Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

US Elections 2020


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Doro said:

No problem. It was originally just to see what sort of shape potential candidates were in and who was likely to be top dog of both packs, but I guess the minute Daddy Whorebucks gets brought up, his bitches rush to his defence as if they're personally involved.

Usually, you can tell the temperature of a candidate through the memes generated about them. Whether it's good or bad, the more spotlight on them the more likely they are to get votes, and since memes are the Gen Z version of the news they have a lot of power to sway opinion. Quick, short, sharp control of a one-way discussion is what they are. So far, only kid-sniffer Biden has been popping up of the Dems. Last time, it was Comrade Sanders before Clinton undermined him, but he's been curiously absent this time which doesn't look good for him. Pretty much nothing on the others, in fact there's more I've seen about that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than most of the Democrat candidates.

Talking of Biden, he seems to have the same character flaws as Trump, primarily egotistical and discursive. Like that time when he got all weird about kids touching his legs. Or when he challenged a fat old guy to an athletic competition.

I have no love for Biden.  I'm not especially excited about him as a President, but it will one million percent be better than what we have now.  It's all a matter of policy positions.  If  Republican was running that had policy positions I could get behind, they would get my vote.   I guess I'm crazy for wanting my tax money to benefit the most amount of people, including myself.  All these taxes I'm paying and the roads still suck, healthcare costs are ridiculous, education in the country blows, student debt is crippling,  and a lot of my tax money is going to help take care of states filled with people that hate me.  I suppose it's a small price to pay so we can have THE WORLD"S BIGGEST MILITARy EVAR!, or SUPER RICH JOB CREATORS! bwahahahaha, what a crock!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Okay that is just the most batshit answer you could give. First as previously mentioned, not all women can take the pill for a wide range of reasons. Second, where the actual flying fuck is the respon

Back early in this thread Almagnus wanted us to take a test so he could adjust his responses. I am no fool. A person of conviction doesn't amend their opinions based on what others say. Its been more

pffft

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

If that's the position of the libtards that want to wreck the country with a health care system and college loan forgiveness programs we can't afford, environmental regulations that are strangling our industries, and have all of it paid for by taxes that put us in the poor house, then it means we're on the right track.  Thank you for your confirmation that we're doing a good job ?

Actually, economic studies have shown that the cost of single payer healthcare systems generally are in the negative, meaning a significant cost reduction.

Sources:

In general, most studies find that while a single payer healthcare system would increase taxes, it also eliminates premiums and out of pocket expenses. It transfers the burden on higher incomes from the lower incomes, which by most accounts is a good thing. Someone who's struggling with a medical problem should not have to choose between food on the table or clothing for their kids, or paying for medication to keep them alive. Again, yes, it would raise taxes for every household, but with the elimination of premiums it will reduce in a big net gain for those in the most dire need, a low gain or loss (bit of a tossup depending on state) for medium income families and yes, a bump in taxes for those with plenty of money. Boo hoo to the last category.

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

You conveniently forgot to add "foreign policy has always been a pile of quid pro quos?", "quid pro quos aren't illegal", and "Biden did a quid pro quo to shake a Ukranian corruption investigation for his son".

There is a difference between negotiation on equal footing between two countries and negotiation for personal gain. In the case of Trump, his "quo" was "announce a corruption investigation into a political opponent of mine or I'm illegally withholding congress approved funds". In the case of Biden, his "quo" was "The World Bank, the US and many other western countries insist that a corrupt prosecutor is removed from office or we will not offer funding". Again: Biden acted as the US government official, Trump acted as Trump. Difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

You conveniently forgot to add "foreign policy has always been a pile of quid pro quos?", "quid pro quos aren't illegal", and "Biden did a quid pro quo to shake a Ukranian corruption investigation for his son".

Exactly. First, he didn't do it. But then it's everyone does it, that's how it works. So, the "he didn't do it" (or, he met the deadline) really was meaningless BS because everyone knows he did do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MueR said:

There is a difference between negotiation on equal footing between two countries and negotiation for personal gain. In the case of Trump, his "quo" was "announce a corruption investigation into a political opponent of mine or I'm illegally withholding congress approved funds". In the case of Biden, his "quo" was "The World Bank, the US and many other western countries insist that a corrupt prosecutor is removed from office or we will not offer funding". Again: Biden acted as the US government official, Trump acted as Trump. Difference.

incredibly jaded take.

 

57 minutes ago, MueR said:

In the case of Trump, his "quo" was "announce a corruption investigation into a political opponent of mine or I'm illegally withholding congress approved funds".

nice addition in red, not reality... well unless you belief Adam Schiffs lip read version...  but clearly showing the jade by its inclusion. 

  &

57 minutes ago, MueR said:

In the case of Biden, his "quo" was "The World Bank, the US and many other western countries insist that a corrupt prosecutor is removed from office or we will not offer funding".

completely ignoring the prosecutors investigation of Burisma, or the glaringly obvious nepotism, in Joe's son receiving a position with sizable compensation.

remind me again what Biden Juniors experience was with an energy exploration/production holding company?

or what the reason was for dismissing the prosecutor as condition to receiving aid?

57 minutes ago, MueR said:

Biden acted as the US government official, Trump acted as Trump. Difference. 

horseshit.  unadulterated even.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

... or the glaringly obvious nepotism...

remind me again what Biden Juniors experience was with an energy exploration/production holding company?

Since you support Trump, you're fine with nepotism and people in positions that they lack prior experience in, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

nice addition in red, not reality... well unless you belief Adam Schiffs lip read version...  but clearly showing the jade by its inclusion. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E

Right. Now also watch the Democratic counsel's questioning.

But yes really, Trump illegally held funds approved by Congress. Whatever the reason might have been, it was an illegal hold. He does not have that power.

38 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

completely ignoring the prosecutors investigation of Burisma, or the glaringly obvious nepotism, in Joe's son receiving a position with sizable compensation.

remind me again what Biden Juniors experience was with an energy exploration/production holding company?

or what the reason was for dismissing the prosecutor as condition to receiving aid?

Not ignoring the investigation into Bursima, which was opened by a previous prosecutor general in the Ukraine. Shokin (the one that was dismissed after pressure from the US, EU and various financial institutions) however let that investigation die off. He was accused by many, both internally in the Ukraine and abroad, of protecting big business interests and the political elite, a theme common in former Soviet countries. That is why he was dismissed.

As for Hunter Biden's qualifications to be on the board of a gas company... He's a lawyer, so in terms of expertise in the day to day business of an oil/gas company he has no qualifications. However, that's not what a board of directors is for. They are there to oversee the daily management, the CEO, the CFO, the COO. Look at any big corporation in the world, you'll see lawyers, politicians, former government officials. Yes, they are recruited for status. A former treasury secretary here, a former senator there, a public figure here, someone related to a public figure (or even carrying the same name) there. It's a PR thing. They need to be just smart enough to not dive the company off a cliff, the rest is status. But hey, if you think that there was corruption there, by all means, investigate. Have the Senate or House investigate. Have Ukraine investigate. Whataboutism however is no defense against Trump's actions. Next the Trump team is going to bring up Hillary's emails in the proceedings again even though that has been debunked about 5 times now by various branches of government.. I mean jeesh.. Stick to the facts please. Investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden all you want. Call them as witnesses if you want. Just not in the impeachment trial, because that is not, will not ever be, about any of the Bidens.

Nepotism is not something that can even remotely be brought up in defense of Trump (and "yeah but look what that other person did" is NEVER a valid legal defense). For pete's sake, he rammed through security clearances for the only woman he ever loved (Ivanka), not to mention Jared, who was blackballed by several security clearances. I mean really, if you want to bring up Hunter Biden's qualifications for being on the board of a company, can we then also discuss a failed real estate heir's qualifications to "fix the Middle East", "reform the criminal justice system", "make a trade deal with China" and let's not forget "build the wall". I mean really... The Israel/Palestine conflict is something that's been dragging on for decades, with people deeply involved and knowledgable have spent decades on trying to broker some form of peace, and you expect Ivanka's toyboy with 0 knowledge of the region, 0 knowledge of foreign policy to actually get a peace agreement? Come on. 

My personal opinion of Joe Biden: he's a bit of an oaf. A loveable oaf at that. Doesn't strike me as the type that can fix the US, so I hope he doesn't get the Democratic ticket. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Splay said:

In less than 20 years your skill set will be obsolete and you will be replaced by AI. The funny part of that is the AI won't thank you for all the fishes.

I'm a programmer/professional debugger.  It's really gonna be you that's gonna lose their job because of the tech I'm working with.

2 hours ago, Splay said:

You can't deny the health care systems in the US have been double dipping from both ends for over 30 years. Yet you think free health care equals DOOM!!!

Eh... free health care is fine... until you look at the numbers.  There's too many people in the US that want a pill to fix their issues when the root cause is they need to get off of their fat asses and get into a gym.  I strongly suspect that we'd probably need a forklift to move your ass into the gym, as you probably haven't seen your privates in long enough to declare them  legally dead.

2 hours ago, Splay said:

OMG! I had to pay my education loans! SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE! >:(  You bought into a broken system and think everyone should too because you have reasons.

Hey, that's a Sanders talking point.  I had to get loans for my Bachelors of Science in Computer Science and pay them off just like everyone else.  if you want to rage at someone over this, you should be raging at Sanders and not me.

2 hours ago, Splay said:

You're a dumbass if you think regulations stifled US industry during the last 30 years.

Hey, I know what I saw in Colorado with how EPA completely strangled much of the smaller mining operations and the timber industry... which lead to every visibile mountain between Winter Park and Grand Lake to have their forests die from beetle kill due to a tree density that could not be supported by the rainfall.  All of those trees had to be clear cut because they were such a fire danger to the small towns in that area as one errant lightning strike would have incinerated everything in that valley.  The wood from those trees was so bad that it couldn't have been salved for plywood, and didn't even make good mulch.  All because the EPA would not let people get up there and keep the trees at a density that would allow the forests to survive the arid conditions better than they didn't.

Are you going to argue my experience that contradicts your religious dogma?

2 hours ago, Splay said:

You're just raging all mad bro because you will always be poor.

Oh, so considering I have zero credit card debt (and the only debt to my name is my car debt at this point in time), I kinda doubt that, especially considering the projections on my mutual funds and various other investments.

1 hour ago, MueR said:

Actually, economic studies have shown that the cost of single payer healthcare systems generally are in the negative, meaning a significant cost reduction.

Sources:

 

1 hour ago, MueR said:

In general, most studies find that while a single payer healthcare system would increase taxes, it also eliminates premiums and out of pocket expenses.

I like my taxes low, thank you very much.

1 hour ago, MueR said:

It transfers the burden on higher incomes from the lower incomes, which by most accounts is a good thing.

Why should I have to pay for someone's health insurance that makes less than I do?

1 hour ago, MueR said:

Someone who's struggling with a medical problem should not have to choose between food on the table or clothing for their kids, or paying for medication to keep them alive.

And that's the role of the charities to help out those people, not the government.

1 hour ago, MueR said:

Again, yes, it would raise taxes for every household, but with the elimination of premiums it will reduce in a big net gain for those in the most dire need, a low gain or loss (bit of a tossup depending on state) for medium income families and yes, a bump in taxes for those with plenty of money. Boo hoo to the last category.

Again, I don't want to waste more of my income on taxes.  I earn it, I should keep it.

1 hour ago, MueR said:

There is a difference between negotiation on equal footing between two countries and negotiation for personal gain. In the case of Trump, his "quo" was "announce a corruption investigation into a political opponent of mine or I'm illegally withholding congress approved funds". In the case of Biden, his "quo" was "The World Bank, the US and many other western countries insist that a corrupt prosecutor is removed from office or we will not offer funding". Again: Biden acted as the US government official, Trump acted as Trump. Difference.

Ok, so then please explain this clip:

Everything you accuse Trump of doing, Biden has already done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

I like my taxes low, thank you very much.

Why should I have to pay for someone's health insurance that makes less than I do?

And that's the role of the charities to help out those people, not the government.

Again, I don't want to waste more of my income on taxes.  I earn it, I should keep it.

You're basically saying fuck people who have a debilitating or chronic illness, I don't care, just don't make me pay a dime to help others. Let charities do it. Newsflash: charities work by donations by people who can miss the money. Another newsflash: it's usually those who can miss only a few bucks that do. I think I'm not even going to respond to you any more. You are a selfish, heartless, egoistic person. Sincerely, fuck you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Doro said:

Since you support Trump, you're fine with nepotism and people in positions that they lack prior experience in, though.

nope.

On 10/4/2019 at 9:07 AM, LasraelLarson said:

oh i'd like to see Ivanka & Jared vigorously ousted. campaigning is one thing, neither belong in the White House, however.  yet they both are, after considerable scrutiny... even.  a HUGE mistake, IMO.


14 minutes ago, MueR said:

Trump illegally held funds approved by Congress.

if the funds are withheld indefinitely, then yes, that breaks the law.  that is called a rescission and there is no leeway in that situation.

but Congressional approval of funds is not the same thing as how those funds are spent and that falls to the President.   All Congressional approved funds for Ukraine were released before the deadline expiration.

Trump used 7 deferral payments for Ukraine:

Quote

For deferrals, the law gives the president more leeway, so long as he spends the money during the current fiscal year.

which Trump did. 

the contention & where this legislation passed by congress will get tested (and many have wanted to test it before Trump) is Trump stonewalling congress on formal reporting.

had the approved funds been withheld indefinitely, yeah, Trump would be screwed.  but the 7 timely deferrals play to Trumps favor should this issue be contested legally.

which may even be the game he is playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

which may even be the game he is playing.

Having seen Trump giving live commentary on the impeachment trials and actually confessing to obstruction of congress at a press conference in Davos while the opening statements were made in his trial.. I sincerely doubt he knows what if any game he is playing. Or if he even knows what he did 2 hours ago.

On the subject of deferrals, yes the president has the legal right to request a referral, but (s)he must do so via a request through Congress. This was not the case. The GAO has ruled so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MueR said:

You're basically saying fuck people who have a debilitating or chronic illness, I don't care, just don't make me pay a dime to help others. Let charities do it. Newsflash: charities work by donations by people who can miss the money. Another newsflash: it's usually those who can miss only a few bucks that do. I think I'm not even going to respond to you any more. You are a selfish, heartless, egoistic person. Sincerely, fuck you.

They always say that until they get one, or their family gets one, or they want other people to help pay for the nursing home.  They're so shortsighted that they don't realize that universal healthcare would also save them money.  They don't even care.  I thought I was a misanthrope, but compared to a Republican I'm a people person.   I guess he/she makes so much money as a programmer/professional debugger, whatever the fuck a professional debugger is supposed to be.  It seems kind of redundant to me.  

9 minutes ago, MueR said:

Having seen Trump giving live commentary on the impeachment trials and actually confessing to obstruction of congress at a press conference in Davos while the opening statements were made in his trial.. I sincerely doubt he knows what if any game he is playing. Or if he even knows what he did 2 hours ago.

On the subject of deferrals, yes the president has the legal right to request a referral, but (s)he must do so via a request through Congress. This was not the case. The GAO has ruled so.

Why do they think Trump is some super genius playing three-dimensional chess?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MueR said:

Having seen Trump giving live commentary on the impeachment trials and actually confessing to obstruction of congress at a press conference.. I sincerely doubt he knows what game he is playing. Or if he even knows what he did 2 hours ago.

On the subject of deferrals, yes the president has the legal right to request a referral, but (s)he must do so via a request through Congress. This was not the case. The GAO has ruled so.

i am aware of that ruling.

but also for the US General Office of Accounting:

Quote

the legal controversy revolves around whether the Act contemplates application of the rescission procedures or the deferral procedures when the President, for “fiscal policy” reasons, proposes a temporary suspension of budget authority. Simply put, our view is that the answer depends on the proposed duration of the withholding . If the duration of the impoundment does not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which it is proposed, and if the proposed temporary suspension does not have the effect of permanently rescind- ing budget authority, the deferral procedures apply.

this law hasn't exactly had much in the way of precedent, or challenges.  so its strength remains almost entirely untested.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

I'm a programmer/professional debugger.  It's really gonna be you that's gonna lose their job because of the tech I'm working with.

No one gives a fuck if you do website design. Nothing you do will ever take my job.

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Eh... free health care is fine... until you look at the numbers.  There's too many people in the US that want a pill to fix their issues when the root cause is they need to get off of their fat asses and get into a gym.  I strongly suspect that we'd probably need a forklift to move your ass into the gym, as you probably haven't seen your privates in long enough to declare them  legally dead.

Projecting from your reflection doesn't tell the whole truth does it?

1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

Hey, that's a Sanders talking point.  I had to get loans for my Bachelors of Science in Computer Science and pay them off just like everyone else.  if you want to rage at someone over this, you should be raging at Sanders and not me.

I'm not the one getting all ragey about the fact possibly one day higher education might be free for those with the aptitude and desire to have it. Many of your views about society in general seem to come from a protectionist stance. If you're so fucking great what do you have to fear?

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Hey, I know what I saw in Colorado with how EPA completely strangled much of the smaller mining operations and the timber industry... which lead to every visible mountain between Winter Park and Grand Lake to have their forests die from beetle kill due to a tree density that could not be supported by the rainfall.  All of those trees had to be clear cut because they were such a fire danger to the small towns in that area as one errant lightning strike would have incinerated everything in that valley.  The wood from those trees was so bad that it couldn't have been salved for plywood, and didn't even make good mulch.  All because the EPA would not let people get up there and keep the trees at a density that would allow the forests to survive the arid conditions better than they didn't.

Are you going to argue my experience that contradicts your religious dogma?

As usual you went off on some idiotic tangent. Even if it is the case as you portray, I'm sure there are factors you are oblivious to leading the outcome in your scenario. Regulation isn't the leading contributor to the decline of US industry.

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Oh, so considering I have zero credit card debt (and the only debt to my name is my car debt at this point in time), I kinda doubt that, especially considering the projections on my mutual funds and various other investments.

Hey looky! We have a bitcoin junky here. Whoa be the day someone informs you it cost more in electric to generate a bitcoin than its value.

Projections? Ha Ha You have no clue how a portfolio can lose much of its value in one day let alone a downturn in any given investment sector. You're just a herring baitball waiting to be fed upon by a school of tuna. :Y

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next episode after another day, we move into Q&A, with a vote on Friday to see additional witnesses.

 

6 hours ago, MueR said:

You're basically saying fuck people who have a debilitating or chronic illness, I don't care, just don't make me pay a dime to help others. Let charities do it. Newsflash: charities work by donations by people who can miss the money.

And they do a great job of that in the US, and I'd rather put my money in a charity that will do some good, than the US government that only excels at getting people killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amenhir said:

They always say that until they get one, or their family gets one, or they want other people to help pay for the nursing home.

I've seen what a nursing home does to people.... honestly euthanasia should be a serious consideration if they have something like Alzheimer's over life in a nursing home, especially watching the agonizingly slow disintegration of their personality until nothing is left upstairs but a scared little kid oblivious of the world.  Then the government gets their home and everything they worked for because you had to basically give that to the government before they could even enter the nursing home.  The entire system is (currently) rigged against the people they are trying to help.

So tell me, what firsthand experience do you have of these matters?

6 hours ago, Amenhir said:

They're so shortsighted that they don't realize that universal healthcare would also save them money.

So my taxes go up.  My healthcare, because it's now subsidized by the government, will go up in expense, while the insurance companies rake anyone still on a private plan over the coals.  It's like how you oh so convieniently forget how Obamacare screwed over my health insurance.  They screwed it up once, I don't want to 

6 hours ago, Amenhir said:

  They don't even care.  I thought I was a misanthrope, but compared to a Republican I'm a people person.   I guess he/she makes so much money as a programmer/professional debugger, whatever the fuck a professional debugger is supposed to be.  It seems kind of redundant to me.  

It's called I learned to code, then got a very well paying job because I learned to code.

Maybe you should learn to code too?

4 hours ago, Splay said:

Nothing you do will ever take my job.

Kinda hard to take what doesn't exist in the first place.  Go get your social security check boomer, until the money for that ponzi scheme runs dry that is.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

I'm not the one getting all ragey about the fact possibly one day higher education might be free for those with the aptitude and desire to have it. Many of your views about society in general seem to come from a protectionist stance. If you're so fucking great what do you have to fear?

I don't want to have more taxes paying for a program taht's basically an extension of high school, in which the economic stress of financing the entire thing yourself is part of helping people grow up and mature.  The entire idea is stupidly expensive (even Sanders won't give a price for this one), and it also completely wrecks one of the really good things about colleges.  This is really a matter that should be left to the states, like how California USED to do this.  A government one-sized fits all approach isn't going to work here.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

As usual you went off on some idiotic tangent. Even if it is the case as you portray, I'm sure there are factors you are oblivious to leading the outcome in your scenario. Regulation isn't the leading contributor to the decline of US industry.

Or really a first hand account of what the EPA does to state industries, and prevents people from actually earning an income, yet somehow gets dismissed because it's an inconvenient truth.

4 hours ago, Splay said:

Projections? Ha Ha You have no clue how a portfolio can lose much of its value in one day let alone a downturn in any given investment sector. You're just a herring baitball waiting to be fed upon by a school of tuna. :Y

That's why you diversify correctly, and work with financial planners that have a long track record.  That's like investing 101 stuff, which shows you have zero clue because you have yet to do any investing yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LasraelLarson said:

nope.

It wasn't a question, it was a fact. If you support Trump, you support what he does, so you can't really point at anyone else if they've been accused of doing the same. You support Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doro said:

It wasn't a question, it was a fact. If you support Trump, you support what he does, so you can't really point at anyone else if they've been accused of doing the same. You support Trump.

you still work?  you then support everything your employer stands for...

you live in London?  then you love Sadiq Khan....  you'd move if you didn't support him 100%

yeah that absolutism really carries soo much water...   except that isn't how reality works.

there are several things Trump has failed on.  he has claimed victory on immigration and the wall still is not built. nor have many current legal situations been resolved, AKA: dreamers & or birth tourism resulting in citizenship.  he ran on pulling troops out of the middle east, then in the first full year (April 2017) launched $60 million dollars worth of cruise missiles at Syria.  i don't care if it was just placating warmongers or the military Industrial complex, i disagreed.  and all that infrastructure, new airports, highways, etc.  still coming up short there as well.

but on the plus side of the scales, what he has done has outweighed the negatives.

i still support him because i do not see anyone else that i believe will have a set of scales tipping to the positive.

but you still can't wrap your head around the fact that support is not absolute.

regardless, until i see a better option:

image.thumb.png.35688c91620cb09077bae6be65f41d22.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

yeah that absolutism really carries soo much water...   except that isn't how reality works.

Except it does with you. I get it, you're a dull shallow hypocrite, it's why Trump appeals so much to you. You support him not because of a lack of options, but because a lack of character. That's why you defend him so vigorously despite all the facts. Shit, you couldn't even bring yourself to research the very law he broke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doro said:

Except it does with you. I get it, you're a dull shallow hypocrite, it's why Trump appeals so much to you. You support him not because of a lack of options, but because a lack of character. That's why you defend him so vigorously despite all the facts. Shit, you couldn't even bring yourself to research the very law he broke.

cry harder pussy!

about me ignoring Trumps lawbreaking on that law you still haven't provided...

Congress approves the budget, they are the purse strings.  they hold the authority and the check on spending.

the President sets the policy. he has constitutional authority on how that money is spent.

you think the President overstepped his authority by not officially informing Congress, but that is BS.  only if the President completely rescinded the funds. would he have circumvented the checks of Congress.  he deferred the funds and met the required deadline.

the President has Constitutional authority to set the agenda and direct spending.  Congress has the check of controlling the purse strings.  anything more and Congress is overstepping its Constitutional roll.

so basically you simpleton, this law is not as solidly against the President as you wrongly think.

which is why in the Ruling   it includes this paragraph:

Quote

As a result, we will renew our request for specific information from State and OMB regarding the potential impoundment of FMF funds in order to determine whether the Administration’s actions amount to a withholding subject to the ICA, and if so, whether that withholding was proper. We will continue to pursue this matter

the funds were released in the required time frame.  there is nothing further to pursue.

 

you may proceed to go fuck yourself, dumb-ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

cry harder pussy!

Aww, do you really think men cry over retards on the internet? Poor baby must be a bit sensitive.

6 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

about me ignoring Trumps lawbreaking on that law you still haven't provided...

I did, repeatedly. You were just too retarded to read it, apparently.

6 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

Congress approves the budget, they are the purse strings.  they hold the authority and the check on spending.

the President sets the policy. he has constitutional authority on how that money is spent.

you think the President overstepped his authority by not officially informing Congress, but that is BS.  only if the President completely rescinded the funds. would he have circumvented the checks of Congress.  he deferred the funds and met the required deadline.

Nope, it's any delay, regardless of whether it gets paid out in the end. The president has to provide a reason to congress and they can still deny it if they choose to. We've been over this, the GAO already confirmed he broke the law.

6 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

you may proceed to go fuck yourself, dumb-ass.

No thanks, I'll leave the masochism to idiotic spastics like you, cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and now for the people who are not Doro, i will explain this one last time, as clearly as i can.

President Trump did not rescind funds appropriated by congress:

 

Quote

 

Rescissions

Put simply, if the President wants to spend less money than Congress provided for a particular purpose, he or she must first secure a law providing Congressional approval to rescind the funding in question. The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed rescission; the reasons for it; and the budgetary, economic, and programmatic effects of the rescission. Upon transmission of such special message, the President may withhold certain funding in the affected accounts for up to 45 legislative session days. If a law approving the rescission is not enacted within the 45 days, any withheld funds must be made available for obligation.

A 2018 Government Accountability Office legal opinion holds that if the President proposes a rescission, he or she must make the affected funds available to be prudently obligated before the funds expire, even if the 45-day clock is still running. This means, for example, that the President cannot strategically time a rescission request for late in the fiscal year and withhold the funding until it expires, thus achieving a rescission without Congressional approval.

 

^^^ SOURCE ^^^

congress can veto a rescission forcing the funds to be executed.

what Trump did do is defer those funds:

 

Quote

 

Deferrals

The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.

The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.

 

^^^https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter^^^

if the deferred funds do not exceed  the time frame specified...   Congressional approval is NOT REQUIRED

the point of contention is that Trumps "special transmission" merely made reference to an Office of Management and Budget letter detailing the deferrals.

and the rest is entirely posturing on the part of partisan hacks.


in summary:

a Deferral does NOT require congressional approval.

a Deferral only becomes a Rescission if the deferrals exceed the specified deadlines.

ONLY Rescissions require Congressional approval.

the contention is the method used by Trump to notify Congress.

literally everything else is partisan hack posturing.

Trump is innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

Trump is innocent.

Isn't that really a case of others keeping him innocent?

Had the whole affair never made it to the spotlight, would have Trump let the deadline expire?

Ofc we'll never know, so only opinion prevails. At this point supplemental actions would lead to an opinion he would have let the deadline expire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Splay said:

Isn't that really a case of others keeping him innocent? 

Had the whole affair never made it to the spotlight, would have Trump let the deadline expire?

Ofc we'll never know, so only opinion prevails. At this point supplemental actions would lead to an opinion he would have let the deadline expire.

you can't prosecute the hypothetical.  can be useful for discussion and analysis, but actual prosecution, it is useless.

i could theorize the chaos surrounding Trump plays into the confusion & it continuously trips folk up.

regardless, the assertion Trump did not notify congress, or that congress needed to approve the deferrals is incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...