BREAKING NEWS: Trump made five trade demands — Canada rejected every single one

[Papsmearer]

Canada govt bribed by China CCP...

Soon China CCP will land troops in Canada to invade America but... Canada will lose in 2 weeks time and become China CCP territory to "prevent" America dictatorship.

I thought PLA already landed in Vancouver. It's full of chinese. LOL

 

[Papsmearer]

I know. I couldn't find any other websites but this article is too good to not post.

u fucking retard

 

[Hypocrite-The]

u fucking retard

The G Man has TDS...

 

[syed putra]

Already the largest Chinese embassy building at the Royal Mint Court, near the Tower of London in the UK, has already been approved, despite previous protests and accusations of espionage.

It was trump that stopped the brits from approving the china embassy construction. During his first term.
Unlike the EU, british market is open to china products including EV's.

 

[syed putra]

Trump will know soon enough in November if what he currently doing are approved by the US voters. I think Trump will lose big time. And impeachment may follow for total disregard to the constitution.

 

[Papsmearer]

Trump will know soon enough in November if what he currently doing are approved by the US voters. I think Trump will lose big time. And impeachment may follow for total disregard to the constitution.

The US stock market is record high, inflation is down and the economy is strong. Not likely he will lose

 

[syed putra]

The US stock market is record high, inflation is down and the economy is strong. Not likely he will lose

The stock market benefit maybe 10% of the population. Last time Trump faced a huge crowd was at a football match where he was booed.

 

[Papsmearer]

The stock market benefit maybe 10% of the population. Last time Trump faced a huge crowd was at a football match where he was booed.

It's the rich ten percent. They contribute to his election fund. The others who hate him have no money anyway

 

[syed putra]

It's the rich ten percent. They contribute to his election fund. The others who hate him have no money anyway

The anguish is organic from the ground. No funds can stop a revolution.

 

[Leongsam]

Trump will know soon enough in November if what he currently doing are approved by the US voters. I think Trump will lose big time. And impeachment may follow for total disregard to the constitution.

Impeachment means nothing. It's just a symbolic act. Bill Clinton was blown, lied about it and impeached but so what. Trump was impeached multiple times and came roaring back stronger than ever.

In order to remove a President a 2/3 majority is needed in the senate and that's never going to happen.

As for your claim that Trump has "total disregard for the constitution" I'd love to hear from you exactly which actions he has taken which are unconstitutional. I'm keen to be educated because I have been under the impression that it's the left that has ignored key aspects of the constitution especially during the Biden term.

---

### Unconstitutional Actions by the Biden Administration

Based on court rulings and legal challenges, several actions or policies pursued by the Biden administration have been deemed unconstitutional or unlawful by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. These primarily involve executive overreach, violations of separation of powers, First Amendment issues, and equal protection concerns. Below is a compiled list of key examples, drawn from judicial decisions and multistate lawsuits. Note that some policies were extensions or modifications of prior administrations' actions, but the Biden-era implementations were specifically struck down. This list focuses on actions where courts found constitutional violations, not merely political criticisms.

#### 1. **Student Loan Forgiveness Plan**
- The administration's $430 billion plan to cancel federal student loan debt for millions of borrowers was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023, as it exceeded executive authority under the HEROES Act and violated separation of powers by bypassing Congress. A subsequent Savings on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which altered income-driven repayment terms and could cost up to $559 billion, faced similar challenges; courts blocked parts of it in 2025 for overstepping statutory limits.

#### 2. **COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates**
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate requiring large employers to vaccinate or test workers was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022 for exceeding agency authority and infringing on states' rights under the Tenth Amendment. Similar mandates for healthcare workers and federal contractors were challenged in multistate lawsuits (e.g., Georgia v. Biden, Louisiana v. Becerra) and partially invalidated as arbitrary and violative of federal procurement laws.

#### 3. **Eviction Moratorium Extension**
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) extended a nationwide eviction moratorium during the pandemic, which the Supreme Court invalidated in 2021 as an unlawful expansion of executive power beyond public health statutes, violating property rights and separation of powers.

#### 4. **Race-Conscious College Admissions Policies**
- The administration defended affirmative action programs in universities, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that such policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of race.

#### 5. **Bump Stock Ban**
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule banning bump stocks (devices enabling rapid fire) was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2024, as it improperly redefined machine guns under federal law, exceeding agency authority and infringing on Second Amendment interpretations.

#### 6. **Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations**
- Several EPA rules on power plant emissions and clean water were limited by the Supreme Court in rulings that curtailed federal regulatory power, citing violations of the major questions doctrine and overreach into states' domains. This included the 2024 overturning of "Chevron deference," which had allowed agencies broad interpretive leeway, ruled as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

#### 7. **Social Media Content Moderation Requests**
- Federal officials' communications urging social media platforms to remove misinformation (e.g., on COVID-19 and elections) were ruled a First Amendment violation by a federal judge in 2023, as they constituted coercive government censorship.

#### 8. **Section 702 Surveillance Program**
- The administration continued and defended warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which courts and critics (including the ACLU) have deemed unconstitutional for violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, especially when used on U.S. citizens.

#### 9. **Immigration Enforcement Priorities and Border Policies**
- Policies shifting enforcement away from certain immigrants (e.g., 100-day deportation moratorium) faced lawsuits (e.g., Texas challenges) and were partially blocked for violating statutory mandates and potentially the Take Care Clause. Revocation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit was challenged as unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce.

#### 10. **Minimum Wage Increase for Federal Contractors**
- An executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15/hour was challenged in lawsuits (e.g., by Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) as exceeding Procurement Act authority and infringing on states' rights, with courts finding it ultra vires.

This list is not exhaustive, as ongoing litigation (e.g., on Title IX expansions for gender identity) continues to challenge other policies. Many rulings emphasize that the executive branch overstepped by acting without congressional authorization. For a comprehensive view, refer to sources like the Supreme Court's docket or multistate lawsuit trackers.

 

[nabeifuckpap]

Eh hello uncle can stop posting stupid shit from fake websites or not, u buay sian keep on kena scammed like those 65% retards on shithole island? I can send u links to phishing sites and I bet you will just enter your login details blindly

 

[Papsmearer]

Eh hello uncle can stop posting stupid shit from fake websites or not, u buay sian keep on kena scammed like those 65% retards on shithole island? I can send u links to phishing sites and I bet you will just enter your login details blindly

Glockman cannot help himself. He is a fucking retard

 

[syed putra]

Impeachment means nothing. It's just a symbolic act. Bill Clinton was blown, lied about it and impeached but so what. Trump was impeached multiple times and came roaring back stronger than ever.

In order to remove a President a 2/3 majority is needed in the senate and that's never going to happen.

As for your claim that Trump has "total disregard for the constitution" I'd love to hear from you exactly which actions he has taken which are unconstitutional. I'm keen to be educated because I have been under the impression that it's the left that has ignored key aspects of the constitution especially during the Biden term.

---

### Unconstitutional Actions by the Biden Administration

Based on court rulings and legal challenges, several actions or policies pursued by the Biden administration have been deemed unconstitutional or unlawful by federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. These primarily involve executive overreach, violations of separation of powers, First Amendment issues, and equal protection concerns. Below is a compiled list of key examples, drawn from judicial decisions and multistate lawsuits. Note that some policies were extensions or modifications of prior administrations' actions, but the Biden-era implementations were specifically struck down. This list focuses on actions where courts found constitutional violations, not merely political criticisms.

#### 1. **Student Loan Forgiveness Plan**
- The administration's $430 billion plan to cancel federal student loan debt for millions of borrowers was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023, as it exceeded executive authority under the HEROES Act and violated separation of powers by bypassing Congress. A subsequent Savings on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, which altered income-driven repayment terms and could cost up to $559 billion, faced similar challenges; courts blocked parts of it in 2025 for overstepping statutory limits.

#### 2. **COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates**
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate requiring large employers to vaccinate or test workers was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2022 for exceeding agency authority and infringing on states' rights under the Tenth Amendment. Similar mandates for healthcare workers and federal contractors were challenged in multistate lawsuits (e.g., Georgia v. Biden, Louisiana v. Becerra) and partially invalidated as arbitrary and violative of federal procurement laws.

#### 3. **Eviction Moratorium Extension**
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) extended a nationwide eviction moratorium during the pandemic, which the Supreme Court invalidated in 2021 as an unlawful expansion of executive power beyond public health statutes, violating property rights and separation of powers.

#### 4. **Race-Conscious College Admissions Policies**
- The administration defended affirmative action programs in universities, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that such policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of race.

#### 5. **Bump Stock Ban**
- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule banning bump stocks (devices enabling rapid fire) was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2024, as it improperly redefined machine guns under federal law, exceeding agency authority and infringing on Second Amendment interpretations.

#### 6. **Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulations**
- Several EPA rules on power plant emissions and clean water were limited by the Supreme Court in rulings that curtailed federal regulatory power, citing violations of the major questions doctrine and overreach into states' domains. This included the 2024 overturning of "Chevron deference," which had allowed agencies broad interpretive leeway, ruled as unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

#### 7. **Social Media Content Moderation Requests**
- Federal officials' communications urging social media platforms to remove misinformation (e.g., on COVID-19 and elections) were ruled a First Amendment violation by a federal judge in 2023, as they constituted coercive government censorship.

#### 8. **Section 702 Surveillance Program**
- The administration continued and defended warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which courts and critics (including the ACLU) have deemed unconstitutional for violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, especially when used on U.S. citizens.

#### 9. **Immigration Enforcement Priorities and Border Policies**
- Policies shifting enforcement away from certain immigrants (e.g., 100-day deportation moratorium) faced lawsuits (e.g., Texas challenges) and were partially blocked for violating statutory mandates and potentially the Take Care Clause. Revocation of the Keystone XL pipeline permit was challenged as unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce.

#### 10. **Minimum Wage Increase for Federal Contractors**
- An executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15/hour was challenged in lawsuits (e.g., by Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) as exceeding Procurement Act authority and infringing on states' rights, with courts finding it ultra vires.

This list is not exhaustive, as ongoing litigation (e.g., on Title IX expansions for gender identity) continues to challenge other policies. Many rulings emphasize that the executive branch overstepped by acting without congressional authorization. For a comprehensive view, refer to sources like the Supreme Court's docket or multistate lawsuit trackers.

The total ignorance of the constitution started with Bush Junior using the emergency act.

(Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush invoked the National Emergencies Act on September 14, 2001, to declare a national emergency. This unlocked over 120 statutory powers, allowing the executive branch to freeze terrorist assets, deploy military forces, and initiate actions to prevent further attacks. )

And have been used and abused countless times since.

 

[Leongsam]

The total ignorance of the constitution started with Bush Junior using the emergency act.

(Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush invoked the National Emergencies Act on September 14, 2001, to declare a national emergency. This unlocked over 120 statutory powers, allowing the executive branch to freeze terrorist assets, deploy military forces, and initiate actions to prevent further attacks. )

And have been used and abused countless times since.

The gatekeeper of the constitution is the Supreme Court not you. I'm afraid your personal opinion does not count as much as you would like it to.

---

---

The National Emergencies Act (NEA), enacted on September 14, 1976** (Pub. L. 94–412, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601–1651), is considered constitutional. It has never been struck down or declared unconstitutional by any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court.


The NEA provides a framework for the President to declare a national emergency, activating specific statutory powers Congress has previously authorized (currently around 137–150 such powers). It was passed to address concerns over unchecked, indefinite emergency declarations from prior decades, terminating old ones (e.g., from the 1930s) and imposing procedural requirements like congressional notification, periodic review, and mechanisms for termination.

### Key Points on Constitutionality
- **No direct Supreme Court ruling invalidating the NEA** — The Supreme Court has not ruled the core framework of the NEA unconstitutional. Related cases, like *Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer* (1952), emphasize that presidential emergency actions must stem from congressional authorization or inherent constitutional power, which aligns with the NEA's design (delegating defined powers rather than granting unlimited authority).
- **Impact of INS v. Chadha (1983)** — The original NEA allowed Congress to terminate emergencies via a simple concurrent resolution (a "legislative veto"). In *Chadha*, the Supreme Court ruled legislative vetoes unconstitutional under the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7), as they bypassed presidential signature or veto. Congress amended the NEA in 1985 to require a joint resolution for termination (subject to presidential veto and requiring a two-thirds override). This change made the law compliant with *Chadha*, and no court has since found the amended NEA unconstitutional.
- **Nondelegation doctrine concerns** — Some scholars and critics argue the NEA involves excessive delegation of power to the President (potentially violating the nondelegation doctrine, which requires Congress to provide an "intelligible principle" for executive action). However, courts have not invalidated it on this basis. The NEA limits powers to those Congress has explicitly tied to emergencies and requires specificity in declarations.
- **Practical use and challenges** — Declarations under the NEA (e.g., the one issued on September 14, 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, which remains in effect with annual renewals) have faced policy criticism and calls for reform, especially when used for contested purposes (like border wall funding in 2019). Legal challenges typically target specific invocations or actions, not the NEA itself. Courts have upheld many uses while rejecting others that exceed statutory bounds.

In summary, the NEA is a valid congressional statute that balances executive flexibility in crises with oversight mechanisms. It remains good law and constitutionally sound under current precedent, though debates persist about whether its safeguards (especially post-*Chadha*) are sufficient to prevent abuse in a polarized Congress. For the most part, experts and courts treat it as a legitimate delegation of authority rather than an unconstitutional grant of unchecked power.

 

[syed putra]

 

[syed putra]

 

[laksaboy]

 

[syed putra]

The rules based international order under Trump has crumbled.
Any treaty or agreement has no meaning. Even tariffs are up to whims and fancies of trump until those negotiating kisses his buttocks.
Entire world has rerouted their links and pivoting away from the US. That includes germany who invested way more in china than the US. Future of BMW, VW and Mercedes and suppliers lies in China, the biggest car market on the planet.
And its bit just about making cars. China national policies are more consistent and does not change overnight.

 

[syed putra]

The feds are attacking precious metal such as gold and trying to prep up the USD. As long as they can hype up the USD, the stock market remains unscathed

 

[Leongsam]

The rules based international order under Trump has crumbled.
Any treaty or agreement has no meaning. Even tariffs are up to whims and fancies of trump until those negotiating kisses his buttocks.
Entire world has rerouted their links and pivoting away from the US. That includes germany who invested way more in china than the US. Future of BMW, VW and Mercedes and suppliers lies in China, the biggest car market on the planet.
And its bit just about making cars. China national policies are more consistent and does not change overnight.

There was never a "rules based" international order respected by all nations.. What happened was that prior US administrations played by the rules while the rest of the world took advantage of the naivete/inaction of the USA by ignoring the rules or gaming the system to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

Do you want examples? Let's just take a look at China and what it has been doing over the years while showing the finger to previous US administrations. :

---

---

### Major Instances of China's WTO Non-Compliance Without Significant Repercussions

While China has complied with many specific WTO dispute rulings (often after delays or appeals), numerous sources highlight systemic practices that violate the spirit or letter of WTO rules but evade full enforcement due to gaps in WTO mechanisms, lack of transparency, fear of retaliation, or the dysfunctional Appellate Body (which allows appeals to go unresolved). These have enabled China to benefit from WTO membership while imposing costs on trading partners, often without meaningful consequences. Below is a list of key areas and examples, drawn from reports and analyses:

- **Unreported or Opaque Subsidies Leading to Overcapacity**: China provides massive, non-transparent subsidies to industries like steel, aluminum, solar panels, and fisheries, distorting global markets and creating excess capacity. These are structured to skirt WTO notification requirements or direct challenges, resulting in harm to foreign competitors without comprehensive WTO resolution. For instance, subsidies under plans like "Made in China 2025" have gone largely unchallenged systemically, allowing dominance in targeted sectors.

- **Intellectual Property Theft and Inadequate Protection**: China engages in widespread state-sponsored IP theft, including trade secrets and confidential business information, often through cyber means or administrative pressures. While some cases reach the WTO (e.g., DS611 on IP enforcement), many instances are not attributable to the government under WTO rules, leading to no formal disputes or enforcement. This has cost U.S. industries billions annually without proportional repercussions.

- **Forced Technology Transfer Practices**: Foreign companies are often coerced into transferring technology via joint ventures or informal "administrative guidance" rather than explicit laws, making attribution to the state difficult under WTO rules. This evades direct litigation, allowing China to acquire foreign tech without facing WTO penalties, despite violating market access and non-discrimination principles.

- **Export Restrictions on Raw Materials and Rare Earths**: China imposed export quotas and duties on critical materials like rare earths (over 90% of global supply), inflating global prices and benefiting domestic firms. Even after losing WTO cases (e.g., in 2012 and 2014), initial delays and partial reforms allowed continued distortions; similar restrictions persist in other areas without full removal or punishment.

- **Lack of Transparency in Trade Regulations**: China routinely fails to publish new laws in WTO languages (English, French, Spanish) before enforcement, punishing foreign entities for non-compliance without notice. This opacity frustrates oversight and has not led to broad WTO enforcement, enabling ongoing violations.

- **Retaliatory Tariffs and Unresolved Disputes Due to Appellate Body Dysfunction**: In cases like retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods (e.g., in response to steel/aluminum duties), rulings against China are appealed into a "void" because the WTO Appellate Body lacks quorum, preventing enforcement. This allows tariffs to remain indefinitely without consequences.

- **Currency Manipulation (Historical)**: Post-accession, China undervalued its currency by up to 30% for years, making exports cheaper and violating fair trade principles. This went largely unpunished due to limited WTO tools for currency issues.

- **Barriers to Market Access in Services and Finance**: Commitments to open sectors like payments (e.g., China Union Pay monopoly) and banking were delayed; foreign firms like Mastercard waited years for approval despite rulings. Fear of Chinese retaliation deters companies from pushing disputes, allowing de facto non-compliance.

These practices reflect a broader "paper compliance" pattern: China often adjusts specific measures after losses but maintains underlying non-market behaviors, exploiting WTO gaps. Sources note that while disputes have addressed some issues, systemic problems persist without repercussions, harming global trade.