- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
geauxEdO
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 220 |
| Registered on: | 8/3/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
Nancy Mace is such a fraud. Conservatives need to cut her loose because she’s nothing but an attention seeking liability.
0
re: Anyone else concerned about sleeper cells here in the US?
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/28/26 at 9:59 am to _Hurricane_
We’ve been warned about sleeper cells for years and I haven’t seen any evidence of such. The rare terrorist attacks, like the one in NOLA a couple years ago, are usually a radicalized individual.
I’m just highly skeptical that there are well-organized groups of terrorists in the US who have been waiting for “the call” for several years and US intelligence has somehow not picked up on their communications with foreign terrorist organizations.
I’m just highly skeptical that there are well-organized groups of terrorists in the US who have been waiting for “the call” for several years and US intelligence has somehow not picked up on their communications with foreign terrorist organizations.
quote:
Oh I know that the Arabs and Iranians hate each other but I am surprised that they are joining in with us and Israel.
I said it on here awhile back and nobody listened - the Saudis are one of our most important allies. MBS is not a muslim fanatic. This is not your grandfather’s Saudi Arabia. Same can be said for Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan.
i’m skeptical that the Ayatollah would be hiding within range of an airstrike. Unless we dropped a bunker buster-style bomb, but still, I would think they’d take all precautions.
regardless, send in a special forces team to finish the job.
regardless, send in a special forces team to finish the job.
quote:
It won't be a real war. There will be a tactical destruction of their leadership and nuclear program.
might be wishful thinking, but I wonder if the delegations are secretly planning to take out the Ayatollah and stand up their President as the sole executive authority. Similar to Venezuela - take out the top guy (maybe multiple guys in this instance) and keep the existing government to cooperate.
I think the argument for staying in NATO is more about maintaining our cultural bond. Think of it like the Monroe Doctrine but for Europe.
Europe is on a slow path of self-destruction, but it’s worth saving due to its rich history. That’s why we should be on their arse about immigration and censorship.
Europe is on a slow path of self-destruction, but it’s worth saving due to its rich history. That’s why we should be on their arse about immigration and censorship.
I think Trump is setting it up Apprentice-style between Vance and Rubio. He always mentions those two and only those two.
I want Rubio and clearly he has Presidential ambitions since he’s run before, but I don’t think he runs a contested race against Vance. It’s sort of now or never for JD and I don’t see him passing up the opportunity.
The frustrating part is Rubio would do much better in a general election, IMO.
I want Rubio and clearly he has Presidential ambitions since he’s run before, but I don’t think he runs a contested race against Vance. It’s sort of now or never for JD and I don’t see him passing up the opportunity.
The frustrating part is Rubio would do much better in a general election, IMO.
re: Pakistan declares open war on Afghanistan
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/27/26 at 8:15 am to GeauxBurrow312
Afghanistan is the ultimate cockroach. You can beat the shite out of them, but they’ll always come crawling back out of the mountains.
Pakistan’s true rival is India, so their heart won’t be fully in this fight.
Give me Afghanistan by decision.
Pakistan’s true rival is India, so their heart won’t be fully in this fight.
Give me Afghanistan by decision.
re: Woman stabbed to death in Virginia
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/27/26 at 8:09 am to RobertFootball
quote:
Everyone’s all caught up about how shitty NYC is about to be under Mamdani but wait until you see the shithole VA turns into with all the democrats in charge.
Sad to see what Virginia has become. I can tell you exactly what’s going to happen - the state will turn to shite, leading to a Youngkin-like Republican win in the next 1-2 gubernatorial cycles to clean up the mess. After 4 years of good governance, Virginians will forget what caused the mess in the first place and go back to their old ways of voting Democrat. Rinse and repeat.
re: JD Vance ‘War on Fraud’ will be a big nothing burger
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/25/26 at 10:10 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
If he wants to outshine Marco Rubio for 2028, he will make something happen.
exactly. this was a great move by Trump because it ensures action will be taken. If Vance wants to be the nominee in 2028, he needs to answer for the War on Fraud since it was publicly given to him.
quote:
Nah, they're 100% right about it. Allowing use of emergency powers to enact a tax means one day somebody like AOC might be able to do the same thing. The Supreme Court ain't there to allow Trump or any other president to do whatever they want.
change the law then. Congress gave the President extremely broad powers thru the IEEPA.
quote:
Neither of these are tariffs, counselor.
I just took Thomas’s first two examples, but there’s plenty more. And I would argue a “penalty” of $1,000 falls under the umbrella of taxation.
re: The Supreme Court is wrong about Tariffs
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/20/26 at 1:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How many times do you find "tariff" in the IEEPA text?
with that logic, any regulation that doesn’t include the word “regulate” would be unconstitutional.
how is the President supposed to regulate trade? it’s a broad term (flawed one might say) but a good Justice doesn’t apply their own narrow interpretation of it. they are not the policy makers.
re: The Supreme Court is wrong about Tariffs
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/20/26 at 1:24 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
I think its safe to assume the Supreme Court justices have a better understanding of Constitutional law than anyone on the poliboard
So Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh don’t understand constitutional law?
re: The Supreme Court is wrong about Tariffs
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/20/26 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That power is only delegated via....statute.
Yes, the IEEPA in this case.
The Supreme Court is wrong about Tariffs
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/20/26 at 1:15 pm
The entire basis of Robert’s opinion is that the word “regulate” does not include levying tariffs because only Congress has the power to levy taxes. This is an extremely flimsy argument for two reasons.
First and foremost, Congress has a long history of delegating tariff power to the President. You can go all the way back to the First Congress during the Washington Administration, when they gave him power to fine individuals for violating his trade restrictions with Indians. Or in 1794 when they gave him the power to embargo all ships in US ports. I can go on and on with examples - Justice Thomas details them in his dissenting opinion. So for Roberts and the majority to suggest that “regulate” can’t possibly include tariffs because of separation of powers, completely ignores historical context.
Along the same lines, the IEEPA gives the President the power to “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit”… “importation or exportation”. Roberts sees the flaw in his argument and tries to get in front of it by saying, “even though a tariff is, in some sense, less extreme than an outright compulsion or prohibition, it does not follow that tariffs lie on the spectrum between those poles.” Impressive mental gymnastics. So the President can straight up block international trade, but he can’t impose a tariff? This is the logic that so many of you are defending.
You can criticize the IEEPA for transferring too much power to the President, but it’s the law. This idea that only Congress can levy tariffs because the Constitution says so, ignores the common practice of delegating certain legislative powers to the Executive branch. The Founders understood this and established the precedence when it comes to international commerce.
First and foremost, Congress has a long history of delegating tariff power to the President. You can go all the way back to the First Congress during the Washington Administration, when they gave him power to fine individuals for violating his trade restrictions with Indians. Or in 1794 when they gave him the power to embargo all ships in US ports. I can go on and on with examples - Justice Thomas details them in his dissenting opinion. So for Roberts and the majority to suggest that “regulate” can’t possibly include tariffs because of separation of powers, completely ignores historical context.
Along the same lines, the IEEPA gives the President the power to “regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit”… “importation or exportation”. Roberts sees the flaw in his argument and tries to get in front of it by saying, “even though a tariff is, in some sense, less extreme than an outright compulsion or prohibition, it does not follow that tariffs lie on the spectrum between those poles.” Impressive mental gymnastics. So the President can straight up block international trade, but he can’t impose a tariff? This is the logic that so many of you are defending.
You can criticize the IEEPA for transferring too much power to the President, but it’s the law. This idea that only Congress can levy tariffs because the Constitution says so, ignores the common practice of delegating certain legislative powers to the Executive branch. The Founders understood this and established the precedence when it comes to international commerce.
re: Marco Rubio = the next POTUS?
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/19/26 at 11:30 am to AaronDeTiger
I disagree on the wasteful, overseas spending. You may be right about tariffs, I’m not exactly sure where he stands on that.
But it’s worth noting that Ron has been pretty anti-AI/datacenter, which I applaud. Too many Republicans have gotten in bed with Big Tech because they’ve been sold a bag of lies about job creation and this need to win a global arms race.
But it’s worth noting that Ron has been pretty anti-AI/datacenter, which I applaud. Too many Republicans have gotten in bed with Big Tech because they’ve been sold a bag of lies about job creation and this need to win a global arms race.
quote:
Maybe it’s best to wipe out the regime while we can before they continue to be a thorn in our side forever and, eventually, develop a nuke.
did you copy and paste this statement from 2003?
re: IRAN: Why are we about to go to war with them?
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/18/26 at 7:15 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
Qatar is fueling the anti Israel bs on the podcast bros podcasts and young men are falling for it
???? all criticism of Israel is invalid because Qatar is fueling it!!
maybe one day you’ll realize that Netanyahu is not the good guy. And it’s funny because you’re probably a Christian, yet you’re carrying water for the Jews.
re: Marco Rubio = the next POTUS?
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/18/26 at 4:58 pm to AaronDeTiger
Well if Ron is a puppet, then I’d say the puppeteers are doing a pretty good job. Look at what he’s done with Florida - I’ll take that for the rest of the country no matter who’s financing the campaign.
re: Marco Rubio = the next POTUS?
Posted by geauxEdO on 2/18/26 at 10:10 am to Vacherie Saint
I’m with you on DeSantis. He takes action and has a really impressive track record.
I’m more skeptical of Vance than Rubio. JD says all the right things but I can’t get over the fact that Peter Thiel essentially groomed him and gave him a career in VC then politics.
Rubio has been grinding since his days in the FL legislature. I think he’s finally come into his own and being SoS gives him those “man in the arena” moments that you can’t really get as 1/100th of a deliberative body.
I’m more skeptical of Vance than Rubio. JD says all the right things but I can’t get over the fact that Peter Thiel essentially groomed him and gave him a career in VC then politics.
Rubio has been grinding since his days in the FL legislature. I think he’s finally come into his own and being SoS gives him those “man in the arena” moments that you can’t really get as 1/100th of a deliberative body.
Popular
17
