taking notes until about 10 minutes in, sorry
Meryl Nass
Jan 23






READ IN APP

He will get rid of 10 regulations for each new regulation

Tariffs, whose amounts are not yet established, will be imposed on foreign goods

Federal tax breaks will be given for companies that make products within the US: he will lower it from 21% to 15% if products are produced in the USA.

He will reduce interest rates and inflation

The US is becoming a merit-based country

He (of course) talked about the border

There are only 2 genders. Transgender surgeries will be rare. Transgender athletes will not compete with women.

The United States is a sovereign country

We are returning to freedom of speech, no misinformation/disinformation labels to suffocate Americans’ free speech

Asks nations to increase their defense spending to 5% from 2% (this was a US request to NATO nations under Biden last fall)

It is time to end the Ukraine war, it is a carnage. He said millions are dying. He wants to talk to Putin soon about this. Hopefully this is an exaggeration.

There will be no support for electric cars. People can buy whatever car they want.

Prolonged delays for project approvals will end

With AI, we will need twice the energy in the US as we use now. (!). He suggests electricity generating plants be built next to AI plants, avoiding need to use the grid.

President Trump spoke about the use of “clean coal.” Does this mean we will use better scrubbers? RF Kennedy sued coal-burning plants for releasing large amounts of mercury into the air, generally harming low income communities where they were located.

President Trump said “debanking” is wrong and told the big banks to stop doing it.

President Trump said we don’t need Canada for wood, for making our cars, etc. He pointed out that essentially everything Canada has, the US has. This presages some tough negotiations on tariffs.

The President said President Xi called him. We have a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with China that needs to be corrected. Hopefully China can help stop the Ukraine war. We’d like to see denuclearization of our two countries (Russia and the US) and China could come along. President Putin really liked the idea of reducing our nuclear capability. Xi did too.

The Ukraine war should never ever have been started. A lot of stupidity all around. “Far more people have died than is being reported.”

[Bobcat]

As laid out by Homan, sanctuary cities are causing MORE illegals without criminal records to be deported.

Apprehensions at the border went from 10k-20k a day to 700

America is back baby!

[UNI88]

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship

Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, grilled the DOJ attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. The judge said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged so clearly violated the constitution.

The 14th Amendment states:

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.

Perhaps BDK could explain how an originalist could disagree with Judge Coughenour.

[UNI88]

[Bobcat]

Nobody assaulted cops, but the cops did murder people

[UNI88]

Exclusive: Trump starts new term with 47% approval

But the poll also showed that Americans were already sour on some of his first moves.

• Some 58% of respondents said that Trump should not pardon all people convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
• Just 29% of respondents approved of how Trump was handling perceived politicization of the justice system.
• Some 46% of respondents approved of his job handling immigration, an issue many Americans would like to see as the new administration's top priority.
• Some 58% of respondents agreed with a statement that the United States should "dramatically reduce the number of migrants allowed to claim asylum at the border,"

[BDKJMU]

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship

Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, grilled the DOJ attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. The judge said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged so clearly violated the constitution.

The 14th Amendment states:

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.

Perhaps BDK could explain how an originalist could disagree with Judge Coughenour.

Evidence to where this guy (if appointed by Reagan has to be in his 80s or 90s) is an Originalist judge? And don‘t say because he was appointed by Reagan. There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists.

[BDKJMU]

Exclusive: Trump starts new term with 47% approval

But the poll also showed that Americans were already sour on some of his first moves.

• Some 58% of respondents said that Trump should not pardon all people convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
  
• Just 29% of respondents approved of how Trump was handling perceived politicization of the justice system.
• Some 46% of respondents approved of his job handling immigration, an issue many Americans would like to see as the new administration's top priority.
• Some 58% of respondents agreed with a statement that the United States should "dramatically reduce the number of migrants allowed to claim asylum at the border,"

How many didn‘t approve?
How many didn‘t approve?
How many disagreed?

Because those #s would be to Trump‘s benefit when you accounted for all the don‘t know/no opinion/undecided. The lame article doesn‘t give a link to the data. For each they should have mentioned approved/disapproved/undecided or agreed/disagreed/undecided.

Also did this include all adults? Only 60%ish of the electorate voted. Really who gives a fvck what the 40% who didn‘t bother to vote thinks.

[UNI88]

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship

The 14th Amendment states:

Perhaps BDK could explain how an originalist could disagree with Judge Coughenour.

Evidence to where this guy (if appointed by Reagan has to be in his 80s or 90s) is an Originalist judge? And don‘t say because he was appointed by Reagan. There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists.

I didn't say the judge was an originalist. I asked how an originalist could disagree with him. Can you answer that question?

"There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists" - True, Alito and Thomas are two examples.

[BDKJMU]

Evidence to where this guy (if appointed by Reagan has to be in his 80s or 90s) is an Originalist judge? And don‘t say because he was appointed by Reagan. There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists.

I didn't say the judge was an originalist. I asked how an originalist could disagree with him. Can you answer that question?

"There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists" - True, Alito and Thomas are two examples.

Wrong:
https://lawliberty.org/which-justices-are-originalists/
https://www.courthousenews.com/america- ... d%20manner.
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog ... -amendment

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

Wait, why were taxpayers paying “contractors” for DEI training.

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

I didn't say the judge was an originalist. I asked how an originalist could disagree with him. Can you answer that question?

"There have beem judges apointed by conks who turned out not to be Originalists" - True, Alito and Thomas are two examples.

Wrong:
https://lawliberty.org/which-justices-are-originalists/
https://www.courthousenews.com/america- ... d%20manner.
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog ... -amendment

They're selective originalists. Originalist when it suits their ideological beliefs but willing to be "practical" when it doesn't. trump's presidential immunity ruling is an example.

Can you answer the question - how an originalist could disagree with the judge in this case?

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]

[Bobcat]

https://x.com/EvanAKilgore/status/1882821116735176997

[UNI88]

Internet Spams Trump's 'DEI Truth' Tip Line With Porn, 'Simpsons' Jokes

[Bobcat]

A friend of mine in Washington state got that letter yesterday.

3 people reported have already been let go at the power plant he works at.

Awesome

[UNI88]

[BDKJMU]

Wrong:
https://lawliberty.org/which-justices-are-originalists/
https://www.courthousenews.com/america- ... d%20manner.
https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog ... -amendment

They're selective originalists. Originalist when it suits their ideological beliefs but willing to be "practical" when it doesn't. trump's presidential immunity ruling is an example.

Can you answer the question - how an originalist could disagree with the judge in this case?

In your opinion.

A Textualist interpretation would be ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means anyone born on US soil (except for that born to diplomats thingy) is a USC. Cut and dry.

An Originalist would consider what was the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. It was to apply to people legally in the U.S. It was written to deal with the recently freed slaves. That’s in the congressional record on what the authors of the amendment were discussing at the time. Based on that, an originalist could argue that only those born to people here legally were subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Is that going to work? I wouldn’t be on it, but worth a shot:
-Trump EO gets shot down by SCOTUS: Status quo/no worse off.
-Trump EO upheld by SCOTUS: Put an end to one of the biggest draws for immigration.

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

But I thought Trump and MAGA were against wars of choice?

[UNI88]

They're selective originalists. Originalist when it suits their ideological beliefs but willing to be "practical" when it doesn't. trump's presidential immunity ruling is an example.

Can you answer the question - how an originalist could disagree with the judge in this case?

In your opinion.

A Textualist interpretation would be ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means anyone born on US soil (except for that born to diplomats thingy) is a USC. Cut and dry.

An Originalist would consider what was the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. It was to apply to people legally in the U.S. It was written to deal with the recently freed slaves. That’s in the congressional record on what the authors of the amendment were discussing at the time. Based on that, an originalist could argue that only those born to people here legally were subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Is that going to work? I wouldn’t be on it, but worth a shot:
-Trump EO gets shot down by SCOTUS: Status quo/no worse off.
-Trump EO upheld by SCOTUS: Put an end to one of the biggest draws for immigration.

What are you basing the opinion that the original intent was that it applied to people legally in the US? An originalist would back that up with writings the supported it not just throw it out there because they think they're able to psychically determine the intent of people in the 1860's. They get upset when gun control advocates try to do that.

While the Constitution recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications for President, Senators, and Representatives, it contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Prior to that time, citizenship by birth was regulated by common law. And the common law conferred citizenship upon all persons born within the territory of the United States, whether children of citizens or aliens. The only common law exceptions to this generally applicable rule of jus soli were children born under three circumstances -- to foreign diplomats, on foreign ships, and to hostile occupying forces -- which, under principles of international law, were deemed not to be within the sovereignty of the territory.

STATEMENT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS

Do you really believe the people who wrote the amendment meant for it to differ from common law at the time but they failed to spell out how it would differ? I'd love to see what kind of logical pretzels you would have to twist yourself into to claim that that approach is "originalist".