President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

I said "beats me, it was his post" to the question about which state was being referenced.

BECAUSE IT DID NOT MATTER WHATSOEVER TO THE DISCUSSION

You always fixated on the trivial and insignificant detail while being completely oblivious to the bigger picture.

You seem to have a way of posting crazy, ignorant stuff, getting called out, and then creating alternate histories to try to escape the spotlight of epic failures.

When specifically asked to give different examples of the ceded powers you were mentioning, you tripled down on this specific thing. But then when you were in a corner, you invented completely different points that you *actually* meant.

Here's a refresher. Summary: "All I was doing was posting EXACTLY what he meant. Why didn't ya'll argue with him like this.?"

Another way of saying the bolded (at least for me) is:
"I've never known a people willingly yield so much power to a president. It's kind of amazing."

Can you give specifics?

I'll re-post Sea Ray's example:
"I'm stating a fact when I say that Trump has chosen our last 2 Senators and he will choose our next one, as well as our Governor."
That wasn't a fact. It was hyperbole.

Hyperbole aside, there were endorsements, and then there were elections.

I'm curious what your examples would be of voters ceding power to this president like never before.



And as has been mentioned, you were in a coma through Covid?
lol....
I just quoted exactly what Sea Ray posted.

How interesting that not a single person responded to his words when he posted them.....
but when I post his exact same words. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, apparently you had all these points to make, but only wanted to make the point about endorsements, but endorsements were not pertinent to the conversation, so you couldn't name any examples because you were unaware of them.


That is some bear trap logic there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy’s Bandit
Other than “George” calling him a “crooked Biden appointee” what is the basis for concluding that this is the court’s fault and not the administration’s fault?
It's too soon for me to assign fault but if courts are going to say that Trump can't cancel payments then it's going to be that much harder to get spending under control
 
It's too soon for me to assign fault but if courts are going to say that Trump can't cancel payments then it's going to be that much harder to get spending under control

If it's for services already performed in accordance with contract/invoiced, then yes, those need to be paid....
 
Yet we shot ourselves in the foot with Nuclear and are woefully behind and hydro only works where you've got lakes and rivers.
We do need more nuclear power plants for sure, and aren't building them. That's why coal (a very powerful energy producer exceeding hydro in efficiency) will continue to be needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
If it's for services already performed in accordance with contract/invoiced, then yes, those need to be paid....
Sounds like it's for a different reason. If an expenditure went through Congress and signed by a President, Trump can't just unilaterally cancel it. This probably has some validity. I wondered about this myself
 
If it's for services already performed in accordance with contract/invoiced, then yes, those need to be paid....
I want cuts as much as anybody. I've seen a lot of people leeching off of the taxpayer get cut out.

But the purchase card stuff at the VA that I mentioned in the other thread is an example that could destroy this mission before it even gets going. Someone is moving way too fast- they read an OIG headline and didn't set up guardrails. The first vet that dies or suffers an injury because a hospital doesn't have supplies is going to go right to the headlines.

It's coming. The block begins tomorrow. They can't fix the contracts that fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo
Sounds like it's for a different reason. If an expenditure went through Congress and signed by a President, Trump can't just unilaterally cancel it. This probably has some validity. I wondered about this myself
"Trump" can't cancel it, but as far as I understand they don't have to use all the money. Allocated funds are swept up and returned all the time. It's why I don't understand the legal argument trying to force an agency to use money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
It's too soon for me to assign fault but if courts are going to say that Trump can't cancel payments then it's going to be that much harder to get spending under control
 

VN Store



Back
Top