Jump to content

Donald Trump 2018

TheFlyingBoat

By TheFlyingBoat
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3593

  • retread

    1324

  • Brisketexan

    1195

  • jimmyjazz

    1186

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

M12BH
M12BH

SInce y'all seem to be my clearinghouse for all things political, let me tell a story.  A couple of them, actually.  Three, if you want to be specific. When I was 14 I went with a family frien

ConferenceRoom
ConferenceRoom
brown water
brown water

Slocum’s Razor

yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

Wall ain't gonna fund itself, people. I think the ship has sailed on mexico paying for it

that man has never taken a breath that he actually thought mexico would spend a dime on that wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11035

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

This is a troll job. Act specifically mentions the President, VP, etc. Was rolled out 3 days after Trump's inauguration. Look at its sponsors:

    Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA] 

Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]*    01/23/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO]*    01/23/2017
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]*    01/23/2017
Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]    03/21/2017
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]    04/24/2017
Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA]    09/19/2017
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV]

Thatisaweomegif.

Soon as he is out, rescind bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He's doing his best "Warriors!  Come out and PLAAAYAY!" routine on team Trump.  They'll eventually take the whole bait, which is what he wants.

yep...and so far he's taking it to them like a champ.

dude's slick as fuck and a damn good tactician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Thatisaweomegif.

Soon as he is out, rescind bill.

Well, actually some of those sponsors have been crusading against this type of thing for a while as a little pet publicity issue. But man, calling it the "EGO" Act, introducing it on January 23, 2017, etc. And the preamble to  the first committee report starts with this:

Quote

S. 188, would prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay for the costs of painting portraits of officers and employees of the Federal Government, 
including the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, the head of an Executive agency, and the head of an office of the Legislative Branch.

and then it includes this:

Quote

Typically, official portraits for the President, the First Lady, and certain Members of Congress (including committee chairs) are commissioned with private funding,\22\ though the 
House of Representatives has traditionally allowed appropriation of funds for portraits of the Speaker of the House.\23\ By prohibiting Federal spending on official portraits, the bill would encourage Congress as well as Federal agencies to adopt this same fiscally responsible approach of relying on private donations.

Oh, and hey - these have been banned anyways by federal appropriations laws since 2014! Ha! The CBO analysis:

Quote

 Appropriation laws have prohibited the use of federal funds 
for such portraits since fiscal year 2014. CBO is unaware of 
any comprehensive information on spending for official 
portraits before 2014, but we expect that most portraits of 
federal officials are for those in the line of succession to 
the presidency, members of the legislative branch, and military 
service personnel. The cost of such portraits appears to be 
about $25,000 per portrait, based on contract awards for a few 
federal portraits.
    Implementing S. 188 could reduce future discretionary costs 
because the prohibition on using appropriated funds for such 
portraits is not in permanent law. However, those effects would 
be less than $500,000 annually because CBO expects that fewer 
than 20 portraits would be purchased with federal funds in most 
years. Enacting S. 188 could affect direct spending by some 
agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that 
any net changes in spending by those agencies would be 
negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 188 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.

So unless the appropriations rules change, it is financially MEANINGLESS. 

Edited by Grandioso
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Well, actually some of those sponsors have been crusading against this type of thing for a while as a little pet publicity issue. But man, calling it the "EGO" Act, introducing it on January 23, 2017, etc. And the preamble to  the first committee report starts with this:

and then it includes this:

Oh, and hey - these have been banned anyways by federal appropriations laws since 2014! Ha! The CBO analysis:

So unless the appropriations rules change, it is financially MEANINGLESS. 

So, what you're saying is, Trump wins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why did we need this appropriations rule put into permanent law? Reasonably popular politicians like Obama get these gifted through private donations. Spending on paintings have been prohibited by appropriations rules for 3 years. No one in Congress is clamoring for the return of fancy oil paintings. 

Only reason I see for passing this bill is to make Trump sign a law banning any type of government-funded vain artistic tribute to himself.

Edited by Grandioso
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15774

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

14 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Only reason I see for passing this bill is to make Trump sign a law banning any type of government-funded vain artistic tribute to himself.

 This is apparently exactly why they did it.  Trump just made a fool of himself.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
Posted (edited)

Instead of a law about portraits we need a law about signs and pictures in government offices or billboards on the highway.  When I go to a national park, a rest stop, the drivers licence office, the passport office and dozens more I see some sign with the picture of some government official.  As soon as we get a new official thousands of old signs come down and new ones go up.  When driving across a state line it's not important to me to get welcomed to a new state by the current Governor.  I don't need to know which President is in charge of the passport office. 

 

When tabulating the ego purchases portraits rate low.

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13581

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

After congratulating Bob on the great interview, the next order of business is a hearty 'Fuck you Trump'.  

Also, after a weekend of boozing it was fun to go back and see what's left of the Shag.  EpicQueen is still posting in the Hillary thread.  If there's a God, he won't find his way here. 

#quinning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Maryland, marks the first time that a lawsuit of this kind has cleared the initial legal hurdle — a finding that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue the president in the first place.

In this case, Messitte found that D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) have legal standing to sue Trump over the business of the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington. 

As part of that ruling, Messitte said he rejected an argument previously made by critics of the lawsuit — that, under the Constitution, only Congress may decide whether the president has violated the emoluments clauses.

“In absence of Congressional approval, this Court holds that it may review the actions of the President to determine if they comply with the law,” Messitte wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27653

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't see how this is such a hard issue to get him on.  The secret service has to rent golf carts at maralago whenever they go down there.  That money goes directly to his company.  There it is.

The issue is proving that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit. Every other case involving emoluments has been dismissed. However, since what trump is doing is directly against the Maryland state constitution they have a much stronger claim as his businesses are provably causing harm to businesses in their state

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The issue is proving that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the suit. Every other case involving emoluments has been dismissed. However, since what trump is doing is directly against the Maryland state constitution they have a much stronger claim as his businesses are provably causing harm to businesses in their state

when i see your username now my brain registers it as "Capt. Taint"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21151

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Instead of a law about portraits we need a law about signs and pictures in government offices or billboards on the highway.  When I go to a national park, a rest stop, the drivers licence office, the passport office and dozens more I see some sign with the picture of some government official.  As soon as we get a new official thousands of old signs come down and new ones go up.  When driving across a state line it's not important to me to get welcomed to a new state by the current Governor.  I don't need to know which President is in charge of the passport office. 

 

When tabulating the ego purchases portraits rate low.

Yeah but then you don’t get to laugh at some half faded, power-washed sign of the governor that’s currently sitting in jail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grandioso

Grandioso 2592

Posted
Posted
Quote

medieval history

So, Ignautius J. Reilly? Excellent.

 

United States Attorney's Office

Washington, DC

USA

Mr. Robert Mueller, Mongoloid, Esq.:

We have received via post your absurd comments about Mr. Trump's statements, the comments revealing, as they did, your total lack of contact with reality. Were you more aware, you would know or realize by now that the offending statements were made with our full knowledge that they were dishonest.

“Why? Why?” you are in your incomprehensible babble, unable to assimilate stimulating concepts of commerce into your retarded and blighted worldview.

The tweets were sent to you (1) as a means of testing your initiative and (2) as a means of testing your ability to meet the standards requisite in a special prosecutor. 

We do not wish to be bothered in the future by such tedious complaints. Please confine your correspondence to orders only. We are a busy and dynamic organization whose mission needless effrontery and harassment can only hinder. If you molest us again, sir, you may feel the sting of the lash across your pitiful shoulders.

Yours in anger,

Andrew Ekonomou

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13307

Posted
Posted

Swam is a visionary. He sees the future in reverse by inserting the present through the anus of the past. His photographic memory takes a snapshot of each sphincter that is uniquely individual like a fingerprint. He then presses his third eye directly against the anus that reveals untainted truths and incurable conjunctivitis. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...