playboymommy
Member

I don't think Trump ever said to the guy who manages his portfolio not to buy pharma stocks. That wouldn't make any sense from a financial standpoint. Nor do I think he told him to buy any particular pharma stocks. I don't think Trump micromanages his stock portfolio.

That is correct.

How were the Marines beaten by 40 "Teenagers" when they had training?

The US govt should stop meddling in affairs of other countries.

According to the Media Lukashenko was ill, yet recent images/vids dont show that.

Glad we agree.

Trump was planning on getting re-elected.. and they DID open up the country after the vaccines were released to the public. So not sure what your point is.

I think I covered the possibilities. The "big one" would be a constitutional amendment, the toughest to pull off, but SCOTUS-proof. Fixed that fer ye.

Exactly. While they try to repeat the message..

This deal wont help the inflation.

You can't even be serious. There is no possible way that this was accidental. Not even the remotest possibility exists. It is high likelihood, but in this case the carried risk is also high, if optics are in any way important to SCOTUS, which history seems to suggest they are not. The out would be this: SCOTUS hears relevant case, decides correctly, and Congress then destroys what little credibility remains them and does just as you suggest. The reql question would then rest once again with SCOTUS, after which and assuming the right outcome, would leave Congress in a bit of a bind. I would not, however, trust them to give up so readily. They could attack this at a policy-level, which would be a sucky remedy, but still would perhaps be better than nothing. I would expect them to attempt an Amendment which, if successfully ratified, would de-ball SCOTUS on the question. That would be the ultimate as it would by definition be "constitutional".

A couple of observations. Let us begin with the relatively trivial point of "error". This was no error of omission. When properly considered, anyone with an IQ will immediately see that the implications of those sixteens words are quite literally staggering, and I cannot overstate this point. This omission was by all means intentional and malevolently committed, make no mistake about that. Whether the Reviser took it upon himself to commit this most heinously treasonous omission for which he should have been drawn and quartered, or some third party strong-armed him into it, the actual Law (and I intentionally capitalize "Law" because in this case the statute qualifies as such) remains what it is and by all means must be restored to perfection. This should be demanded in shrieking stridency by every American on the planet, regardless of political affiliation. Even the lefties should be out burning down cities or whatever the hell it is they do these days, to make their voice heard on this matter. Secondly, and in a way more significantly as hinted at above, the implications of the restoration of these sixteen words are beyond mere numbers. What those words do is to reiterate and reinforce the specifications of the BoR with great force. The implications are deep, broad, and extend to the visible horizon, touching literally everything in our current jurisprudence. It destroys ALL unconstitutional Acts passed into statutory law. It even destroys the Article I power to tax. A man walking armed down a Manhattan street, arrested and charged for violating Sullivan, could then sue the pants off the city and bring criminal charges against basically everyone involved in the crimes committed against his sovereign rights.

1662556104444846082

Cue Rand Paul assassination in 4... 3...

DeSwamptis.