Royal Spa

Tariffs are illegal

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,561
4,829
113
How fucked up is that country. An "impartial" court but they are card carrying members of a party? Supreme court/neutral justices should not be allowed to have any allegiance to any party. At least pretend to give the appearance of impartiality.
justices are intelligent people with personal views and opinions

justices have the right to vote and likely value that right far more than most other citizens
intelligent personal views and opinions are required when voting

this is a violation of their rights and it would be unenforceable
justices should not be allowed to have any allegiance to any party.
justices swear an oath to have the written laws of the land and the presented evidence determine their decisions
that will have to do
 

DtheB

Active member
Feb 16, 2026
202
128
43
justices are intelligent people with personal views and opinions
Which they are to put aside for the sake of making impartial rulings. One must admit that task may be more difficult in a case that is related to politics when one has an allegiance to a particular political stripe.

I don't know the answer to this question: Do members of the Supreme Court in Canada declare which party they favour?
 

DtheB

Active member
Feb 16, 2026
202
128
43
justices swear an oath to have the written laws of the land and the presented evidence determine their decisions
that will have to do
I highly doubt that Clarence Thomas gives one shit about that principle. Do you sincerely believe that he is impartial?
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeezer

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
108,620
32,498
113
Which they are to put aside for the sake of making impartial rulings. One must admit that task may be more difficult in a case that is related to politics when one has an allegiance to a particular political stripe.

I don't know the answer to this question: Do members of the Supreme Court in Canada declare which party they favour?
trump just gave dems the ammunition to fire all the judges after the next election.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: richaceg

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
31,158
8,602
113
Your bet was flawed. And I explained why. Who is the arbiter of deciding which side started a war. You? Will you let me decide?

Now tell us why you chickened out on a bet on whether Trump gives the order to fire first which, no one can deny, could very well start a war. Whether it does or not is irrelevant because by firing the first he's shown his intent to start a war.

Will you bet that trump will not fire first? If not, why not? Don't be a pussy now?
Of course Trump or Israel will fire the first shot.

But the bet should be whether or not it will turn into an all-out war
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
89,554
142,635
113


Howard Lutnick is arguably one of the slickest and most corrupt operators in modern finance. We now know he was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, despite him previously denying it. That link was confirmed in the Epstein files. He also has documented ties to Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation.

Now a brand new scheme has surfaced involving Cantor Fitzgerald, run by one of his sons. The firm has been buying the rights to U.S. tariff refunds at massive discounts.

Here is how this scam works:
1. U.S. companies paid billions in tariffs that were later ruled illegal.
2. Cantor approaches those companies and offers immediate cash: 25 cents for every dollar they are owed.
3. Companies take the money to avoid waiting years for litigation and bureaucracy.
4. When refunds are issued, Cantor collects the full dollar. They bought claims at 25 cents on the dollar.

After today’s Supreme Court ruling, those claims could be worth 80 to 90 cents. It’s worth nothing that Lutnick also literally helped architect the tariff regime. He pushed Trump to implement it, likely knowing it would collapse and create this exact arbitrage opportunity. The potential payout is in the billions. This is insider-level extraction hiding in plain sight.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: squeezer

DtheB

Active member
Feb 16, 2026
202
128
43
Of course Trump or Israel will fire the first shot.

But the bet should be whether or not it will turn into an all-out war
The important issue is who is willing to be the aggressor. Who is the warmonger? Trump said that he doesn't start wars.

So if trump fires first and a war breaks out, then he's a warmonger. But if trump fires first and Iran does not respond, then he is a man of peace. That is the flaw in your bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
31,158
8,602
113
The important issue is who is willing to be the aggressor. Who is the warmonger? Trump said that he doesn't start wars.

So if trump fires first and a war breaks out, then he's a warmonger. But if trump fires first and Iran does not respond, then he is a man of peace. That is the flaw in your bet
I'm simply saying that even Trump orders surgical trikes on Iran, it will not turn into an all-out war.

Now, are you gonna agree to a bet or not?
 

DtheB

Active member
Feb 16, 2026
202
128
43
I'm simply saying that even Trump orders surgical trikes on Iran, it will not turn into an all-out war.

Now, are you gonna agree to a bet or not?
I've already addressed everything you bring up and you still don't get it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

This conversation is obviously above your pay grade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
31,158
8,602
113
I've already addressed everything you bring up and you still don't get it. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

This conversation is obviously above your pay grade
🐔
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
19,561
4,829
113
I highly doubt that Clarence Thomas gives one shit about that principle. Do you sincerely believe that he is impartial?
i am not naive
the US justice system is defiantly not perfect (political patronage, corruption, use of litigation as leverage rather than dispute resolution, court stacking, etc.)

however
  1. The US justice system works far better than most others
  2. justices are selected and scrutinised / approved by the senate, based on their honorable experience of applying the written laws of the land and the presented evidence to determine their decisions
  3. the US justice system foundation is based on citizens rights and justices have the right to participate in the political process
  4. what you proposed is illegal and unenforceable

however this is the real problem
should not be allowed to have
and it is completely inappropriate and illegal to infringe/ restrict any rights / freedoms of law abiding citizens
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts