|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto. |
|
| ▲ | re-thc 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust? |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say. | | |
| ▲ | boroboro4 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they should. However in case of democrats president Supreme Court will be surprisingly fast on issuing emergency decisions and stopping executive actions… | | |
| ▲ | yibg 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They should then just ignore the courts decisions they don’t like like the current administration does. |
|
|
|
