U.S. adds 177,000 jobs in April

@THEMUGG

 Classic deflect, do you have something more than lib bashing and Biden blaming?

It would be cool to have you discuss actual real legit content versus this gutter cleaning partisan crap.

@UNIMAN

 Not sure I recall Obama sending visa holding people to El Salvador then saying there is nothing to be done about it, nor using Guantanamo for general NON WAR based illegals and visa round ups. Do you have some actual apples to apples comparisons or are you just playing partisan patty cake again?

Even with Trumps tariffs outrageous remarks to America’ allies Joe Bidens stock Market show lasting resilience ! Trump blamed Biden, arguing that the market's low performance was not his fault.….He stated Bidens market will last into the second quarter! I imagine that will change in a day or so as Donald demands all the Credit in the room……But no blame.

Who were the "VISA" holding people sent to El Salvador? I can find no record of any VISA holding people sent to El Salvador.

"Minority round up and deportation in mass without process." 

Exactly what Obama did, mass deportation without process. But now as a white President does it, it becomes racial. Talk about partisan patty cake. 

Wrong again; In the early 1990s, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton authorized the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base.

At its peak, the camp held more than 12,000 Haitians.

Mrs. Cortez and her Democrat ilk are the same people who lecture everyone that no one is above the Law. What a joke! How many families of victims of illegal alien criminals has she visited? Democrats supporting violence....nothing new here.

If you didn't use due process coming in, you don't get due process going out.

@UNIMAN

 Already addressed that, did Biden or Obama or any other lib you can conjure up send illegals that were not DIRECTLY correlated to a terror event to GB or a max lockdown in El Salvator?

How can you with a serious face actually compare 911 or OBL detainees and current day non-terrorist hispanics, Cubans etc? Spare me the drug fallback because if we were tossing drug dealers and producers into the abyss there would be a ton of WHITE boys more deserving than those being branded by the King and not given proper process that our legal framework REQUIRES.

@UNIMAN

 LOL

The CIA Bush reach back, that is super classic and almost as terrible.Big Bush would rank right with Trump as one of the most despicable politicians I have known in my lifetime. Nothing like comparing that deceptive atrocious person with Trump but you are not far off the mark with the comparison. If you want to play time warp you can zep back to Ike too, he was a massive crud ball himself and several presidents played ethnic take down over the years...we should be very proud.

This is actually 100% false and while it might have some downsides and could use some revisions and stipulations your contention goes completely against the legal and political framework we have in this country, what you are suggesting is something you see with a fascist leader not here where we claim to have an open mind and everyone has a degree of rights even those you might not like.

@wallstreetcappers

 You asked a question, I answered

Yoy replied, you did not answer that question though. 

You started by asking me.

Then you said this:

The tariff onslaught is a waste of time and is no question breaking the law

So, I asked you to break it down exactly with the tariffs and show where, how, and exactly what law is being broken. 
I am not dictating the course of the conversation as much as trying to have a discussion about exactly what you stated.  
If you can support your point then we can actually discuss it.  Otherwise, it just seems like more Far Left talking points with no basis that backs it up.

So, to streamline the discussion can you consolidate this:

Trump is taking power and control using strategies which side step the separation of the different branches of government

and this:

The tariff onslaught is no question breaking the law

and answer the obvious questions someone has about this one issue. 

@Mugg

We are all looking forward to that military parade for the Army 250 years.  Let the libs see Trump and MAGA in all their glory.  It will be pretty cool to watch.  Americans deserve to be proud.  

177,000 jobs added...  in other words MAGA voters right again.. economists wrong again.

My stock investments have fully rebounded and are up significantly since last November.

The horror show that the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, more commonly called the “Mainstream Media”, is hawking and hoping for is the Democrats only hope for the Midterms!

@wallstreetcappers

SIMPLE QUESTION; 

 WHO ARE THE VISA HOLDERS SENT TO EL SALVADOR? 

?

Noticed you didn't quote me otherwise the name C-L-I-N-T-O-N would be there while you "deflected" to Bush. 

@UNIMAN

 You are a reasonably smart person so I am not playing the tell me an answer to a question you already know folly, that is a boring retort going nowhere. The person who got rounded up is the same person you know and I know.

Why is it that you make a point and then I comment on YOUR point, then you try and play silly games with  my reply to YOUR comment? It is not entertainment it is not good debate it is sloppy lazy hiding and shifting the narrative which you always do.

I didnt mention Clinton I also DID mention IKE, I also mentioned that we have a history of abusing minorities and that it is not a great thing. You mentioned CIA Bush and Clinton, last I checked CIA was before Clinton and I referenced him because of his brutal past in the intelligence community and that he was an awful person, one of the worst we ever had. I cannot stand that guy. So is the requirement in replying with you that every single stupid thing is partisan? That the only measure of discussion is that a political party is blamed or named or framed for your conversation? I find that extremely boring and of no value, I also find of no value that some of what happened during Clinton was due to the congress in place then and unlike Trump, Clinton did not usurp all branches of the US legislation with fake executive orders. I guess you can try and say that Clinton lied about Monica as your retort, that one is never boring for your side.

@Raiders22

Please go back and read your message, then read mine, then read your reply...its odd how you portray the chain of events almost like you are an innocent bystander when you are completely the reason for my replies due to your dictation of how I should engage with you. I am not going to follow a script or a limit on the number of items I will discuss nor will I report to you in order to have a discussion. So if you want to try and talk down to someone and be condescending it will not be in a discussion with me.

The tariff comment is pretty cut and dry, you can waffle with a contention by asking ME a question and that is because you have no defense to my comment. The pretense of using the war excuse to pull tariffs without congressional involvement IS breaking the law because we are not at war, that is an outright lie and an exaggeration, it does not meet the measure of the definition. It is a ploy and a scheme and it is a fascist way to control the objective and it removes the checks and balances and the legal process which is in place to stop a fascist leader, you cannot retort this so you ask me a question...well are you obtuse or are you playing games? Does this concept not sink in and do you not understand that Trump is taking powers that are not meant for one of the branches of government alone, our political governmental system is made to have checks and balances and involvement this is not a dictatorship and that is what he is doing.

You know all this and you have heard all of this so why are you partisan deflecting versus actually answering with clarity and content to prove your position? It is not subjective it is not up for discussion, what he is doing is out in the open and the scheme is known, so no need to deny it or act as if this is not happening.

@wallstreetcappers

 It is really simple.  I said the premise was false and so everything after it was nonsense in the post. 

Then you asked if I was saying Trump was sidestepping separation of powers. 

I said no I did not say that. 

But now that you bring it up what is your main issue that you could contend he is doing that with. 

You said tariffs.  

I asked exactly where and how.  You cannot pin it down except to use generalities about the issue itself.  I do not care about your thoughts on that.  I know you hate the man and do not support anything he does.  

So your non-legal, or constitutional opinion is just that — an opinion based on nothing but your hatred of anything the guy does.  

So, if there was a legitimate leg to stand on Congress would make sure it was stopped and the SC would for sure.  All of the Democrats hate him like you do and a large chunk of the Republicans do as well.  They would be gleeful to stick it to Trump if they could. 

So let us read something about the legality and constitutional concerns about them. 

Trump announced the tariffs on the basis of a “national emergency” declared under the National Emergencies Act (NEA), originally passed in 1976. The NEA provides a framework for the president to declare a national emergency. IEEPA is a statute under the umbrella of the NEA, which grants the president extensive powers to regulate a variety of international economic transactions during a state of national emergency. 1 Neither Act defines what constitutes a “national emergency”. Congress has practically no power to revoke a “national emergency” declared by the president, evidenced by the multiple national emergencies still in force in the US (Congressional Research Service 2021). These enormous and seemingly unchecked powers allow the president to declare a national emergency and simultaneously dictate how to regulate a variety of international economic transactions. There is scope for an aggrieved party in the US to take the tariff measure to a US court, raising the question of what constitutes a “national emergency”. However, the lack of a definition in either of the Acts lends itself to the idiosyncrasies of judicial interpretation. Previously the US Supreme Court has ruled deferentially on the president’s use of IEEPA. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a court will challenge the president’s determination of a “national emergency”.

No president has previously used IEEPA to impose tariffs. In 1971, President Nixon did use the emergency powers under the predecessor to IEEPA, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), dating back to 1917, to impose 10% tariffs on all imports. The Nixon tariffs were challenged, and the court interpreted that the broad powers under TWEA allowed the president to regulate imports including through use of tariffs. IEEPA replaced TWEA and, although it is on similar lines as TWEA, there are differences between the two legislations and their application. Nevertheless, the courts have continued to use TWEA precedents to interpret IEEPA. It is therefore unclear whether the basis of differentiation between tariff imposition using national emergency justification under TWEA and IEEPA would lead to different conclusions. Some commentators argue that the tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China under IEEPA go beyond the scope of IEEPA (Harrell 2025). Others point out that the courts might not see it that way (Claussen 2025). On balance, it seems more likely that on the issue of the scope of IEEPA, the likely outcome of any challenge would be to favour the president.

It would appear that the power the president utilised to impose tariffs under IEEPA is very nearly absolute and difficult to challenge. That might explain why the president chose this route instead of his 2018 route of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as previously. The Section 301 action requires the US Trade Representative make a finding that a foreign country is violating or denying US rights under a trade agreement or is engaged in unjustifiable conduct that burdens or restricts US commerce – a time-consuming process. Moreover, Section 301 tariffs are required to be terminated after four years unless an extension is requested and is approved. Similarly, Section 232 mandates the Department of Commerce to conduct an investigation and determine whether imports pose a threat to US national security. The president would also be unlikely to be able to announce or impose tariffs until the investigation were concluded. It does appear to be much simpler to declare a “national emergency” and impose sweeping tariffs on all products without any investigation from some countries than imposing tariffs on specific industry or sectors based on evidence.