Topic: Trump: "Smart people don't like me."
Anonymous A started this discussion 4 months ago #129,246
lol
Father Dave !RsSxeehGwc joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,391,598
He's not wrong.
boof joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,600
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 57 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,613
Sometimes I don't know what smart people like. Everybody complains but with smart people they need to show how smart they are by never being satisfied. If you are so smart then build your own society. Be your own ruler.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,644
Trump is one of the most consequential presidents in modern history. He’s in the same league as Truman, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Nixon.
Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Anonymous E double-posted this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,647
@previous (E)
> Trump is one of the most consequential presidents in modern history. He’s in the same league as Truman, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Nixon.
>
> Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Dang I forgot Ford exists! I guess Bush 2 was pretty impactful but only for launching decades of endless war and destroying the economy
> Trump is one of the most consequential presidents in modern history. He’s in the same league as Truman, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Nixon.
>
> Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Dang I forgot Ford exists! I guess Bush 2 was pretty impactful but only for launching decades of endless war and destroying the economy
I stand with Epstein ✊ joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,671
Confirmed.
https://youtu.be/ZchiwmOzkqY
Anyway, if morons like Trump then being a moron must be a good thing.
https://youtu.be/ZchiwmOzkqY
Anyway, if morons like Trump then being a moron must be a good thing.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,680
No one likes trump; he’s lucky to be born rich cos he’s a loser otherwise
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,684
Anonymous G replied with this 4 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,686
Anonymous H replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,690
@previous (G)
Wrong again, I do count, as you said "no one" plain and simple. And even that is over your head.
Wrong again, I do count, as you said "no one" plain and simple. And even that is over your head.
Anonymous G replied with this 4 months ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,694
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,773
@1,391,644 (E)
> Trump is one of the most consequential presidents in modern history. He’s in the same league as Truman, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Nixon.
>
> Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Trump is Warren G. Harding II mixed with the worst president of the Gilded Age.
> Trump is one of the most consequential presidents in modern history. He’s in the same league as Truman, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Nixon.
>
> Eisenhower, Carter, HW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are bush league in comparison. (Pun intended)
Trump is Warren G. Harding II mixed with the worst president of the Gilded Age.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 4 months ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,802
Anonymous G replied with this 4 months ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,391,840
Microsoft has urged its employees on H-1B and H-4 visas to return immediately (indiatimes.com)
Update from USCIS: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/H1B...
"Clarification" from Press Secretary: https://x.com/PressSec/status/1969495900478488745
1.) This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition.
2.) Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will NOT be charged $100,000 to re-enter.
H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would; whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday’s proclamation.
3.) This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders.
It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle.
reply
nrmitchi 10 hours ago | parent | next [–]
A "White House Official" may be saying this now, but it is not what was in the EO that was actually signed. There were no exclusions for current holders, and the start date was explicitly September 21, 2025 (a date that does apply to the "next lottery").
They are more than welcome to roll back this asinine decision, but pretending that everyone else is just mis-interpreting is gaslighting.
Either way, until there is an official, in-writting announcement that can be depended on, no one should be taking the advice of an unnamed White House source.
In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.
reply
arn7av 10 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
I agree with the first part, but for the second, this is not an unnamed WH source, it is the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
reply
RyanCavanaugh 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
The Press Secretary isn't the Supreme Court. Her say-so doesn't change the plain text of the order, and you're rolling the dice as to which any given border agent is going to choose to believe.
reply
ivraatiems 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
USCIS also says they are not interpreting the order to mean existing visa holders must pay $100k to enter.
reply
johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
Not even the first time this week that this admin can't keep each other aligned.
I'd follow the words of the proclamation/EO over what the mouthpiece says.
reply
nrmitchi 10 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
I was not aware that she had made this statement as well. All previous reporting from this morning seemed to report back to a Business Insider article that cited only an "unamed White House official who has been granted anonymity to speak on the issue". I missed that it was a reference to a tweet from her specifically (as opposed to one of the countless other accounts copy/pasting this everywhere).
Note that Leavitt's words are any more enforceable though.
reply
ajross 8 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
> In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.
Private lawyers don't know any more about this than we do. The administration will do today what the administration decides to do today, not what it previously said it was going to do. At best, the ambiguity will make for a better case that lawyer needs to file eventually. But she's not a mind reader.
reply
mgraczyk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
The problem here is that the proclamation says otherwise. It doesn't include any exception for current holders
Trump has the legal authority to block anyone from entering for essentially any reason (see Trump v Hawaii)
So it doesn't matter much what the white house says today. They are free to change their minds tomorrow. That's part of the strategy, if immigrants are afraid they will be arbitrarily extorted at the border, then only the ones whose employers have bribed Trump will even bother applying
Update from USCIS: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/H1B...
"Clarification" from Press Secretary: https://x.com/PressSec/status/1969495900478488745
1.) This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition.
2.) Those who already hold H-1B visas and are currently outside of the country right now will NOT be charged $100,000 to re-enter.
H-1B visa holders can leave and re-enter the country to the same extent as they normally would; whatever ability they have to do that is not impacted by yesterday’s proclamation.
3.) This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders.
It will first apply in the next upcoming lottery cycle.
reply
nrmitchi 10 hours ago | parent | next [–]
A "White House Official" may be saying this now, but it is not what was in the EO that was actually signed. There were no exclusions for current holders, and the start date was explicitly September 21, 2025 (a date that does apply to the "next lottery").
They are more than welcome to roll back this asinine decision, but pretending that everyone else is just mis-interpreting is gaslighting.
Either way, until there is an official, in-writting announcement that can be depended on, no one should be taking the advice of an unnamed White House source.
In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.
reply
arn7av 10 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
I agree with the first part, but for the second, this is not an unnamed WH source, it is the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
reply
RyanCavanaugh 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
The Press Secretary isn't the Supreme Court. Her say-so doesn't change the plain text of the order, and you're rolling the dice as to which any given border agent is going to choose to believe.
reply
ivraatiems 5 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
USCIS also says they are not interpreting the order to mean existing visa holders must pay $100k to enter.
reply
johnnyanmac 7 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
Not even the first time this week that this admin can't keep each other aligned.
I'd follow the words of the proclamation/EO over what the mouthpiece says.
reply
nrmitchi 10 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
I was not aware that she had made this statement as well. All previous reporting from this morning seemed to report back to a Business Insider article that cited only an "unamed White House official who has been granted anonymity to speak on the issue". I missed that it was a reference to a tweet from her specifically (as opposed to one of the countless other accounts copy/pasting this everywhere).
Note that Leavitt's words are any more enforceable though.
reply
ajross 8 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
> In any situation, your best bet is to follow the direction and guidance of your own attorney.
Private lawyers don't know any more about this than we do. The administration will do today what the administration decides to do today, not what it previously said it was going to do. At best, the ambiguity will make for a better case that lawyer needs to file eventually. But she's not a mind reader.
reply
mgraczyk 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
The problem here is that the proclamation says otherwise. It doesn't include any exception for current holders
Trump has the legal authority to block anyone from entering for essentially any reason (see Trump v Hawaii)
So it doesn't matter much what the white house says today. They are free to change their minds tomorrow. That's part of the strategy, if immigrants are afraid they will be arbitrarily extorted at the border, then only the ones whose employers have bribed Trump will even bother applying