@AverageJoe1 saidWhy don't you actually delve into what that provision actually means. A few days ago you said it wasn't even a provision.
I am not the 'current historian' that you are, but this provision apparently is something new to cure some existing problem? Sounds OK to me, the mi-appropriation of funds. So can you put in plain english what your point is?
My comprehension as you call it is somewhat limited in this matter since I play golf while you and Marauder make a life out of educating ...[text shortened]... hed the basics of Common Sense for years here, note that Trump is now using that phrase quite a lot.
Do you get the part where that provision stops money from coming in to SCOTUS and lower courts?
Can you see THAT at least?
@sonhouse saidI've said before, we pay salaries to have people in DC make decisions affecting our lives. We live by their decisions. People like you storm their houses, people like your leader Schumer,, when he doesn't like decisions, tells them "You Will Pay!!" and such as that. I am too busy to storm.
Why don't you actually delve into what that provision actually means. A few days ago you said it wasn't even a provision.
Do you get the part where that provision stops money from coming in to SCOTUS and lower courts?
Can you see THAT at least?
Did you like the decision that trans people are to be recognized unreasonably, to put it mildly? So, not all of us are happy with all of their decisions. I live with the decisions, you jump in with hands and feet to go nuts. We all elect Trump, you impeach Trump.
And in all this, Sue says we on the planet are all the same. I think she means more than homus erectus...she thinks that, well, we are the same. We are Charles Manson.
You Impeach, we respect The Law.
\
So in closing, I may not like a law, or this thing you are talking about here, but find it a waste of time to tell you all that I do not like it. I of course will say that a man cannot be a woman, as Marauder says they can, but I just say it, give my 'coherent' reasoning, which you do not,, and go on my way.
I am OK with SCOTUS stuff. I think 9 of them is a good number, you and AOC want about 23 of them. But wait, are we not all the same? Sue says we are.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you refuse to actual even TRY to suss out what it mean to stop money coming in to SCOTUS or lower for money SPECIFICALLY for orders or contempt, Thus has NOTHING to do with SCOTUS or any lower court paychecks.
I've said before, we pay salaries to have people in DC make decisions affecting our lives. We live by their decisions. People like you storm their houses, people like your leader Schumer,, when he doesn't like decisions, tells them "You Will Pay!!" and such as that. I am too busy to storm.
Did you like the decision that trans people are to be recognized unreas ...[text shortened]... od number, you and AOC want about 23 of them. But wait, are we not all the same? Sue says we are.
This controls the ENFORCEMENT. No money to get cops no enforcement.
Do you maybe understand that and the implications?
Or will you just continue to stick your head in the sand going NYAH NYAH I can't HEAR YOU.
Or possibility #2, you know exactly what is going on and cannot admit you are totally ok with that provision when you KNOW Trump can give the middle finger salute to ANY court order which means there will be NO oversight to any Trump abuse of power.
Is THAT the real case here?
@sonhouse saidNo, I do NOT understand. That is what I am saying, man. Many legislators , (530?)with help of maybe 5 staff persons each for research, make concerted decisions. I do not have a staff and cannot vote one way or another.
So you refuse to actual even TRY to suss out what it mean to stop money coming in to SCOTUS or lower for money SPECIFICALLY for orders or contempt, Thus has NOTHING to do with SCOTUS or any lower court paychecks.
This controls the ENFORCEMENT. No money to get cops no enforcement.
Do you maybe understand that and the implications?
Or will you just continue to stick your he ...[text shortened]... der which means there will be NO oversight to any Trump abuse of power.
Is THAT the real case here?
You imply that you know enough to weigh in on the matter, and YOU have decided that it is a bad decision. I myself, to put it bluntly have got to abstain.
I abstain, Sonhouse, because I do not have enough info to make a decision. YOU obviously know as much as the legislators do, staying up all night to study the ramifications.
I hope your findings make it to DC, and I hope, for you, that you get the changes made.
@AverageJoe1 saidYOU CALL YOURSELF A LAWYER and you cannot understand what that provision means? I sure as HELL won't call YOU for any legal problems I run into.
No, I do NOT understand. That is what I am saying, man. Many legislators , (530?)with help of maybe 5 staff persons each for research, make concerted decisions. I do not have a staff and cannot vote one way or another.
You imply that you know enough to weigh in on the matter, and YOU have decided that it is a bad decision. I myself, to put it bluntly have got to a ...[text shortened]... cations.
I hope your findings make it to DC, and I hope, for you, that you get the changes made.
What part of refusing to give courts money SPECIFICALLY for enforcement issues, paying cops to come to someone's door and say, you are in contempt of court XYZ and you are hereby under arrest and you need to come with me.
NO MONEY FOR THAT.
NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE.
Does that clear it up?
@sonhouse saidNot really. It tells me that you must have missed something. Look at what you are saying. You are saying that (some entity) is refusing to give courts money that you imply that the courts are entitled to.
YOU CALL YOURSELF A LAWYER and you cannot understand what that provision means? I sure as HELL won't call YOU for any legal problems I run into.
What part of refusing to give courts money SPECIFICALLY for enforcement issues, paying cops to come to someone's door and say, you are in contempt of court XYZ and you are hereby under arrest and you need to come with me.
NO MONEY FOR THAT.
NO ENFORCEMENT POSSIBLE.
Does that clear it up?
They are either, #1, NOT entitled to the money, OR, #2, they are entitled to the money but the entity is acting improperly to not give the entitled money to the courts, which you imply that the entity is required to give to them and that the courts are entitled to get it.
Please write a coherent complete post. Re-read these 2 paragraphs so that YOU will understand, turkey. 🤔
I have my thoughts together, get your thoughts together. TDS has seeped in everywhere with you.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou really don't know who allots money to the government? You passed the bar exam?
Not really. It tells me that you must have missed something. Look at what you are saying. You are saying that (some entity) is refusing to give courts money that you imply that the courts are entitled to.
They are either, #1, NOT entitled to the money, OR, #2, they are entitled to the money but the entity is acting improperly to not give the entitled money to the ...[text shortened]... I have my thoughts together, get your thoughts together. TDS has seeped in everywhere with you.
CONGRESS does money. THAT IS THEIR JOB. NOT SCOTUS, NOT POTUS. NOT DOJ. NOT FBI, NOT CIA.
You don't get money you are crippled.
What is so hard to understand about that? This is NOT about their monthly paychecks, this is about one issue, the enforcement of court orders, injunctions and the like.
Why am I, a mere electronics technician telling you this like you are some 8th grader?
1 edit
@sonhouse saidBar exam years ago,,,,,,LAW school. Law. you are talking about today, and not about law. You are talking about government policy,....I didn't study welfare, either, you silly goose.
You really don't know who allots money to the government? You passed the bar exam?
CONGRESS does money. THAT IS THEIR JOB. NOT SCOTUS, NOT POTUS. NOT DOJ. NOT FBI, NOT CIA.
You don't get money you are crippled.
What is so hard to understand about that? This is NOT about their monthly paychecks, this is about one issue, the enforcement of court orders, injunctions and the like.
Why am I, a mere electronics technician telling you this like you are some 8th grader?
YOu spend 3 sentences on congress allotments. what a study. Then, you talk about 'what you think' about court expenditures and the like? Never formed opinions on that either, can't learn it all!!!!!!!
You are definitely an expert on both.....govt policies ad welfare!!! Gimme It!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidHEY, I posted THREE separate links to analysis on this very provision.
Bar exam years ago,,,,,,LAW school. Law. you are talking about today, and not about law. You are talking about government policy,....I didn't study welfare, either, you silly goose.
YOu spend 3 sentences on congress allotments. what a study. Then, you talk about 'what you think' about court expenditures and the like? Never formed opinions on that either, can't ...[text shortened]... t all!!!!!!!
You are definitely an expert on both.....govt policies ad welfare!!! Gimme It!!!
I guess you didn't deign to read those either.
So as far as you are concerned, I am chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Unless you actually know exactly what I am talking about and behind all that bravado you hope ALL that ugly bill gets passed AND your lord Trump really becomes King Trump. So which stance is your correct one?
@sonhouse saidNot interested in 2nd guessing legislators I voted for, I don’t bother cooks I hire, either. They been to cook school, you see.
HEY, I posted THREE separate links to analysis on this very provision.
I guess you didn't deign to read those either.
So as far as you are concerned, I am chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Unless you actually know exactly what I am talking about and behind all that bravado you hope ALL that ugly bill gets passed AND your lord Trump really becomes King Trump. So which stance is your correct one?
Yes, you are chicken little. You are the only person in the universe that thinks that Trump has some people in his bunker building up for a takeover.
The only person. Can you name another responsible person with such thoughts as yours.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidThen you really are STUPID. You don't care for instance 10 MILLION or more will lose their insurance because of this ugly POS bill. You go it is a beautiful bill BECAUISE my lord Trump SAYS it is no matter WHO gets hurt.
Not interested in 2nd guessing legislators I voted for, I don’t bother cooks I hire, either. They been to cook school, you see.
Yes, you are chicken little. You are the only person in the universe that thinks that Trump has some people in his bunker building up for a takeover.
The only person. Can you name another responsible person with such thoughts as yours.
No matter if courts are crippled to the point where their orders are just suggestions with no power to enforce.
I can only conclude you will be fine with the loss of our democracy because democracy means nothing to you OR your ultrarightwingnut buddies.
ONLY POWER means anything to those zombies.
And here is my prediction, when the protests get so big it is obvious republicans will be thrown out of office because they care ONLY for personal power over the needs of their constituents, the democracy is already lost and Trump will call out martial law and use the military to quell all protests, stop elections completely, claiming he is saving the country.
He already said he can not be breaking any law when he is 'saving' the country.
I heard him say that on TV.
So YOU are one of those who will have to live with the shame of the death of democracy here in the US and we become another Hungary with someone like Orban as our beloved ''leader''.
There will be a special place in hell for the likes of you who NEVER bother to look and ANY republican motivation for what they are planning.
The most incompetent and corrupt government from top to bottom WITHOUT A DOUBT in US history.
Like Trump abusing the pardon power, just pardoning a sheriff who SOLD deputy badges gaining himself over 100 thousand dollars in bribes AND caught on camera accepting those bribes. A government official who should never have been pardoned but his friends are MAGA so that is all it takes to get a pardon and a lot of other pardons like that, one dude convicted of fraud PROVEN 100% in court, his mom gives ONE MILLION DOLLARS to Trump and 3 days later, he is sprung.
Full pardon.
Just an EXAMPLE of the corruption going on right in front of our noses like that two BILLION dollar 'investment' in Trump's coin grift and the top buyers getting a private dinner with your lord Trump but when the winners were announced about that particular corrupt activity, the recipients had dinner expecting to be able to talk to your lord Trump.
But after a short speech he disappears AND they said the so called dinner was the worse food they ever saw, that is how corrupt Trump is, after 300 MILLION of his coins purchased he didn't even have the decency to talk to those people who were totally duped into believing they might get an audience with him, instead he blows them off and disappears.
Juist like the term Europe has given him TACO.
Trump ALWAYS CHICKENS OUT.
T A C O.
You will have to live with the shame of the end of a quarter MILLENIUM of democracy if that bill is passed congress without you even LOOKING at the consequences of the bill and its hidden provisions.
If that does happen you WILL live in shame the rest of your life.
@AverageJoe1 saidThis is NOT about THOSE programs. This is about THREE separate agencies going to get HUGE cuts. EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION cut from Medicaid and all you can do is yet another whatabouthimism.
Hey you keep writing about ME, a boring subject.
I do suggest that you get the whole Med picture, there are millions on the program that should not be there, they are committing a crime, if i were president I would prosecute them. Do you know any cheaters???
AND adding near 5 TRILLION RIGHT UP FRONT IN THE BILL to our national debt.
What happened to the former republican agenda of reducing the national debt?
Also BTW, your republican reps, senate AND house, when a town hall meeting and your republicans refuse to show up. That alone says your republican reps don't care about democracy at all because if they were doing their job they would be listening to constituent issues, people want to talk to their reps but they are LITERALLY hiding out. This is not just one state, this is ALL states both senate and house, town hall meeting where the senator or house member refuses to talk to their constituents.
Right there it is giving the message those folks are interested in one thing only, POWER, keeping it and expanding it if they can.
Or alternatively why don't you tell me YOUR take on why your republican leaders are refusing to meet with their constituents. I'm quite sure you can come up with a reasonable explanation........
@sonhouse saidI don’t know. I can’t know everything. You got me.
This is NOT about THOSE programs. This is about THREE separate agencies going to get HUGE cuts. EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION cut from Medicaid and all you can do is yet another whatabouthimism.
AND adding near 5 TRILLION RIGHT UP FRONT IN THE BILL to our national debt.
What happened to the former republican agenda of reducing the national debt?
Also BTW, your republican reps, se ...[text shortened]... o meet with their constituents. I'm quite sure you can come up with a reasonable explanation........
You are aware that you are overwhelmed with all of this information, when I have yet to even think about turning a page on all this information. I guess I’m too busy.
I am curious of one thing, over and above the fact that you seem to want what average Joe thinks about something….. what would that accomplish?? But more to the point, what do you hope to achieve with all of this laborious treatment of all of these subjects? do you think it will cause a sway of someone?
An example would be did you ever sway anyone on the forum that it was an insurrection? I think that’s a good example. Of course you did not. So why keep all of this up?
@AverageJoe1 saidYOU are UNDERWHELMED, you don't give a rats ass about ANY of it and you think your power hungry repubs are actually interested in the lives of their constituents. They are CLEARLY not because they don't even TALK to them.
I don’t know. I can’t know everything. You got me.
You are aware that you are overwhelmed with all of this information, when I have yet to even think about turning a page on all this information. I guess I’m too busy.
I am curious of one thing, over and above the fact that you seem to want what average Joe thinks about something….. what would that accomplish?? ...[text shortened]... s an insurrection? I think that’s a good example. Of course you did not. So why keep all of this up?
But all that seems just FINE with you, the fact they are not interested in pursuing democracy, that is they are elected to help their constituents but the bills they are working on DIRECTLY NEGATIVELY impacts their own constituents.
What do you have to say about THAT?