OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[from HCR]

As his tariffs are beginning to bite, today [Trump] suggested his worry about the economic fallout by posting “CHINA SHOULD OPEN UP ITS MARKET TO USA—WOULD BE SO GOOD FOR THEM!!! CLOSED MARKETS DON’T WORK ANYMORE!!!” Five minutes later, he posted: “80% Tariff on China seems right! Up to Scott B.”

The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to set tariffs. Trump seized that power for himself by declaring an emergency. Now he appears to be handing that power to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, likely so that he can blame Bessent when things go poorly.

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

[from HCR]

As his tariffs are beginning to bite, today [Trump] suggested his worry about the economic fallout by posting “CHINA SHOULD OPEN UP ITS MARKET TO USA—WOULD BE SO GOOD FOR THEM!!! CLOSED MARKETS DON’T WORK ANYMORE!!!” Five minutes later, he posted: “80% Tariff on China seems right! Up to Scott B.”

The Constitution gives Congress alone the power to set tariffs. Trump seized that power for himself by declaring an emergency. Now he appears to be handing that power to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, likely so that he can blame Bessent when things go poorly.

Blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah....blah.

 

[Heels Noir]

It's Saturday, May 10, and in today's edition of How is Trump Lying to America This Time? let's watch this clip from yesterday in the Oval Office:



So, now for the TRUTH. The United States did not lose $1 trillion to China last year in our trade deficit with them. The actual amount was less that $300 billion. And although that sounds like a lot of money, it helps if one knows how our economy works.

First of all, a trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing and it often indicates a robust domestic economy with high consumer spending and investment. What's more, imports provide consumers with access to a wider variety of goods at lower prices and trade deficits can stimulate economic activity, boost living standards, lead to capital inflows, and enhance economic growth.

Here in America, we are extremely wealthy and to have such purchasing power is a wonderful thing, while importing less than $300 billion in goods from China is, for America, a bargain, a virtual steal. But Donald Trump is too dumb to understand this and his sycophants who do know better obviously lack the courage to tell him, so instead they allow him to go before the world press and make a fool of himself by spouting off these idiotic figures.

Trump wrong that China made $1 trillion off US trade in 2024

Donald Trump said the U.S. trade deficit with China is $1 trillion. It's much smaller by any measure. In 2024, the U.S. trade deficit for goods with China was $293 billion.

www.politifact.com

But I believe our trade war with China will soon be coming to an end. Trump is showing all the tell-tale signs of a desperate man who is about to cave to the pressure. He is on the verge of bending over and politely asking XI to give it to him good.

 

[Heels Noir]

Pete Buttigeig was a much better Secretary of Transportation than the reality television personality Sean Duffy is, and it's not even close. Only your homophobia tells you otherwise.

 

[bluetoe]

Interesting to know that you are in charge of cleaning his nuts and could invite @bluetoe to do so. Or, are you just fantasizing about holding such a position? It would explain much.

good you noticed that he ( @Heels Noir ) included no option for NOT licking the nuts. Bit of a Freudian slip on his part, I surmise, wanting no barrier to his fantasy being acted upon by his imaginary proxy. I wager a psychologist would agree that his extreme obsession with Trump is at root a sexual one. Or a sexual one at Trump's root, might be more like it.

Astute observation on your part.

 

[bluetoe]

Why don't you do a little research before making a fool of yourself?

It's true, no country is required to assist other nations but most do it anyway. Certainly the U.S. is among them. But as I wrote less than a half-hour ago up above, this money to address poverty and world hunger has been appropriated by Congress since the 1960s and this administration's elimination of it without explicit Congressional approval is illegal and unconstitutional.

Your turn. Go ahead and say something else that is profoundly stupid and ill-informed.

as long as we're speaking in generalities, Congress appropriates the dough, but the Exec branch spends it according to what the bill consists of. Why don't you find out what the bill consists of and THEN try to relate any illegality.

It comes to mind that a member of the executive branch once went to Ukraine to deliver a large chunk of aid but threatened right then and there to withhold...nay CANCEL...that duly appropriated money if the prosecutor investigating his son's company wasn't taken off the case. And yes of course I know he was to be fired and taken off ALL cases, but that one in particular bears witness to the ability of the executive branch to execute as it sees fit, for any reason it deems appropriate to its own interests. Please enlighten us as to the difference in what different administrations are properly allowed to do.

Don't bother repeating once more 'but the world wanted that prosecutor fired'. That isn't the point. The question is, what limits/allowances are placed on the executive branch when it comes to releasing or withholding aid, and are those limits consistent through various admins. And the answer is, the executive branch can withhold money if there is benefit to our country in doing so. That is precisely the executive branch's job.

 

[Heels Noir]

as long as we're speaking in generalities, Congress appropriates the dough, but the Exec branch spends it according to what the bill consists of. Why don't you find out what the bill consists of and THEN try to relate any illegality.

Well, at least you got two-thirds of it correct, which for you makes this a surprisingly good day.

Yes, Congress establishes the rules for how the government can spend money through appropriation bills that specify how much money can be used for which purposes.

And the President and the executive branch agencies do implement the spending decisions as authorized by Congress.

However, and this is what you are obviously ignorant of, there are checks and balances in place to prevent the mishandling of these funds. The Impoundment Control Act, for example, limits the President's ability to refuse to spend or to divert funds appropriated by Congress according to the Government Accountability Office.

It makes no difference what the bill consists of, but how's that for "any illegality"?


The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) is a US federal law that limits the President's ability to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress. It established procedures for the President to notify Congress of any proposed deferral or rescission of budget authority and for Congress to review and potentially disapprove those actions. The ICA was enacted to reassert Congress's power of the purse and prevent the executive branch from unilaterally altering the budget.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Update: For GAO’s most recent testimony on the Impoundment Control Act, visit Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget—Proposals to...

www.gao.gov

 

[bluetoe]

Well, at least you got two-thirds of it correct, which for you makes this a surprisingly good day.

Yes, Congress establishes the rules for how the government can spend money through appropriation bills that specify how much money can be used for which purposes.

And the President and the executive branch agencies do implement the spending decisions as authorized by Congress.

However, and this is what you are obviously ignorant of, there are checks and balances in place to prevent the mishandling of these funds. The Impoundment Control Act, for example, limits the President's ability to refuse to spend or to divert funds appropriated by Congress according to the Government Accountability Office.

It makes no difference what the bill consists of, but how's that for "any illegality"?


The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) is a US federal law that limits the President's ability to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress. It established procedures for the President to notify Congress of any proposed deferral or rescission of budget authority and for Congress to review and potentially disapprove those actions. The ICA was enacted to reassert Congress's power of the purse and prevent the executive branch from unilaterally altering the budget.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Update: For GAO’s most recent testimony on the Impoundment Control Act, visit Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget—Proposals to...

www.gao.gov

well, you got the part right in what you c&p'd that says exactly what I maintained. Thanks for verifying.. Where's the part that answers the question of consistent application through various admins? Biden acted on his own and spontaneously when he decided ON THE SPOT and the spur of the moment to leverage...extort....Ukraine. Where is the congressional approval for Biden's action which the lack of makes the Trump admin's action illegal according to you? Where is the congressional approval that sanctioned Biden's act?

Where are the stipulations of the Congressional creation of the aid bill in question, which I indicated were needed for purposes of this discussion?

Where is your explanation for the difference, which I clearly asked you for? Are you once again doing what you accuse me of? Of course you are, which makes for you a typical day..

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Pete Buttigeig was a much better Secretary of Transportation than the reality television personality Sean Duffy is, and it's not even close. Only your homophobia tells you otherwise.

View embedded media

Oh a video by nutjob piles of shit makes it official...... Buttplug pushed DEI on the DoT, that caused a shortage of ATCs we now see across the country so STFU. Buttplug's disaster

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

It's Saturday, May 10, and in today's edition of How is Trump Lying to America This Time? let's watch this clip from yesterday in the Oval Office:

View embedded media

So, now for the TRUTH. The United States did not lose $1 trillion to China last year in our trade deficit with them. The actual amount was less that $300 billion. And although that sounds like a lot of money, it helps if one knows how our economy works.

First of all, a trade deficit isn't necessarily a bad thing and it often indicates a robust domestic economy with high consumer spending and investment. What's more, imports provide consumers with access to a wider variety of goods at lower prices and trade deficits can stimulate economic activity, boost living standards, lead to capital inflows, and enhance economic growth.

Here in America, we are extremely wealthy and to have such purchasing power is a wonderful thing, while importing less than $300 billion in goods from China is, for America, a bargain, a virtual steal. But Donald Trump is too dumb to understand this and his sycophants who do know better obviously lack the courage to tell him, so instead they allow him to go before the world press and make a fool of himself by spouting off these idiotic figures.

Trump wrong that China made $1 trillion off US trade in 2024

Donald Trump said the U.S. trade deficit with China is $1 trillion. It's much smaller by any measure. In 2024, the U.S. trade deficit for goods with China was $293 billion.

www.politifact.com

But I believe our trade war with China will soon be coming to an end. Trump is showing all the tell-tale signs of a desperate man who is about to cave to the pressure. He is on the verge of bending over and politely asking XI to give it to him good.

You're a delusional pile of crap. I am guessing you are not an alumnus, but a Chapel Hill nutjob thinking college rubbed off you because you stare at male students along Franklin Street.

 

[Heels Noir]

Where is the congressional approval for Biden's action which the lack of makes the Trump admin's action illegal according to you? Where is the congressional approval that sanctioned Biden's act?

Where is your explanation for the difference, which I clearly asked you for? Are you once again doing what you accuse me of? Of course you are, which makes for you a typical day..

Do you really need someone to explain this to you? Do you follow anything other than FOX News?

In March 2016, then Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold appropriated funding to Ukraine before they heeded his demand and ousted their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Since it was unnecessary for the Obama Administration to followup on these threats, no laws were violated. Furthermore, since Biden was acting in a bipartisan manner, Congress would have likely approved it since these funds would be withheld for a reason in the economic, geopolitical, and general interest of the United States.

Donald Trump, both over the summer of 2019 (which led to his first impeachment) and again with the recent and unapproved cuts to funding without the approved consent of Congress, are clear cases of overreach by the President and illegal.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[Heels Noir]

It comes to mind that a member of the executive branch once went to Ukraine to deliver a large chunk of aid but threatened right then and there to withhold...nay CANCEL...that duly appropriated money if the prosecutor investigating his son's company wasn't taken off the case. And yes of course I know he was to be fired and taken off ALL cases, but that one in particular bears witness to the ability of the executive branch to execute as it sees fit, for any reason it deems appropriate to its own interests. Please enlighten us as to the difference in what different administrations are properly allowed to do.

Don't bother repeating once more 'but the world wanted that prosecutor fired'. That isn't the point. The question is, what limits/allowances are placed on the executive branch when it comes to releasing or withholding aid, and are those limits consistent through various admins. And the answer is, the executive branch can withhold money if there is benefit to our country in doing so. That is precisely the executive branch's job.

There is nothing in this world sadder than a gullible moron who spends his hours promoting debunked conspiracy theories:

Trump Revives False Narrative on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org

At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden's work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.

www.factcheck.org

At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Donald Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.

As we have reported more than once last year, Biden traveled to Kyiv as vice president and warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees until Ukraine removed its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, who was widely viewed as corrupt.

At the time, the international community and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine were also calling for Shokin to be removed from office for his failure to aggressively prosecute corruption.

But Trump has repeatedly distorted the facts about Biden’s work in Ukraine to baselessly accuse his Democratic rival of seeking Shokin’s removal to help his son, Hunter, who at the time was a board member of a Ukraine gas company called Burisma. He left the board in 2019.

In Des Moines, Iowa, on Oct. 14, Trump cited “explosive documents” published earlier that day by the New York Post to revive his widely discredited claim that Biden “went to Ukraine and threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid if they did not fire the prosecutor that was investigating his son and the company that his son worked for.”

As we’ve written, there’s no evidence Hunter Biden was being investigated.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Do you really need someone to explain this to you? Do you follow anything other than FOX News?

In March 2016, then Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold appropriated funding to Ukraine before they heeded his demand and ousted their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Since it was unnecessary for the Obama Administration to followup on these threats, no laws were violated. Furthermore, since Biden was acting in a bipartisan manner, Congress would have likely approved it since these funds would be withheld for a reason in the economic, geopolitical, and general interest of the United States.

Donald Trump, both over the summer of 2019 (which led to his first impeachment) and again with the recent and unapproved cuts to funding without the approved consent of Congress, are clear cases of overreach by the President and illegal.

The prosecutor was investigating the corrupt Burisma company that paid hunter biden, that is blackmail using USG money to protect his son's salary. Retard biden bragged on video he blackmailed Ukraine officials.

Imagine if Trump held back USG money to help his son...you would go ape shit you f-ng hypocrite.

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Dumbass, they pay the majority of income taxes. Your jealousy shows you are a failure in life.

 

[bluetoe]

Do you really need someone to explain this to you? Do you follow anything other than FOX News?

In March 2016, then Vice President Joe Biden threatened to withhold appropriated funding to Ukraine before they heeded his demand and ousted their top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Since it was unnecessary for the Obama Administration to followup on these threats, no laws were violated. Furthermore, since Biden was acting in a bipartisan manner, Congress would have likely approved it since these funds would be withheld for a reason in the economic, geopolitical, and general interest of the United States.

Donald Trump, both over the summer of 2019 (which led to his first impeachment) and again with the recent and unapproved cuts to funding without the approved consent of Congress, are clear cases of overreach by the President and illegal.

do you honestly not realize that you just capitulated, and agree that there is no essential difference between what Biden did and what Trump is doing, or are you just doing what you do best?

So Biden DID act without the congressional approval that you say Trump needs in order for his actions to be legal, It's just that Ukraine agreed to the extortion that Biden was leveraging on them, so Biden released the funds. Biden held up, i.e. he withheld, funds that Congress said were to be administered. As I pointed out in order to keep you from using the same old tired excuse, what was felt about the prosecutor in question has no bearing on anything. So of course you drag that out of your weak-ass excuse-maker anyway.

Trump, on the other hand, is holding up funds that Congress decreed be spent, but has not used the allotted funding elsewhere or done anything that keeps the funds from ultimately being used as Congress desired. It too can still be spent. But Trump, acting in the interests of our country, is re-evaluating the dispersal of said funding.

And of course because I'm dealing with you, I have to reiterate that Trump is not extorting any entity, particularly not an entity that is involved with a relative's interests.

BTW, bi-partisanship has no bearing on anything, but nice try working in that attempt to obfuscate. And what Congress would likely have done blah blah is just conjecture and as well has no bearing on anything...unless we have started operating with a crystal ball and a ouija board.

So there you go, no difference. But keep squawking, we expect no less from you.

 

[bluetoe]

There is nothing in this world sadder than a gullible moron who spends his hours promoting debunked conspiracy theories:

Trump Revives False Narrative on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org

At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden's work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.

www.factcheck.org

At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Donald Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.

As we have reported more than once last year, Biden traveled to Kyiv as vice president and warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees until Ukraine removed its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, who was widely viewed as corrupt.

At the time, the international community and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine were also calling for Shokin to be removed from office for his failure to aggressively prosecute corruption.

But Trump has repeatedly distorted the facts about Biden’s work in Ukraine to baselessly accuse his Democratic rival of seeking Shokin’s removal to help his son, Hunter, who at the time was a board member of a Ukraine gas company called Burisma. He left the board in 2019.

In Des Moines, Iowa, on Oct. 14, Trump cited “explosive documents” published earlier that day by the New York Post to revive his widely discredited claim that Biden “went to Ukraine and threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid if they did not fire the prosecutor that was investigating his son and the company that his son worked for.”

As we’ve written, there’s no evidence Hunter Biden was being investigated.

I think all of us who aren't willing dupes understand that Biden had ulterior motives. You are the most willing of dupes, and you are an outstanding dupe among the willing, so you haven't surprised anyone here. And of course I already addressed that you would drag this standard dem apologist crock out as expected. Ho hum.

 

[bluetoe]

nice fairy tale, sad that you would actually use it to try to get an unfounded point across.

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Nazi propaganda the left wing "national socialist" media pushes their lies about Trump while they covered up biden's terrible economy.

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Biden's turd clinton left bush the 9/11 terrorists in the country and biden is leaving various ticking timebombs for Trump.

The thousands of criminals and terrorists lurking in the shadows are biden's fault.

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

NGOs, political PACs and states are suing the Trump Admin for not giving them tax money promised under biden's evil regime. For example, California is suing over Trump blocking money for the EV infrastructure blackhole promised under biden. The corrupt politicians in CA have been stealing Federal and state tax dollars "promised" for the high speed train that has never been built, so they cannot be trusted anymore with DC handouts.

Elections have consequences, the new Admin should not have to continue BS and criminal activities put in place by the previous criminals. This would be like some employees suing the new CEO because the previous CEO gave out $20,000 Christmas bonuses which put the company in financial problems. New leadership means changes.

Do you scumbag leftists think Belichick should be forced to continue what Mack was doing with our football program?

 

[Heels Noir]

do you honestly not realize that you just capitulated, and agree that there is no essential difference between what Biden did and what Trump is doing, or are you just doing what you do best?

I'm amused that I have to correct you multiple times on the same matter. This happens a lot, and without knowing you in person, I'm always wondering if it is because you are in fact that dense or if you're just so devoted to Donald Trump that you will argue with anyone who says a bad thing about him no matter how foolish it makes you look.

To address your wildly erratic contention that there is no difference: Joe Biden never withheld appropriated funds from our allies or Americans, which is illegal. Donald Trump did and is doing it again.

 

[Heels Noir]

Another stunt by MTG blows up in her face.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[bluetoe]

I'm amused that I have to correct you multiple times on the same matter. This happens a lot, and without knowing you in person, I'm always wondering if it is because you are in fact that dense or if you're just so devoted to Donald Trump that you will argue with anyone who says a bad thing about him no matter how foolish it makes you look.

To address your wildly erratic contention that there is no difference: Joe Biden never withheld appropriated funds from our allies or Americans, which is illegal. Donald Trump did and is doing it again.

except you haven't corrected me on a single thing, you've only SAID you have...and we of course know what that's worth and how often you use that ploy. The only question is whether you're really that dumb or if you're just being as disingenuous as usual. I'm sure you know which way I would vote.

Doesn't matter about that though, the bottom line is that you have failed to show an essential difference between what Biden did and what Trump did; but because you have a TDS-riddled brain, you squeal like a little piggy about Trump. We'd be shocked if you weren't as usual acting out of extreme butthurt.

 

[bluetoe]

Biden's turd clinton left bush the 9/11 terrorists in the country and biden is leaving various ticking timebombs for Trump.

The thousands of criminals and terrorists lurking in the shadows are biden's fault.

This is exactly right. Clinton's Republican-fostered balanced budget trimmed national security rather than entitlements. The result? 9/11 terrorists took their flying lessons here while Clinton was in office, and they were handed off to Bush to deal with. Tragedy more extreme than can be imagined ensued.

Case in point, Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden but instead decided not to, based on how it might reflect on the legal propriety and how that might reflect on his presidential image. Three guesses what Trump would have done, and the first two don't count. He would have nailed the bastard, and @Heels Noir would stil be sobbing about how he didn't get the approval of Congress.

This is what dems do. They promote soft-headedness and soft-heartedness instead of meeting reality head on and dealing with it effectively, and then blame the right when the shit hits the fan.

 

[bluetoe]

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Where do you swine find these asinine memes?

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

This is exactly right. Clinton's Republican-fostered balanced budget trimmed national security rather than entitlements. The result? 9/11 terrorists took their flying lessons here while Clinton was in office, and they were handed off to Bush to deal with. Tragedy more extreme than can be imagined ensued.

Case in point, Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden but instead decided not to, based on how it might reflect on the legal propriety and how that might reflect on his presidential image. Three guesses what Trump would have done, and the first two don't count. He would have nailed the bastard, and @Heels Noir would stil be sobbing about how he didn't get the approval of Congress.

This is what dems do. They promote soft-headedness and soft-heartedness instead of meeting reality head on and dealing with it effectively, and then blame the right when the shit hits the fan.

Dick Morris, clinton's CoS, said clinton turned down the CIA 3 times when they gave him chances to kill UBL. Morris said clinton was worried about the little kiddies and women hanging around UBL, especially if CNN caught wind of it. You know it is bad killing the kiddies of terrorists in the minds of left wing trash. I say the relatives and friends hanging out with scum of the Earth are targets too since the main objective is to kill the terrorist, not protect his family.

You know when the SEALs shot and killed some women at the UBL compound during that raid, it pissed off obama, hillary, etc. They likely wanted him arrested for a trial, but the woman in the room was armed with an AK-47, so they both got killed.

When Trump killed the top IRGC General when the was visiting Iraq, the left wing trash went nuts...it's as if they support islamic terrorists. Hmmmm....

 

[90sWoollenGymRat]

Eventually these scum are going to need to be locked in mental wards for being insane trying to pass a Gender Law protecting trannies invading female sports and private spaces. Even the cajun talking penis (Carville) thinks they are insane and destroying the demoncrat party.

male NUTs in female locker rooms