Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. What do you think will happen in the new trade deals? What is the benefit that you will think will come from them? What, in your opinion, was the problem with them in the first place?
  2. Thinking that a trade deficit being reduced is necessarily a good thing is part of the idiocy. I'm not taking a bet if that is what you mean by our trade deals "getting better" because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of trade and the global economy. The US excelled at producing a good that was highly valued, the dollar. Everyone wanted it. They would give us nice things for it. Now they don't want it as much, so they'll give us less stuff for it. That technically will result in a more balanced import/export stat line, but it isn't a good thing.
  3. No, they will not. That's ridiculous. Things that were already true or already happening will get get announced as if they are new. Some new things that have no practical significance or no realistic chance of actually happening (e.g., Apple investing hundreds of billions in the US) will get announced. And that market overall will be worse than it would have been if none of this had happened.
  4. 1) My car loses internet connection all the time. Never had an issue with the car shutting down. 2) Because it would be dead simple to remove the ability of the car to call back to homebase. There are enough of these cars out there, some in remote locations, that if this were an issue, it would have been discovered by now. 3) I'm 99% certain there are statements out there by the company that the cars don't brick if they lose connection, but I'm too lazy to go look them up right now. But yes, you're right. I can't definitively know there isn't some call home dependency that will brick the car if it can't connect within a few years (see Sony PS3). But I think the chances of that being the case are pretty close to 0.
  5. To the extent this is a serious question, the answer is no. The cars don't brick. Functions like maps and stuff wouldn't work, but the cars would otherwise work fine.
  6. Mendoza breaking out of his slump?
  7. Jason getting beat up a bit. Surprising. Nice catch to get out of it.
  8. I thought Farmer had his first home run
  9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Y'all some funny fucks thinking there is actually any real thought or plan here. Our best hope is some paper negotiations and announcements happen that let us pretend to be a "winner" and the market only loses 15% of its value over this shit. The idea that any long term strategic goal (other than the complete demolition of our economy) will be attained is complete fucking fantasy. And I sure as shit ain't listening to the guy who gave us the most awkward "trader" story just a few pages ago and who compared a trade deficit to fucking household finances.
  10. So long rally. It was nice seeing you.
  11. Where is the law that states you will be returned? While I'm loathe to say it, I actually think the administration has a pretty good point on the whole the judicial branch can't force the executive branch to engage in foreign diplomacy thing. Roberts et al. are going to bite pretty hard on that. And that is why the habeas opinion is so fucking bad.
  12. I'll be pedantic if you will: look up the definition of wager. While a gentleman's bet may not wager money, it does wager something. That's what makes it a bet. What distinguishes a gentlemen's bet versus other bets is that it is not enforced by an outside party or agreement. It is strictly on the honor of the participants to fulfill their obligations under the bet.
  13. It isn't a bet unless there is something at stake. Don't worry, I'll be reminding you regularly that you're wrong.
  14. I will never tell.
  15. I'll bet $1,000 sent to this guys family that he doesn't get returned to the US within the next 2 years, if ever. I truly hope I'm wrong and I'm paying. P.S. your take is still stupid.
  16. What's the remedy? How do you do it? Here is what we know you can't do: 1) enjoin the government from deporting you without notice 2) actually file a habeas petition because, you know, you weren't given notice 3) force the government to get you returned (because even if the court could order that, it doesn't practically matter if the other country doesn't want to return you).
  17. The Court will not do that. And if it did, Trump will not do that. And the dude is probably already dead. Here is what Roberts will say: He should not have been deported and that was wrong, but separation of powers prevents the courts from forcing the executive to engage in foreign policy. The proper remedy is to file a habeas petition prior to deportation. You may also be able to file a civil rights action for violation of rights assuming you even manage to get back to the country. Too bad, so sad. He has fucking telegraphed this shit and fucking Barrett joining the dissent should tell you that she knows what is about to happen too.
  18. And you're a fucking idiot. You've been illegally deported without notice. What is your remedy? How do you enforce it? Answer from Roberts: None.
  19. Let me be very clear, you, @Ojo Rojo, deserve to be deported without notice and sent to prison for being either densest motherfucker on the planet or just an actual shit stain. I sincerely hope it happens to you, fucking leopards and shit.
  20. You have zero fucking clue what you're talking about. Yes, the opinion says the right exists. But it says the only way to enforce it is to file a habeas petition prior to being snatched and deported. The ability to do that depends on, you know, getting notice and the time to do that, the very fucking thing the administration was NOT FUCKING DOING you dense motherfucker. Take the guy who was illegally deported to a prison in El Salvador as an example. He got no notice of his deportation, so no ability to bring a habeas action prior to being deported. Oh, and the government's defense isn't that he should have been deported, it is that now that he is deported, the government can't do anything about it and can't be forced to do anything about it. So, Roberts has now said that you can't do anything in advance of being deported to defend your right. And he has vacated an order from the District Court that provided the only mechanism to prevent the administration from violating the law. Oh, and Roberts has now also stayed an order of the District Court, fully endorsed in an unanimous opinion by an appellate panel, that would have required Trump to at least fucking try to get the guy back from El Salvador who was illegally deported there. So, you tell me motherfucker, how exactly am I wrong? What is the legal mechanism is practically available to a person illegally deported without notice? Oh, none. Thanks. Go fuck yourself.
  21. Oh, bullshit. It provides a "win" with zero ability to enforce or address it. It literally vacates what should have been an unappealable order that was also the only way the Court had to keep Trump from violating the law. The opinion glosses over the fact that administration was violating the known law and rights of people legally in the United States. How exactly are people supposed to enforce their habeas claim when the administration isn't providing the required notice and is instead just instantly deporting them? What mechanism does the person or the court have to fix that? Roberts simply abandons that core issue. Read the dissent. Your answer is bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...