You know, there sure are a lot of Pedos around Trump. When are you going to start asking questions, Maga?

Except Trump broke ties with that guy last year in June when allegations came out from the 1980s. Literally 40 years later, something Robert Morris did that was secret and Trump knew nothing about.... Gets brought to life in June of 2024.

The moment Trump learned this - he immediately cut ties with that person.

Now let's compare this to the Mentorship Joe Biden had with Byrd (leader of the KKK). That was brought to light & it wasn't ran on Fox News 24/7. In fact - it barely got mentioned during Biden's campaign nor during his Presidency.

So your statement is easily disproven with actual example of a bad situation from the past - that didn't get put on blast 24/7.

Nice try though! Also love the squirrel addition to the meme!

wHaT aBoUt SeNaToR bYrD?!? yeah,the dude was in the KKK and talked about how he regretted it until the day he died (metaphorically). We all know about it. It wasn't a secret. It's not like he kept doing it and doubling down on it.

How many times are you going to do the "but Trump didn't know..." excuse? How many times are you going to hand wave something like this away?

He bragged about committing sexual assault. 20+ women came forward and said that's exactly what he did. He was held accountable for sexually assaulting a woman in court. You hand wave it away.

He bragged about cheating on his taxes. He gets convicted for cheating on his taxes. You hand wave it away. He gets accused of running fraudulent charities. He gets his ability to operate a charity in teh state of New York taken away. You hand wave it away.

He is doing his best to get rid of due process. You hand wave it away.

He's ordering the murder of Venezuelan fisherman and claiming their "narco-terrorists" (which isn't an actual thing) and provides 0 evidence.

He's having ICE arrest American citizens now. Did you hear about how they're yanking kids out of their beds at night and ziptying them together in a uhaul?

And you're going to hand wave it all away again.

Where's the line when you stop making excuses for him? What's it going to be? Or are you going to keep making excuses for him until the very bitter end?

My own brother is a pastor. I have no idea what goes on in his personal life. So spare me your "Trump had to know" BS. My brother dropped 35 lbs and I didn't know until we had a family get together.

Yes. The key aspect there is that *you didn't know* about your brother dropping 35lbs (kudos to dude, it ain't easy) -not that such is a crime. Conversely, *you do know* about the things whistlelock listed and yet continue to defend the perpetrators, facilitators, administrators and, of course, the kingpin of said criminal acts past and present. That's the problem.

Nice self-portrait, bud. Triggered much?

I asked Grok to pretend it's a debate judge. I was surprised by the result. I thought I was way more ahead than I actually was... But good job. It was a close debate - but a losing debate for you. 52 to 48. Well played debate. Maybe some day I'll give you a rematch.

...said the person who got caught lying trying to put themself in the right.

You know, Gramps, had you been thinking, operating on reason rather emotion while concocting this latest round of bullshit, it just might have occurred to you that *1* vote is a razor margin while four votes is simply very close. Buuuut... such is the danger of the cultish drive to excuse the actions of one's politico-emotional investment...

I didn't deny anything. Was that guy a spiritual leader for Trump? Yes. Did that guy do stuff that was a secret for 40 years? Yes. Did Trump immediately cut ties with that man after said secret was brought to light? Yes.

Did I defend the person that did said thing? No I did not. In fact - I didn't even deny what the guy did.

What I did was disprove the original point of the poster's meme -- Joe Biden considered a head of the KKK a mentor & it was never put on blast 24/7. The original meme was about how if it had been about Joe Biden - Fox would have blasted it 24/7... Which just isn't true because Fox had that capacity with the "KKK leader being a mentor to Joe Biden" thing.

So you agree that Trump is violating the Constitution, denying people their constitutional rights, violating federal law, unlawfully levying taxes against the Public, unlawfully deploying the military against domestic targets, is potentially murdering Venezuelans to distract from his problems here at home, then?

He is not violating the Constitution. Removal of Illegal Migrant Criminals & Foreign Invaders is an Administrative Task. The President is upholding the Federal Law of the United States Government - not violating it by deporting Criminal Migrants.

He's also not unlawfully leaving taxes against the public. That's not how Tariffs work. Tariffs are a tax on imported goods. Whether or not the company selling the goods passes those tariffs onto customers is up to the Company/Corporation. Some companies eat the costs - others pass it to consumers. That's not on the President - that's on the Corporations and Companies passing the costs onto consumers.

There is nothing unlawful about deploying military to aid and assist Cities that are being overrun by crime. It's literally the exact opposite of unlawful, it's literally upholding the Law - in places where corrupt Mayors refuse to do so themselves. The citizens that are targets of crime in those cities are protected by Federal Level Laws. The Oath of Office literally spells out that they will protect against enemies both foreign & domestic. That means against domestic criminals - like the ones the President sent Troops into L.A. to take care of.

Then there is potentially murdering Venezuela people... I'm assuming you're referring to the Drug Boats Trump has ordered to be blown up. Again - that's not against some kind of law - it is the Duty of the President & Military to protect its citizens against oppressors both foreign and domestic. Those drugs will be used nefariously & harm citizens.

Literally nothing you stated was true

And there's the denial; sorry, bud, but the facts aren't on your side.

Due process is baked into the Constitution and it applies to everyone within the confines of U.S. borders.

Tariffs are taxes, the power to levy taxes is solely the authority of Congress per the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1.

Federal law prohibits deployment of the National Guard without co-operation of a state's governor per 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

The boats have consistently been destroyed, their occupants killed, their contents lost to the deep. What proof do you have that Venezuelans killed on the water were transporting drugs beyond the because-I-said-so of a known criminal and his subordinates, an administration that has already demonstrated that rule of law doesn't matter the moment it becomes inconvenient?

You're wrong about the national guard.

The Insurrection Act permits the president to use the military, including the National Guard, without a governor's approval in two key scenarios:

To enforce federal authority: When "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion" make it impractical to enforce U.S. laws through normal judicial proceedings.

To protect constitutional rights: When an insurrection or other domestic violence in a state deprives people of their constitutional rights, and the state authorities are unable or refuse to protect those rights. This was invoked during the Civil Rights Movement to enforce desegregation orders.

So like when ICE was being harassed in L.A. - item 1. When Portland police refuse to assist ICE. When any sanctuary city refuses to assist ICE in their lawful orders to remove criminal migrants. All under Presidential authority

Okay, so clearly they weren't deployed "to protect constitutional rights" considering ICE was violating the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and the military was illegally deployed to ensure said violations continued so that argument's non-starter.

What's left... "So like when ICE was being harassed in L.A."

Exercising the First Amendment right to Free Speech in protest isn't harrassent so that's out the window. Additionally, any assaults, interferences committed against ICE agents are arrestable offenses, with said arrests being legally executable by, a job for ICE or the local constabulary. If such occurred, ICE would have arrested those individuals. And before you start making noises about "they were keeping ICE from doing its job," ICE's warrantless, illegal arrests (reads as "kidnapping") continued unabated during the protests which allegedly required military deployment sooo... oops.

"When Portland police refuse to assist ICE."

Local police are neither under legal obligation to assist federal officers in their duties nor does said non-assistance constitute "interference". And, as you argument hinges on federal officers carrying out *lawful* duties and ICE's actions are being carried out in violation of multiple Constitutional Amendments, said actions are unlawful and, therefore, criminal - thus rendering invocation of the Insurrection Act unlawful, military servicemembers acting under orders in said same in violation of 10 USC 892: Art. 92's implicit duty to disobey unlawful orders.

"When any sanctuary city refuses to assist ICE in their lawful orders to remove criminal migrants."

Just as with local & state police, local officials are also under no legal obligation to assist federal officers in their duties... and ICE continues to carry out warrantless, illegal arrests in sanctuary cities without the assistance of the military. Triple oops.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the fact that ICE's warrantless, illegal arrests continued unabated during the protests means there was no failure of ICE to carry out its orders, thus invocation of the Insurrection Act was unlawful -making the deployment of the National Guard and U.S. military on the streets of L.A., Portland illegal.

Also, Portland isn't a war zone as even the most cursory check of its multitude of traffic cams will immediately and consistently demonstrate. Sooo... just thought I'd throw that out there.

He put troops out because Federal Employees of ICE were in significant danger of doing their jobs. They were in danger because both Domestic and Foreign Criminals were impeding the work of Federal Immigration and Customs employees that were trying to their lawful job of protecting the citizens. Yes - even citizens that are too stupid to appreciate the work ICE is doing.

Again, you don't seem to understand how things work - you're just mad you're not getting your way like a typical spoiled child when they don't get the toy at Wal Mart.

Every deportation has a Deportation Order - which acts as the Warrant to remove the individual(s). The removal of foreign invaders is an Administrative Task - not a Judicial Task. The same laws don't apply. There's no rights any migrant has that say the migrant can skip the entry point. Ergo they are criminals - ergo, they get dealt with by the Government in an Administrative Task, not a Judicial Task.

Same with VISAs. VISAs are a privilege not a right. People are losing their VISAs because they are out supporting anti American rhetoric & then they go back home.

Sorry - no toy for you this time.

"When someone spells out the details of a Drug Running boat - and you take it to say something about fishermen... No, you are not actively listening and responding. You're just putting your bias out there."

Someone who isn't listening wouldn't know you're spraying bullshit and blanket pontificating about "There's only one reason to be on a vessel that far out into the ocean in International Waters in a boat that size - illegal crap."

a8b0n1.jpg (click to show)

I also described the types of boats, meaning what leisurely fishers or drug smugglers use. There's clear evidence of the operations Venezuela cartels run by recent events - where folks have been getting arrested. Clear evidence of what it looks like.

Here you can see what a Tuna fishing boat looks like with high gauge rods and everything. Next to it are a drug boat that got arrested and one that was going to be blown up soon after the picture. Notice how the boat that got arrested - has the same characteristics as the one that got blown up. The drug smugglers were hiding below - where fish would be stored. Instead of fish - it was dudes. Not dry ice - it was drugs. Now look at the one that got blown up. Same setup, stuff on top, unmanned -meaning it's either unmanned or they were hiding below deck where fish would go.

So the boat that got blown up - was either unmanned or people were hiding below deck instead of fishing... It was a drug boat. If it was unmanned, nobody got hurt. If it wasn't unmanned, why were they hiding under deck going that fast making a B Line for North America? You just don't want to admit it that Venezuela is sending drug boats, despite all the various folks that have been arrested doing the exact same thing on boats just like that... because then Trump is right for his actions.

I figured maybe pictures might help you. You are on a streak of L's.

"I also described the types of boats, meaning what leisurely fishers or drug smugglers use"

Really? And you knw everything there is to know about drug smugglers, right?

Okay... I've got some questions:

Is or is not time money?

What does that mean to a start-up fishing tour business with a speedboat, booked clients, and x amount of time to get out where the fish are, give their clients what they paid for and get back for the next load of passengers?

Uh-oh... look at that... all the crickets.

"Again, you don't seem to understand how things work - you're just mad you're not getting your way like a typical spoiled child when they don't get the toy at Wal Mart."

Really? I'm like a spoiled child for asking questions, for just not okey-doke-ing the "official story"? Interesting... And here I had the impression that the "Don't Tread On Me" crowd is comprised of iconoclastic freedom lovers rather than being more a loose group of bleating wads of fleece that can't tell when the shepherd is herding them toward a cliff. Glad I didn't align myself with them...

The boats? Let's watch Venezuela send boats to the US that drop off drugs for 10 years so we know exactly what it looks like - like we have been doing in our Military in our CIA and FBI offices. We know the drugs are processed on Venezuela and other areas south of the U.S.

People take a leisurely cruise in a boat don't go that far out into International Waters with cover and conceal tops because they are wanting to get a good view or maybe wrangle some deep sea Tuna.

There's only one reason to be on a vessel that far out into the ocean in International Waters in a boat that size - illegal crap.

Really? So people that are on boats that go out that far into international waters to fish -as they do on a regular basis- are obviously out there for "illegal crap," eh?

You're not taking my information and responding to it - you're taking your own bias and applying it to what I said, then responding as if you don't know English. What I stated was a particular kind of boat - that's covered completely. What you did was ignore that information and continue to try and push a false narrative.

The type of boats getting destroyed - aren't fishing boats. Fishing boats that far out into international waters will have GIANT and I mean MASSIVE fishing poles on the side of the boat - double and triple the gauge of fishing poles you would see at a lake. Or they have nets dragging along side of the boat to catch smaller ocean fish.

Fishing Boats are not Covered Boats with nobody outside on the boat, with no fishing poles or nets. You can tell a fishing boat from a covered drug boat - because there will be people fishing outside on the boat, not all tucked into the covered area of the boat.

We get it - you want drugs and criminals in the US. Just come out and say it instead of acting like a child at Walmart who didn't get the toy.

"You're not taking my information and responding to it."

Quite the contrary, I'm taking your bullshit absolutes and showing them for the false narrative they are. Oops.

"People take a leisurely cruise in a boat don't go that far out into International Waters"

Time is money & charter boats don't waste it getting to where they know they can find fish.

"The type of boats getting destroyed... will have GIANT and I mean MASSIVE fishing poles on the side of the boat - double and triple the gauge of fishing poles you would see at a lake"

Uh-huh. Clearly you've never gone fishing on a small, independent fishing charter business' company boat. You know they carry block dry ice on deck to drop in the live-well, right?

When someone spells out the details of a Drug Running boat - and you take it to say something about fishermen... No, you are not actively listening and responding. You're just putting your bias out there.

Stop it already you're embarrassing yourself

Oh and you're wrong about tariffs as well. It's like all you have is one sided arguments that ignore facts.

While the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to levy tariffs, lawmakers have a history of passing legislation that allows the president to take action in specific situations, such as threats to national security or unfair trade practices.

Several key laws allow a president to impose tariffs, including:

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which permits tariffs or quotas on imports that threaten national security, as determined by a Department of Commerce investigation.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes action, including retaliatory tariffs, against foreign trade practices deemed unfair or discriminatory after an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, providing temporary tariff authority to address balance-of-payments issues.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which allows broad economic actions during a national emergency, though its use for tariffs has been legally challenged.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, directing the president to impose tariffs on goods from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce.

Yes. "Tariff expansion," not a crap load of new tariffs that weren't in place prior.

Yes, Congress may delegate its authority to levy tariffs to the POTUS... after a vote, after said delegation is put in writing. Has that happened? Show me the bills. C'mon, bring the receipts, bud.

Yes, IEEPA allows allows broad economic actions during a national emergency. It also specifies the range and limits of those powers -the power to levy tariffs not being among said specified powers.

Where has it been shown that countries are discriminating against U.S. commerce? I don't waste time repeating the Orange Farquad's because-I-said-so; that's allegation, not fact. Again, bring the receipts.

So you're saying our Tariffs Portfolio.... Expanded and is now bigger? Still within Presidential powers due to IEEPA - because we are in a Financial Emergency.

So you're not disproving anything I said, merely crying liberal tears about how it works. So sad liberal... I feel bad for you. Now try buying American and you won't deal with Tariffs. Buh byes

Also, how about walking everyone through how Trump's tariffs are counteracting a threat to national security when the negative impact they're having on availability of materials which constitute the lifeblood of defense contractors' ability to maintain production creates a threat to national security. Don't be shy, let's have it.

Section 122 allows the President to impose duties of up to *15%* (illegally exceeded) or quotas for up to 150 days (time's long since up) on imports from all countries, or selectively against countries that maintain *unjustifiable or unreasonable restrictions* (according to who?) on U.S. commerce. This authority is intended to give the executive branch flexibility to respond quickly to trade practices that may harm U.S. economic interests or to correct significant balance-of-payments deficits.

They aren't having a negative impact of availability of materials - as was shown by Jerome Powell looking to cut interest rates after admitting the Tariffs didn't play a role in Inflation. So you're just gaslighting against something you seem to know very little about.

"Penguin Island" ringing any bells?

"Still within Presidential powers due to IEEPA - because we are in a Financial Emergency"

Nope. Praytell, little mouse, do state for everyone the legal definition of the word "emergency". Do it. C'mon... it won't get in the way of your claims if you're not just lying to everyone out of cultist fear of cracking Dear Leader's facade.

The government is literally shut down because of lack of funding right now... That warrants an Emergency.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an "emergency" is legally defined as any "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States that originates, in whole or substantial part, outside the country. The president is granted broad authority to declare such an emergency, but recent court decisions have narrowed the legal definition, especially concerning the unprecedented use of IEEPA for imposing broad tariffs.

Unsual or extraordinary threat - like for example impending government shutdowns due to lack of funding - like we are literally in right now. Due to National Security? like when Foreign Goods sales dwarf Domestics Goods sales - which under funds the U.S. and where do the foreign tariffs and goods originate? Outside of the country.

It's like you don't even study this stuff. Seriously how much more do you want to keep getting dunked on lmao 🤣😂🤣

So inflation somehow magically gets in the way of the defense industry acquiring materials when Dear Leader's tariffs have allegedly brought in $17T? Can you hear yourself, bud?

On a side note, do you not know the difference between "expand" and "enact"? Only asking because you made noise about English and first languages and yet you're going on and on like imposing tariffs that didn't exist before the Jersey Shore reject started bullshite-ing with U.S. economic policy are somehow valid.

U.S. Tariffs. That's the header item. Anything underneath of that header is called... Expansion.

We have US Tariffs on goods - now we tariffs more goods... That's called expansion.

For example - the Florida Marlins weren't always a Team. Then the league expanded and added new teams. It didn't expand and make the existing team rosters bigger - nope, it added new teams.

When you build an expansion on your house... You're literally using new materials to add to the existing structure. You're not taking the existing materials and making them bigger... You are adding materials.

When a balloon expands in size - that expansion isn't because the balloon suddenly has more polymers in it... No, it expands because more items were added to it (water air or helium gas for example).

I think you get a basic grasp on what a word means before you try to act all super smart about champ.

"The government is literally shut down because of lack of funding right now... That warrants an Emergency.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an 'emergency' is legally defined as any "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security,"

Oh really? Soooo.. your bulls*** excuse is *because right now* means that unlawful actions before-hand are completely legitimate in light of a violation of the law?

Seriously? Bud... you're so far out of range of what constitutes legality it's Monty Burns-esque larfable. So who's paying your salary? FSB? SVR? GRU? GUSP? FSO?

You're telling me financial advisors don't know how to look into the future to see that we are currently in an emergency? Lmao - what exactly do you think they do at the Federal Reserve?

Any one who has watched the Government since 1988 knows we were in a financial emergency long before Trump took office in January of 2025. We've literally been in a financial emergency since Bush took over after Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton actually brought fiscal responsibility to the Government and laid out a plan that would have had the US be 5 Trillion in the Green by 2025. George Bush was a piece of crap though and drug is right down to being more than a Trillion in debt.

That debt constituted an emergency back in 2004. We've literally been in a financial emergency for 21 years.

Trump is just the first person to use the emergency we have been in 2004 to actually do something about the emergency. You're welcome.

What's with all the blah-blah when the simple questions is the *legal definiton* of "expand"? Either you post it or I will.

Actually, you know what? Eff that, I'll post it because you've proven not only are you not an honest person, you're actively a dishonest POS pushing an agenda of deception.

Lmao you posted about how I find a legal definition of "expand" VS enact & I explained what expansion is (adding new items) -- then you come back with a definition of "Extend" all while telling me to eat it...

You're really winning those internet points today lmao 🤣😂

Also - just so you understand... Enacting a New Tariff on something is Expanding the Tariff portfolio CHAMP.

"EXTEND
TheLaw.com Law Dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.

To expand, enlarge, prolong, widen, carry out further than the original limit; as, to extend the time for filing an answer, to extend a lease, term of office, charter, railroad track, etc. To extend a street means to prolong and continue it in the direction in which it already points, but does not include deflecting it from the course of the existing portion."

Eat it.

Eat what? You just provided the case example of how Tariffs have been expanded genius. You literally just made my argument for me. Thanks Champ!

LMAO here's you:

Define Expand then!!! (I define Expand)
Hahaha NOPE the definition of Extend is actually this!!! Man I owned you (you didn't)

"U.S. Tariffs. That's the header item. Anything underneath of that header is called... Expansion.

We have US Tariffs on goods - now we tariffs more goods... That's called expansion."

Remind me: who was it making noises about English as a second language? Step up, post the legal definititon of "expansion" and "enactment." Cite your sources and do it. If you're not pulling chaff out your *** you've nothing to fear, right?

You're mixing up typos with not knowing the language at all.

It's very easy for a well versed person to create a typo - while typing. It's an entire different thing not to know what words mean.

In that situation - both people are capable of committing a Typo , but only one could carry a conversation & understand it all verbally.

"Also - just so you understand... Enacting a New Tariff on something is Expanding the Tariff portfolio CHAMP."

Oops. While it likely wasn't your intent, you admitted, confirmed Trump illegally *ENACTED* new tariffs rather than simply *expanding* existing tariffs. And yeah, I got screenshots of all of it in case you're thinking you can just go into delete mode and deny it happened.

Lmao - I don't care if Trump enacted new Tariffs. You're missing the point. Any NEW TARIFF is an EXPANSION of the US Tariff portfolio. How is this so hard for you to get Champ?

Here's a meme to explain it. I used the draw app because it mimics finger painting. I wanted to portray it in a familiar medium for you.

"Nope. That's raising a tariff value. Expansion requires new items to be present."

And just what is it you think the term "expansion" means? If a building exists and I decide to add a few new floors or a mezzanine or a wing, that's not expansion, is it? I mean... I have to build an entirely new structure somewhere else that's not connected in any manner besides naming rights for it to be an "expansion," right?

"LMAO here's you:

Define Expand then!!! (I define Expand)
Hahaha NOPE the definition of Extend is actually this!!! Man I owned you (you didn't)"

Ok, LEBJr... you done trying to pretend you weren't caught out not knowing something any native English speaker would know after accusing your opponent of not being a native English speaker? Just sayin'....

Lmao 🤣😂 you just got caught mixing up legal definitions & you're going to make it seem like I messed up?

Nah you got dunked on this entire conversation Champ.

"Lmao - I don't care if Trump enacted new Tariffs. You're missing the point. Any NEW TARIFF is an EXPANSION"

Nope. It's an *enactment* -which is why native speakers of English don't make such rookie mistakes. I mean... "expansion" and "enactment?" Seriously? The fact you just used "enact" rather than "expand" demonstrates you know you're lying.. LOL!!!

You can't expand a tariff portfolio without enacting new tariffs genius.

You can add value to existing tariffs or shrink existing tariffs - but that doesn't expand the portfolio. The only way to expand the portfolio is to add new things to categories. Expansion requires enactment.

"You're mixing up typos with not knowing the language at all."

Really? So I don't know English at all and yet you're the one who keeps shooting themself in the foot with rookie mistakes... 🤣

I have old thumbs. Old thumbs make mistakes when typing. Especially when you're coming back with quick comments for me to keep up on. I'm already near a coronary from laughing at you so much. Give an old person a break. We lived in a time before the Internet existed.

"You can't expand a tariff portfolio without enacting new tariffs genius."'

Nope. An expansion of an existing tariff is a simple as increasing the percentage. Oops.

Nope. That's raising a tariff value. Expansion requires new items to be present.

"Lmao 🤣😂 you just got caught mixing up legal definitions & you're going to make it seem like I messed up?

Nah you got dunked on this entire conversation Champ."

Nope, you dunked on yourself this entire conversation by proving you don't know the difference between the legal definitions of "expand" and "enact"... oops.

You still don't get it do you. I'm talking about the Tariff Portfolio. Ok? That's every Tariff that exists in the US Tariffs schedule. Following me still here?

The only way to EXPAND the PORTFOLIO is to ADD Tariffs to it. I'll put in a simple format.

Let's say that the portfolio currently includes tariffs on 4 goods. Steel, Oranges, Oil, and Paper.

Tariff 1 Steel.
Tariff 2 Oranges.
Tariff 3 Oil.
Tariff 4 Paper.

If I increase my percentage Tariff on any of these four items, my PORTFOLIO is the same size. It's 4 tariffs.

If I suddenly ADD a NEW TARIFF through ENACTING a new tarrif, my Portfolio has now... Expanded.

You really just don't understand it do you.

Really? So your "old thumbs" make you clack out entire arguments? Have you had yourself checked for brainworms lately?

Yes that's how it works when using the app from a mobile device... My Thumb Fu is actually pretty good, but occasionally they don't keep up or I get autocorrected and stuff gets dropped.

And my brain worms are doing a LOT better than your brain worms are doing. Those guys been eating and eating some more up in my brain. Yours are obviously starving considering how bad you've got dunked on this entire time.

"Lmao you posted about how I find a legal definition of "expand" VS enact & I explained what expansion is (adding new items)"

And there it is, Humpty-Dumpty.

I... I guess it's a point in your favor that you admitted the only way you could put yourself on the informational high ground was to admit redefining "expand" beyond the legal definition as it accords to matters of law to put yourself on the high ground. But that doesn't change the fact that the *legal definition* used in matters of law says you're full of shit.

And you're still wrong about it lmao

"expand" in the context of a tariff portfolio, the term is understood to mean broadening or increasing a country's tariff-related trade policies.

This can be achieved through two primary methods:
1. increasing the scope of goods or countries subject to tariffs
2. raising the tax rate on currently tariffed items.

So by increasing the value of an existing tariff... Or by making new tariffs. Jesus seriously - you lost this one brah.

"Yes that's how it works when using the app from a mobile device... My Thumb Fu is actually pretty good, but occasionally they don't keep up or I get autocorrected and stuff gets dropped."

And there you go, ladies and gents: the rightwing new MAGA apologist excuse is "muh brainworms posit cogent arguments while running muh thumbs on the touch pad of muh phone!!"

This is fun!!! What else ya got?😄

So now you're openly mocking the elderly... Wow.

"You still don't get it do you. I'm talking about the Tariff Portfolio. Ok? That's every Tariff that exists in the US Tariffs schedule. Following me still here?"

That's a lot of talk for someone denying the legally binding definiton of "expand".

Which has TWO practices/delivery methods for EXPANDING.

1. To add new Tariffs.
2. To increase existing tariff percentages or flat rates.

"So now you're openly mocking the elderly... Wow."

So 78 isn't too old to be POTUS, then?

"Any one who has watched the Government since 1988 knows we were in a financial emergency long before Trump took office in January of 2025."

LOL!! Post the legal definition of "emergency". C'mon, don't be a puss, post it. There's nothing to lose if you're not pushing a false narrative.

You mean like I did 2 hours ago? Lmao keep digging your hole here. Anyone reading this is laughing at YOU.

"When a balloon expands in size - that expansion isn't because the balloon suddenly has more polymers in it."

No, it's because a pre-existing elastic structure had more volume force into it... you know... like expanding an *existing laid out by Congress*... LOL!!!

"2. raising the tax rate on *currently tariffed items.*"

BINGO!!! *currently tariffed items.*!! Like I said, Penguin Island ringing any bells? Thank you for arguing that Trump's illegally operating beyond the scope of his authority.

OMG - when addressing the Portfolio of the Tariffs - Expand means adding tariffs. When you're referring to increasing just a particular tariff, that too is called expansion... I've been talking about PORTFOLIO the entire time...

Meaning adding taxes. Which is something covered in Presidential Authority during Emergency situations, emergency was defined & what Trump has done fits the category and definition of emergency & it's of the variety of expanding the entire portfolio... Which means New Tariffs.

All you're doing is trying to say you're right, while completely ignoring everything I've said from the beginning.

You're just looking like a Sad Clown

So what you're saying is that the Trump sycophant GOP-controlled Congress created the emergency and now the Orange Slackanape is sticking his junk in it to effectively push as close as possible as he can legally get to dictatorial power? You sure that's the angle you want to take?

"Which has TWO practices/delivery methods for EXPANDING.

1. To add new Tariffs.
2. To increase existing tariff percentages or flat rates."

Nope. Expansion only has one definition that counts relative to that's the *legal* definiton -i.e. the expansion of an existing construct. You done lying yet?

No it doesn't lmao. There's two types of expansion and you're too ignorant to admit and you just look like a tool

And that's the thing I don't get -seriously, anyone reading this can simply search "expansion, legal definition" and sus out that you're pushing a lie. Wtf are you doing, bruh?

That's because it doesn't exist genius!!! There is no "legal" definition because it's a Descriptive Term - not a Legal Term. That's why I'm talking about a Tariff Portfolio and you're stuck on it being about Expanding or Enacting a Tariff. Because you're too ignorant to realize how wrong you are about this topic.

"AI Overview

In the context of a tariff, "expand" is a descriptive, not a strictly legal, term that refers to broadening the scope of an existing tariff.

It is not a formal legal term found in trade statutes but rather a policy and legal action that increases the application of tariffs in several ways.

You don't get to win a debate about a Legal Definition when one doesn't exist Champ. There is no such thing as a legal definition of expand when it comes to a Tariff. Period.

That's why I have been sticking to using the phrase Portfolio - so you could get your head out of your nether regions on this. You've been stuck trying to have some edge on an argument about a topic that doesn't exist...

Again - you have been dunked on this entire time bro.

"The only way to EXPAND the PORTFOLIO is to ADD Tariffs to it."

WTF?! LOL!!! Damn, bruh... you must really be desperate if you're pushing the idea that tariffs are a portfolio asset and not a tax!!!

The Tariff Portfolio of the United States is made up of the individual tariffs the United States has in place. That's what a portfolio is. You would know this if your professional portfolio wasn't exclusive to Liberal Protestor.

"That's because it doesn't exist genius!!! There is no "legal" definition"

Funny how you fall back on an AI synopsis when multiple law dicitonaries prove othewise... LOL!!! Quit lying, bruh.

I've been responding to this the entire time from a stand point of knowing it's not a legal definition.

You've been responding the entire time thinking there is some legal term to it and there isn't ... Because you're not informed.

"Kinks... Isn't that how everyone jacks it? Am I doing that wrong?"

You. Do. You. -and leave me out of it.

That's the definition of jacking isn't it? "Me doing me" or "you doing you" -- that's not up for debate we both know what that means.

I'm asking because I want to know if that's the wrong way to do it.

LOL!!! Wow... Okay, post the legal definition of "portfolio". And just a warning: if you lie, I'ma bring the reciepts, bud.

I never said I was using it in a legal context did I? No, I did not. I'm using portfolio in its basic context: A group of things.

Someone that has mastered English (as you clearly have) should be able to tell that by my many responses so far.

There's nobody reading this but you that thinks I'm referring to anything but a group of things here.

"Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an "emergency" is legally defined as any "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States that originates, in whole or substantial part, outside the country."

LOL -nope. IEEPA doesn't legally define the word "emergency" -which you would know had you actually read it rather than relying on someone's "because I said so." No, what IEEPA does make mention of relative to the word "emergency" is the National Emergencies Act.

Fun Fact: the National Emergencies Act also doesn't define the word "emergency" -rather, it details the scope and limits of Presidential authority as relevant to an emergency.

Declaration of a state of emergency requires there to be an actual emergency. And, as "emergency" is legally defined as "an urgent, **sudden,** and serious event or an unforeseen change in circumstances," claims of "going on for years" make something *not and emergency*.

But hey, I get it... you fell for the Trumpaganda hook, line and sinker, didn't realize your politico-emotional investment was feeding you a turd sandwich of alarmist, unlawful, dictatorial overreach, attempting to establish itself as a pre-eminence above the co-equal Branches.

🥱

"🥱"

LOL!!

Of course that's your response to having your ignorance, gullibility and consequent status as a mindless parrot exposed. But hey, I'm willing to recant on my assessment of "liar" concerning *some* of what you said.

You know... there's a lesson in all this, Gramps --actually, there are quite a few lessons you could glean from your face-plant but the foremost you should draw is "rather than relying on A.I., always read the document before you start running your mouth about it." And a good secondary lesson is "legal definitions of words are what make or break a court case -especially when it comes to questions of lawful/unlawful federal actions."

I mean... you presented yourself as at least somewhat geriatric... shouldn't you have learned those things by now?

Flagged for insults. Also - you already lost the debate days ago lol. Have a good Sunday!

"Lmao - I clearly stated Bush created the emergency in 2004 , which you would know if you weren't busy jacking off to your own excrement & bothered to read and learn something."

Oof... leave me out of your kinks, please.

Kinks... Isn't that how everyone jacks it? Am I doing that wrong?

"No it doesn't lmao. There's two types of expansion and you're too ignorant to admit and you just look like a tool"

So post the legal difinition. I mean... you keep making assertions but we're still here and you've yet to post and cite a legal definition backing your claims....

There. Isn't. One. Because expand is a descriptive term, not a legal term. It's a word used in things that are legal documents and or definitions. There isn't a legal term for the description of what a tariff does. Again - I'm talking portfolio & you're just talking nonsense.

"Expand means adding tariffs."

Nope. That's why we have two different words for "expand" and "enact" relative to governmental actions. You done lying yet, bruh?

You absolute Door Knob...

You're referring to A Tariff. Enacting "A Tariff" is a New Tariff. Expanding a Tariff is changing the Tariff in a manner that promotes more Tax Revenue.

I'm referring to the Tariff Schedule in its entirety - which I've stated multiple times & even provided easy to follow examples... And you're still droning on about Enact VS Expand.

Expand - when referring to the Tariff Schedule means to Enact New Tariffs or to Expand existing Tariffs. I'm talking about the Tariff Schedule. You're only focused on a Single Tariff action at a time.

"Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), an "emergency" is legally defined as any "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States that originates, in whole or substantial part, outside the country."

So why aren't you posting parts which don't support your lies?
Legal definition: emergency

n. a sudden, *unforeseen* happening which requires action to correct or to protect lives and/or property.

-by Trump's own words, his illegal tariffs are a response to a long-standing situation that he's proclaimed an "emergency" despite the fact that his cited "emergency" -for which he's illegally enacted new tariffs- existed for all four years of his prior presidency and he did jack shit.

That's a regular dictionary definition - not a legal defining point that allows someone to do something or not do something.

In this case - the national emergency precedent was set in 2004 by a terrible President: George Bush 2. That was our first major overreach in government spending since Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

Just because an emergency gets ignored for 21 years doesn't mean it's not still an emergency. Government fiscal responsibility is still an emergency for the United States & while Trump added to that spending, the Tariffs and investments companies are making to avoid the tariffs - are finally doing something about it.

"You've been responding the entire time thinking there is some legal term to it and there isn't ..."

That's a lie and we both know it.

But okay, I'll play your game -you realize you're claiming the U.S. government just Joker-style "does things" with not legal underpinnings, right?

AI has already determined the phrase Expand in reference to Tariffs is not a Legal Terminology. It's a description of the action that was taken. It's a description of the actual legal terminology that changes the nature of a tariff.

"I never said I was using it in a legal context did I? No, I did not. I'm using portfolio in its basic context: A group of things."

Yeah, sure... okay, cite your source.

I am my source LMAO. I am the person who knows how I've been producing the information & to what context it means. Literally straight from the horses mouth...

"AI has already determined the phrase Expand in reference to Tariffs is not a Legal Terminology. It's a description of the action that was taken. It's a description of the actual legal terminology that changes the nature of a tariff."

So what you're saying "because AI said "blah-blah," there's no legl definition of the term "expand"... LOL!!! Damn, bruh... and to think all those legal dictionaries out there wasted their time researching the term "expand". Yeah... seems like we're done here what with you essentially screaming "AI didn't tell me what to think and I'm too scurred to look at an actual dictionary of legal terms".

🥱

"I am my source"

Interesting -especially given that you've already prover you're a liar.

🥱

"You're referring to A Tariff. Enacting "A Tariff" is a New Tariff. Expanding a Tariff is changing the Tariff in a manner that promotes more Tax Revenue.

I'm referring to the Tariff Schedule in its entirety - which I've stated multiple times & even provided easy to follow examples... And you're still droning on about Enact VS Expand."

Well look at you making claims that have no bearing on the federal codes you cited in a desperate attempt to put yourself on the high ground... LOL!!!

🥱

"You just provided the case example of how Tariffs have been expanded genius. You literally just made my argument for me."

Really? Did you see anything in there about enacting new tariffs?

🥱

🥱

In the Deadpool & Wolverine movie - There are two main characters. Deadpool, a Merc with a Mouth, is insane & thinks he is the Hero, even though he's more of an Anti-Hero. Means well, but doesn't have a grasp on situations appropriately. To the point that he goes through time & changes the outcomes of the bad choices he made instead of owning them.

Then there is Wolverine. He's also an Anti Hero, but more because he's been around for a long time and has seen a lot of crazy stuff. He's also taken quite a few licks that he had to just suffer and that he owns... because he doesn't have the time travel on his side like Deadpool had.

Deadpool then convinced Wolverine that using time travel and the tools available to the TVA could fix Wolverine's mistakes - even though he knew doing that messed his own life up. That leads to all sorts of peril in the Void where poor Johnny Storm had all his skin & bones removed & plops to the ground.

Only to face those perils together - while also fighting each other over and over , which was therapeutic to both of them. Getting to go full on with someone that doesn't die? Yeah - that was therapy. But In the end of it... if both Wolverine & Deadpool weren't in that room, nether one of them could have even reached both sides of the Coil stacks & Universes would have been swallowed up by Professor XY. Which in the long run - potentially destroyed the most evil character in Marvel movies , saved Deadpool's universe and gave Wolverine a new universe to go to. And all other universes as well were safe. In the end - that completely insane storyline & win against all possible odds...

Still isn't as outlandish as you thinking you've won any piece of this argument so far.

Wow... and you went on such a long meander just to wind up back at "I can't defend the Trump Administration's violations of the Constitution"... 😄

He's not though, you only think he is. Due Process for deportation is different than regular criminals. It's administrative task not a Judicial task. No civil rights were harmed in the deportation of criminals. People just like to pretend that they were.

In other words, that bullshit about "No civil rights were harmed in the deportation of criminals" is... well... bullshit. So, gramps... you wanna keep lying about stuff and making false claims or are we done here?

🥱

Awww you read it all... How sweet of you. I knew you cared

Just for the record, are you saying that Biden's association with Byrd is somehow equivalent to Trump's association with Morris? I mean... sure being linked to someone with a history in the Klan is bad but that's hardly the same as being tied to a kiddie-diddler.

Yes. I think racist groups are just as bad a child fondlers. Neither of those have any business being in a civilized society.

Being willing to commit a crime against another person because of your own inner hate towards their race -- is just as bad as being willing to commit a crime against another person because of your own inner desire to diddle kids.

Both are selfish, disgusting, deplorable situations.

Okay... so in your book, being in a racist organization is as bad as actively molesting children... that's f**ked up. Seriously, being willing to commit a crime and actually doing... two wildy different animals.

I specifically spelled out commiting a crime in both examples. Is English a second language to you?

No, English is not a second language for me but I'm beginning to suspect it might be for you.

And no, you didn't specifically spell out *committing a crime* so you probably should't even try to float that lie. No, what you said is:

"Being *willing to commit a crime* against another person because of your own inner hate towards their race -- is just as bad as being *willing to commit a crime* against another person because of your own inner desire to diddle kids."

Then please explain what I meant by this comment that you freaking responded to - in the section pointed out by dashes... Please explain how this doesn't explicitly state commiting of a crime.

Yes. I think racist groups are just as bad a child fondlers. Neither of those have any business being in a civilized society.

---- Being willing to commit a crime against another person because of your own inner hate towards their race -- is just as bad as being willing to commit a crime against another person because of your own inner desire to diddle kids. ------

Both are selfish, disgusting, deplorable situations.

I didn't even read your full comment & reading makes you sound even more uninformed. Literally spelling out being willing to commit a crime because in both examples & you're arguing I didn't mention commiting a crime?

Seriously that is some uninformed stuff right there.

"Then please explain what I meant by this comment that you freaking responded to - in the section pointed out by dashes... Please explain how this doesn't explicitly state commiting of a crime.

'Yes. I think racist groups are just as bad a child fondlers. Neither of those have any business being in a civilized society.'"

LOL!!! Damn, bruh... you can't even tell when you're talking about the difference between holding personal beliefs and engaging in real-world criminality. That explains a lot...

I mean... you're the one who ventured "I think racist groups are just as bad a child fondlers." Seriously, what is wrong with you, dude? I don't like pedos or racists [yeah, specifically in that order] but if I'm a dumbass wtf kind of stupid are you that you can't tell the difference between having a racist opinion and literally molesting children?!!

🥱

"I didn't even read your full comment & reading makes you sound even more uninformed. Literally spelling out being willing to commit a crime because in both examples & you're arguing I didn't mention commiting a crime?"

Word salad much, brah?
But okay, I'll play your game...

"I didn't even read your full comment"

Really? Well isn't that interesting... especially considering that you went on to insist "Seriously that is some uninformed stuff right there." about something you hadn't even read... let me guess - you've read an entire library's worth of books just by looking at their covers, right?

🥱

Also if we are weighing the items... Byrd was the leader of the KKK and Biden on many occasions stated Byrd was a close personal friend and mentor. Joe Biden also wrote the Crime Bill of the 1990s that imprisoned tons of non violent black people (pot smokers). Joe Biden also said that interesting Blacks and Whites would make the playground a racial jungle... Jungle like where Apes and Monkeys live. Joe Biden also said that poor kids (while in reference to black kids) are just as bright and talented as white kids. Joe Biden also said that Obama was the first articulate black man.

Trump & his spiritual advisor... Well, let's just say Trump isn't exactly the poster boy for living a great Christian Life aside from his No Alcohol & Tobacco lifestyle. Trump also literally distanced himself on many occasions from people that were involved in Kid Stuff - literally worked with FBI to take down Epstein...

So given the two - I would say the news that Joe Biden was a dear friend to the KKK pulls a lot more weight behind it. Why? Because of Joe Biden's actions and words lining up with a racist mentality - where as Trump's actions and words line up more with being against diddlers.

Byrd "first entered the political arena by organizing and leading a *local chapter* of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, an action he later described as 'the greatest mistake I ever made'." and was never "the leader" -rather, he was a local chapter head for an estimated decade. Does that take the stink off Biden being his "friend"? No. By that same token, they were effectively co-workers in an office divided along lines of political affiliation and one can reasonably say that politicians only have allies of the moment... because politicians.

If you actually think Trump's not a drinker, there's at least one photo of him of him visibly soused from the late '90s/early '00s. When taken with the fact that he claimed he quit drinking when his brother had a "don't be like me" talk with him (Fred Trump Jr. b.1932-d.1981), heavy makeup hides drunk-flush but not liquor sweats, ask yourself why he's appeared in the climate-controlled environment of Air Force 1, before said same's press detail sweating so profusely there was a glare from the overhead lights.

Do Trump's words and actions line up behind being against kid-diddlers? Let's see... we know he's a liar because he's proven it so his words aren't a reliable indicator. He's apparently terrified of the public finding out what's in the official files of a known pedophile with whom he associated for years and apparently shared a "wonderful secret" soooo...