President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

[McDad]

go back and check it. I never said it was unconstitutional. all I said was separation of church and state. McDad brought up the Constitution. to which I responded prayer was a bad idea whether or not its in the Constitution.

yall just making up stuff to defend every little thing Trump does.

prayer is a bad idea because it takes away from what should be going on in the government.

that is the standalone point you guys have been trying to deflect away from. thrown out several red herrings, and doing everything but honestly engage with what I actually said.

I don't see my response as a defense of Trump. Biden is Catholic. I am sure he prayed or there were prayers before meetings. Most all the presidents seem to be men of faith. Except Trump, ironically.

If you're lauding separation of church and state as an ideal, no issue. I don't have a beef with it. Also, don't think it is on the radar of importance. It's been my experience that when that phrase is used the user is convinced it is in the constitution. Apologies for assuming intent when I didn't understand.

 

[jwells]

“People who decidedly don’t need the money”

Who the hell are you to decide what another man needs?

Tax cuts for rich vs increased costs for the poor.
Those are the two sides of the coin in this GOP budget.

I'll go with helping the people who actually need it.
And yeah, I think it's pretty simple: Needs are food, clothing, shelter. They're good. Why are we constantly seeking CUTS for the rich at the expense of the working poor? If I bought a full section at Neyland then Danny White told the families up in PP that they're losing their seats so that I can have part of their section, too....but it's only me and my family...would you say that I don't need all those seats? Of course.

If giving a rich person more means a poor person gets less, yeah, I can make that decision.

 

[McDad]

Tax cuts for rich vs increased costs for the poor.
Those are the two sides of the coin in this GOP budget.

I'll go with helping the people who actually need it.
And yeah, I think it's pretty simple: Needs are food, clothing, shelter. They're good. Why are we constantly seeking CUTS for the rich at the expense of the working poor? If I bought a full section at Neyland then Danny White told the families up in PP that they're losing their seats so that I can have part of their section, too....but it's only me and my family...would you say that I don't need all those seats? Of course.

If giving a rich person more means a poor person gets less, yeah, I can make that decision.

I wish you could spend more time on here so I could pick your brain about how you think about taxes.

 

[LouderVol]

Libertarian ideology is to let people do what they want as long as it isn't harming anyone. Unless you are on Luther's side and it hurts your feelings seeing people pray in public then it isn't harming anyone. Being offended by someone praying isn't Libertarian whether one is an atheist, agnostic, or a person of ANY faith.

And, where did I say I trusted anyone? I'm just not judging a person's intent. I personally don't trust anyone I don't know personally.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Luther, are you offended with by the Muslim calls to prayer? Are you offended when Muslims knell and face Mecca?

never said I was offended by Trump's prayer. thats just something people have been making up.

even in that quote of mine I say its a bad idea. I have repeatedly said its not what a public official should be doing, and it takes away from what should be going on.

not offended by that either, thought it was kinda cool the first time I heard it in the wild. but this isn't someone walking the streets, or playing religious quotes over a loud speaker out in public to no one in particular. this is a government official, who is hosting an official government act, in a government building, directly engaging with other government officials.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't see my response as a defense of Trump. Biden is Catholic. I am sure he prayed or there were prayers before meetings. Most all the presidents seem to be men of faith. Except Trump, ironically.

If you're lauding separation of church and state as an ideal, no issue. I don't have a beef with it. Also, don't think it is on the radar of importance. It's been my experience that when that phrase is used the user is convinced it is in the constitution. Apologies for assuming intent when I didn't understand.

and I don't buy it from anyone of them. no one on this board did, until Trump did it. as soon as Trump did it, it became taboo to question something a politician did.

and people blasted Biden for being Catholic when he was supporting abortion, or various wars. its not like people have ignored the faith, and I am the first one to question it with trump.

 

[McDad]

and I don't buy it from anyone of them. no one on this board did, until Trump did it. as soon as Trump did it, it became taboo to something a politician did.

and people blasted Biden for being Catholic when he was supporting abortion, or various wars. its not like people have ignored the faith, and I am the first one to question it with trump.

I am sure there are some that did a "gotcha" thing with Biden. Just like others are doing / have done with other political opponents.

Prayer in politics has always been part of the SOP. We even have a "national day of prayer".

 

[Firebirdparts]

Tax revenue is not needed and symbolically can be done uniformly which is probably where this is heading i.e. elimination of Tax Code. The U.S. government absolutely and factually does not require tax revenue to function, that is the lie.

This is driving me up a wall. You've posted this 100 times and you are wrong about this. Be careful what you wish for - you'll be very very sorry.

 

[LSU-SIU]

This is driving me up a wall. You've posted this 100 times and you are wrong about this. Be careful what you wish for - you'll be very very sorry.

Which part?

you'll be very very sorry.

I would say the sorry part is when humans decided to attach interest to their money i.e. requires exponential growth on the supply and demand side. We're in OT right now, imo, should have naturally collapsed in 2007-2010, usually about a generation 60-70 years. New money supply has to come onto the system at what a human would perceive as almost vertical.

Be careful what you wish for

What the Truth? If so, I kind of agree people are running from the Truth. In less than 10 years... this number will have to probably be north of $200T, if not higher.... whether it comes from public or private creation is not so material but the private side tapped out in 2008.

All Sectors; Debt Securities and Loans; Liability, Level

Being efficient still makes sense, but there is no escape from the system. Basically, what people are saying or implying out here is you can have credit/debt (and attached interest) based system which is void of credit/debt. Could it collapse the system right away, absolutely (I actually said Trump might increase the speed of the collapse), but it makes no sense to pretend to get paid, pretend to be taxed, and pretend to pay it.... its all fiction, about as real as Roger the Rabbit.

I'm not blowing smoke up anyone's ass that life is going to be magically beautiful, but at the end of the day its all fiction and fraud. You are already in OT. They'll have to blast inflation up before too long or the system again while start to collapse. (You can win battles but you can never win the war)

I've said that Trump/Elon has probably increased the chances of reset as, "somewhat likely". Regardless, there is no common sense reason to have the IRS, that is a completely different subject in my opinion.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Words don't hurt. Just don't get people being so sawft that they are bothered by words said to something or someone they don't believe in. lol

They are called democrats son.

 

[Buddy’s Bandit]

Guess it would blow some of your minds if I told you there was a bible study BEFORE the cabinet meeting yesterday.

 

[Buddy’s Bandit]

Ultimately, the Bible itself had a strong influence on early Americans in the development of the U. S. Constitution. For one, the aforementioned secular sources that influenced the Constitution aligned with biblical ideas of moral truth and law, and of mankind’s dignity and fallen condition. Through the moral and political principles in these secular historical sources, the Bible indirectly impacted Americans’ constitutional laws and design. In addition, the Bible also directly impacted the views of early Americans in being frequently cited by American founders and statesman, Whigs and revolutionaries, and clergymen and ministers during the founding era. In fact, according to Lutz’s research findings as presented in his Origins, the Bible was the most frequently cited book in the political literature of the American founding era from 1760 to 1805, surpassing all the secular writers.[10] Lutz further points out that the “prominence of ministers in the political literature of the period attests to the continuing influence of religion during the founding era.”[11] These findings reveal that the Bible was a very strong moral, philosophical, religious, and political influence on founding-era Americans and their political ideas

 

[jwells]

I wish you could spend more time on here so I could pick your brain about how you think about taxes.

It's pretty simple:
Decide on what programs we need. Tax based on those.
Stop running on "tax cuts for the rich" so that the rich will fund campaigns at a higher level.
If we have more income than we do spending: tax cuts.
If we have more spending than taxes, cut spending or increase taxes.

For God's sake, stop cutting programs for the poor, increasing spending all over the place, AND cutting taxes for the wealthy. If the budget is in a deficit, we can't afford tax cuts.

If we are running in a deficit, discretionary spending in Congress and the Executive should be cut proportionate to budget cuts. This means less travel for Congress (not like they're holding town halls anyway), cuts to their home offices (it's 2025, they can Zoom), and cuts to Presidential and Cabinet travel. No tax-payer funded vacations back in Delaware or Mar a Lago. No golf trips. No Super Bowls. No more fun trips to warzones for Congress or photo ops here there and everywhere.

If the working class is going to face cuts, let's all cut together. Right now it's this "We're a family. We're in this together...so there's gonna be layoffs and the C-Suite will receive bonuses" Corporate nonsense.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Were you one of the goobers that complained about prayers before kickoffs at Neyland?

You wanna see people get really pissed off during the Neyland prayer? Use the pause in foot traffic to move through the stands while it's going on. Lol.

 

[85SugarVol]

Tax cuts for rich vs increased costs for the poor.
Those are the two sides of the coin in this GOP budget.

I'll go with helping the people who actually need it.
And yeah, I think it's pretty simple: Needs are food, clothing, shelter. They're good. Why are we constantly seeking CUTS for the rich at the expense of the working poor? If I bought a full section at Neyland then Danny White told the families up in PP that they're losing their seats so that I can have part of their section, too....but it's only me and my family...would you say that I don't need all those seats? Of course.

If giving a rich person more means a poor person gets less, yeah, I can make that decision.

Wild that you actually believe you should decide what others “need”. I’m guessing you’re more than ready to decide what your neighbor “actually needs” in other areas as well.

You don’t view the Federal Tax code as a mechanism to fund the government.

You view it as a device that can be manipulated to engineer your desired social outcomes.

 

[utvolpj]

That has nothing to do with my comment which was.............
trump is the most godless non-Christian man to ever hold the office. Some people.......(I'll refrain).

Many godless non-Christian men are great people. Many professed god fearing Christian men are POS.

First thing that comes to mind when I read your contortionist posts. You call Trump the worst based on miniscule requirements while dismissing the evil done by other potus.

 

[midnight orange]

View attachment 724663
First thing that comes to mind when I read your contortionist posts. You call Trump the worst based on miniscule requirements while dismissing the evil done by other potus.

Bush and Obama may have killed millions but at least they did it with a high degree of decorum.

 

[McDad]

It's pretty simple:
Decide on what programs we need. Tax based on those.
Stop running on "tax cuts for the rich" so that the rich will fund campaigns at a higher level.
If we have more income than we do spending: tax cuts.
If we have more spending than taxes, cut spending or increase taxes.

For God's sake, stop cutting programs for the poor, increasing spending all over the place, AND cutting taxes for the wealthy. If the budget is in a deficit, we can't afford tax cuts.

If we are running in a deficit, discretionary spending in Congress and the Executive should be cut proportionate to budget cuts. This means less travel for Congress (not like they're holding town halls anyway), cuts to their home offices (it's 2025, they can Zoom), and cuts to Presidential and Cabinet travel. No tax-payer funded vacations back in Delaware or Mar a Lago. No golf trips. No Super Bowls. No more fun trips to warzones for Congress or photo ops here there and everywhere.

If the working class is going to face cuts, let's all cut together. Right now it's this "We're a family. We're in this together...so there's gonna be layoffs and the C-Suite will receive bonuses" Corporate nonsense.

Should the programs we need be programs specified in the constitution? Or, should our reps have discretion about needed programs that are not specified?

ETA: I have several more Qs related to your post.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Wild that you actually believe you should decide what others “need”. I’m guessing you’re more than ready to decide what your neighbor “actually needs” in other areas as well.

You don’t view the Federal Tax code as a mechanism to fund the government.

You view it as a device that can be manipulated to engineer your desired social outcomes.

Its simply a tool to steer behavior, interests, and of course to monitor.... at least for the last 100 years. Tariffs in today's world is a tool to do those same things, but mostly for or on foreigners. The gold window was basically ended for Americans 100 years ago, for foreigners over 50 years ago.

 

[hog88]

go back and check it. I never said it was unconstitutional. all I said was separation of church and state. McDad brought up the Constitution. to which I responded prayer was a bad idea whether or not its in the Constitution.

yall just making up stuff to defend every little thing Trump does.

prayer is a bad idea because it takes away from what should be going on in the government.

that is the standalone point you guys have been trying to deflect away from. thrown out several red herrings, and doing everything but honestly engage with what I actually said.

Ok Karen

 

[Orange_Crush]

You wanna see people get really pissed off during the Neyland prayer? Use the pause in foot traffic to move through the stands while it's going on. Lol.

Actually sounds like a good idea.

 

[jwells]

Should the programs we need be programs specified in the constitution? Or, should our reps have discretion about needed programs that are not specified?

ETA: I have several more Qs related to your post.

That's up to Congress based on the will of their voters, as well as a reasoned look at what is actually beneficial.

This is where it gets tricky, because a Congressperson's main goal is re-election. And they need money for that. From rich people and corporate lobbies. Those voices tend to outweigh that of the working single mom back in the district. We also know they use their mailing privilege to help form the narrative on "what they're doing" for you back home, as they know the average person isn't reading bills and watching votes. So the loudest, most powerful voice becomes who has the money.

This also sorta relates to my other belief that bills should stand alone. So much of the actual "waste" in government is shoving in payoffs for members for pork projects so that they will vote for a bill or shoving in pet projects into must-pass bills, like defense, farm bill, etc.

A great start would be an actual budget, negotiated by both sides in good faith.
Create a base-line document of agreed upon spending, then negotiate extra spending (pork) case-by-case.
Is it a lot of work? Sure. But I feel like Congress would have plenty of time if it cut back on wasteful grandstanding committees and filibustering.

 

[jwells]

Wild that you actually believe you should decide what others “need”. I’m guessing you’re more than ready to decide what your neighbor “actually needs” in other areas as well.

You don’t view the Federal Tax code as a mechanism to fund the government.

You view it as a device that can be manipulated to engineer your desired social outcomes.

Deciding on needs, wants, and nice to haves literally is tax and spend policy.

Sorry man, the guy making 100M a year doesn't need a tax cut at the expense of some disabled person living on Social Security. If our budget isn't balanced, cutting funds for the latter to give cuts to the former is **** policy.

I'm literally talking only about the federal budget. Stop jumping to conclusions. I have no "desired social outcomes". It's just basic math.

 

[luthervol]

View attachment 724663
First thing that comes to mind when I read your contortionist posts. You call Trump the worst based on miniscule requirements while dismissing the evil done by other potus.

Nice.....did you sleep on that one?

First thing that comes to mind when I read one of your "totally missed the point" responses is that of a blind stick figure stuck knee deep in concrete. See if you can find a gif for that.

Or maybe an isosceles triangle from Flatlander.

 

[McDad]

That's up to Congress based on the will of their voters, as well as a reasoned look at what is actually beneficial.

This is where it gets tricky, because a Congressperson's main goal is re-election. And they need money for that. From rich people and corporate lobbies. Those voices tend to outweigh that of the working single mom back in the district. We also know they use their mailing privilege to help form the narrative on "what they're doing" for you back home, as they know the average person isn't reading bills and watching votes. So the loudest, most powerful voice becomes who has the money.

This also sorta relates to my other belief that bills should stand alone. So much of the actual "waste" in government is shoving in payoffs for members for pork projects so that they will vote for a bill or shoving in pet projects into must-pass bills, like defense, farm bill, etc.

A great start would be an actual budget, negotiated by both sides in good faith.
Create a base-line document of agreed upon spending, then negotiate extra spending (pork) case-by-case.
Is it a lot of work? Sure. But I feel like Congress would have plenty of time if it cut back on wasteful grandstanding committees and filibustering.

agree with stand alone bills, an actual budget, and the politician's priority of re election.

do you see taxes and programs for the needy as a zero sum game?

 

[LSU-SIU]

US threatens permanent visa bans on trans athletes based on sex markers

The US state department has ordered officials worldwide to deny visas to transgender athletes attempting to come to the US for sports competitions and to issue permanent visa bans against those who are deemed to misrepresent their birth sex on visa applications.

The 24 February state department cable obtained by the Guardian instructs visa officers to apply Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) – the “permanent fraud bar” – against trans applicants. Unlike regular visa denials, this section triggers lifetime exclusion from the United States with limited waiver possibilities.


“In cases where applicants are suspected of misrepresenting their purpose of travel or sex, you should consider whether this misrepresentation is material such that it supports an ineligibility finding,” reads the directive from the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio.

Someone do a wellness check on huff, dink and nash in a few minutes.