Dictator Trump

[finesse]

I hope you can still do that metaphorically.

 

[Shenanigans]

Uh....you'll have the House in less than 2 years. This is one of the reasons Trump/Musk are moving with such speed.

No we won't, I already told you 70% voting for reasonable decency won't matter.

Y'all are so stupid. Watch.

 

[Shenanigans]

Where is Shenanigans when we need him to shit on somebody's eyeballs?

I have limited time online, as I am making real life plans to destroy rednecks.

 

[Shenanigans]

I have confidence in very little these days, but I do have confidence that when Shena leaves (I'll believe it when I see it, MFer!), we'll have lost our one and only eye shitter.

I'll be lurking with less specifics. Never let the rubes know your plans.

Leaving was a hollow promise, I'm bored

 

[Mulberry Heel]

You are either really dense or a bad troll.

Why not both?

 

[superrific]

1. Impoundment, which has been around for centuries, allows the president to refuse to spend money, right?

2. If we have a legal agreement/contract, I would agree. If not, why can't Trump legally impound money? Also, does the president have the power to stop funding, using impoundment, even if there is a contract in place?

Impoundment has not been around in the US for centuries. The concept comes from the British royalty. The reason that impoundment is not workable in our system is that it makes it impossible for Congress to legislate on a bipartisan basis.

For instance, if Trump were to be allowed to impound allocated funds he doesn't like, then how the fuck are Democrats supposed to negotiate? They can't get anything they want, because Trump won't spend it. And imagine what would happen with a Democratic Congress, or a split Congress. The legislature would lose all power, and the system would break completely.

Anyway, the constitution is very clear on this point. It's not an open question, except maybe in the hands of a lawless Supreme Court that pays little attention to the actual text or history of the constitution.

 

[superrific]

I think there's a difference between not spending and changing where it is spent. For example, rather than waste $70k on musicals or a million on providing Sesame Street for Iranian children, it could be spent on something useful because Congress doesn't specify "spend xxx on musicals, spend xxx on cartoons for Iranian children", right? The specifics on how money is spent is done by the individual departments like USAID or DoD, etc.

There is no difference. If Congress allocates money for musicals, then the executive branch has to fund the musicals.

Congress sometimes allocates money in bulk, and instructs the agencies to dole it out. In that sense, you're right that the executive branch can choose how the money is spent. But that's a function of Congress delegating its power, not an inherent function of the executive branch. And Congress also sets terms as to how the agencies spend the money allocated in bulk. I don't actually know if USAID grants are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, but certainly the rulemaking is and Trump hasn't followed that.

This is also why Congress has historically established independent agencies. Recently, the Supreme Court sort of decided out of thin air based on nothing that independent agencies were unlawful -- except the Federal Reserve, which tells you all you need to know about the principles at work, or rather their absence. The Fed has no greater claim on independence than the CFPB, but the Justices like the former and not the latter so you know.

Also note that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on the non-delegation doctrine. This is not a thing that exists, but Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch (especially Gorsuch) really want to make it one. I don't know about the other three. If the non-delegation doctrine is established, it would neuter much of the ability of the executive branch to choose how to spend the money.

 

[ZenMode]

Impoundment has not been around in the US for centuries. The concept comes from the British royalty. The reason that impoundment is not workable in our system is that it makes it impossible for Congress to legislate on a bipartisan basis.[/QUOTE]Ok... over a century.

Instances of presidential impoundment date back to the early nineteenth century, but Presidents typically sought accommodation rather than confrontation with Congress.4 In the 1950s and 1960s, disputes over the impoundment authority resulted from the refusal of successive Presidents to fund certain weapons systems to the full extent authorized by Congress. These confrontations between the President and Congress revolved around the constitutional role of commander-in-chief and tended to focus on relatively narrow issues of weapons procurement. President Johnson made broader use of his power to impound by ordering the deferral of billions of dollars of spending during the Vietnam war in an effort to restrain inflationary pressures in the economy. While some impoundments during these periods were motivated by policy concerns, they typically involved temporary spending delays, with the President acting in consultation with congressional leaders, so that a protracted confrontation between the branches was avoided.

§015i.01 (CB) Brief History of Impoundment

Cyclopedia of Congressional Budget Law History of Impoundment CRS – Impoundment: A Brief History Impoundment History The following is an excerpt from the CRS Report Item Veto and Expanded Imp…

budgetcounsel.com

For instance, if Trump were to be allowed to impound allocated funds he doesn't like, then how the fuck are Democrats supposed to negotiate? They can't get anything they want, because Trump won't spend it. And imagine what would happen with a Democratic Congress, or a split Congress. The legislature would lose all power, and the system would break completely.

Anyway, the constitution is very clear on this point. It's not an open question, except maybe in the hands of a lawless Supreme Court that pays little attention to the actual text or history of the constitution.

Like I mentioned earlier, the requirement to spend/loan money allocated by Congress isn't the same as a requirement to spend it SPECIFICALLY on musicals, cartoons, condoms, etc aren't the same thing. Again, I really doubt Congress says to the DoD "You have to buy 5 Apache helicopters from Boeing. 400 machine guns from Sig Sauer", etc.

Congress gives USAID a budget and USAID decides how it's used.

 

[superrific]

Impoundment has not been around in the US for centuries. The concept comes from the British royalty. The reason that impoundment is not workable in our system is that it makes it impossible for Congress to legislate on a bipartisan basis.

Ok... over a century.

Instances of presidential impoundment date back to the early nineteenth century, but Presidents typically sought accommodation rather than confrontation with Congress.4 In the 1950s and 1960s, disputes over the impoundment authority resulted from the refusal of successive Presidents to fund certain weapons systems to the full extent authorized by Congress. These confrontations between the President and Congress revolved around the constitutional role of commander-in-chief and tended to focus on relatively narrow issues of weapons procurement. President Johnson made broader use of his power to impound by ordering the deferral of billions of dollars of spending during the Vietnam war in an effort to restrain inflationary pressures in the economy. While some impoundments during these periods were motivated by policy concerns, they typically involved temporary spending delays, with the President acting in consultation with congressional leaders, so that a protracted confrontation between the branches was avoided.


[/QUOTE]

The only actual example of impoundment (pre-Nixon) I'm aware of was Jefferson, and that's a different issue. Basically the impoundment was justified because Congress -- without cars or even telegraphs -- could not respond in real time to developing world affairs. In other words, that particular impoundment was an instance of the president's power over foreign policy. I've not heard of this LBJ impoundment and would have to read more about it.

The examples of "impoundment" under Eisenhower were no such thing. He claimed that there were conflicting federal statutes -- i.e. a debt limit and an appropriation that would exceed the debt limit. I don't know the details if that was true, or how it was true, but that was the claim. That's not impoundment.

And then there was Nixon. Who is not exactly the example you want to cite for the constitutionality of the practice.

I suppose there could be a very narrow case for "impoundment" when there's a conflict between foreign policy and legislation. For instance, suppose the president is negotiating a peace treaty, and the parties agree to a cease-fire while the treaty is being negotiated. Part of the cease-fire is not obtaining more weaponry. If Congress then appropriates $1B for the weapons, one could argue that the president could delay spending that money as part of his commander-in-chief role. Similarly, if Congress appropriates money for, say, torture, which is a violation of international law and a violation of US treaty agreements, the president could refuse to spend that money as against the law.

But those examples are not really impoundment as the term is being used today. Those do not involve the executive making any discretionary judgment as to the appropriateness of spending. You could use the term, but it's not the same concept.

 

[superrific]

Like I mentioned earlier, the requirement to spend/loan money allocated by Congress isn't the same as a requirement to spend it SPECIFICALLY on musicals, cartoons, condoms, etc aren't the same thing. Again, I really doubt Congress says to the DoD "You have to buy 5 Apache helicopters from Boeing. 400 machine guns from Sig Sauer", etc.

What you're talking about here has almost nothing to do with impoundment. When Congress allocates money in block grants to an agency, it includes the delegation of power to exercise discretion in spending it. As I said earlier, that's just ordinary legislation. The money can't be held back, and there's no authority by which the president can "undo" awards already granted (though admittedly I don't know of any authority specifically prohibiting it).

 

[Shenanigans]

Control of the House doesn’t matter, especially now that the executive has the power of the purse. Even if that wasn’t the case we’re still looking at a permanent reshuffling of the social order. The hatred between right and left is here to stay. Conservative kids won’t have liberal friends. Young liberals are going to leave your conservative churches/religions. Conservative young men will not be able to get a date with liberal young women.

You won the game now enjoy your prize.

I agree. In case I haven't said it yet, I hate everyone on the right (and their Zen/OG enablers) with the fire of a thousand hells. Eventually everyone on the left will, but I already know exactly who they are. They need to be destroyed, through chaos, disownment, and intentionally offending them, and soon worse. It's the only thing they know and understand after Trump. Get after it. Enjoy your new world trumpers.

 

[hedge]

I agree. In case I haven't said it yet, I hate everyone on the right (and their Zen/OG enablers) with the fire of a thousand hells. Eventually everyone on the left will, but I already know exactly who they are. They need to be destroyed, through chaos, disownment, and intentionally offending them, and soon worse. It's the only thing they know and understand after Trump. Get after it. Enjoy your new world trumpers.

Damn, I like this guy...

 

[aGDevil2k]

Control of the House doesn’t matter, especially now that the executive has the power of the purse. Even if that wasn’t the case we’re still looking at a permanent reshuffling of the social order. The hatred between right and left is here to stay. Conservative kids won’t have liberal friends. Young liberals are going to leave your conservative churches/religions. Conservative young men will not be able to get a date with liberal young women.

You won the game now enjoy your prize.

Young people don't go to church anymore anyhow. Church is now for evangelicals, olds, and a smattering of others.

 

[CarlSpackler]

Well, I work for a company that contracts with USAID and people have been laid off because they don't have any funding. Is that enough support? The media has done plenty of reporting on the fact that the funding is still frozen despite the court orders to unfreeze them.

I was thinking about you when I saw the story on WRAL. Is your job still safe?

 

[Carolina Fever]

I was thinking about you when I saw the story on WRAL. Is your job still safe?

Yes, mine is a domestic contract, so maybe it will turn out ok.

 

[Shenanigans]

Disownment? Sure, that's already been happening. All of the more aggressive stuff? Nah, most of what we'll see is people just trying to escape toxic relationships. There's a dream among conservatives that after all the trash talk we'll all be friends like fans of rival teams tailgating togther. That's not going to happen. But what I see is not a hope to return fire. What I see is a complete and total lack of empathy. The closest thing to giving a damn is enjoying some FAFO stories.

Some conservative's kid doesn't feel welcome because of the views they were raised with? There was a time when peole would have suggested reaching out and maybe showing them the error of their ways. There would be high minded lectures about engagement being the best way forward. I don't see any of that. Just a whole lot of not caring and people going back to their resepective corners. That conservative's kid can go find other conservatives if they want friends, no one cares enough to work towards anything else.

What you describe is what I think is going to happen. It's why we are about to have majority conservative rule for the next 50 years. They are going to cheat and lie and rig elections like their lives depend on it, and they do. Today's conservatives seek power above all else, and they are seizing that opportunity.

What I describe is what I hope will happen. Treat them like the scum and lepers that they should be treated like. Their support of the current people in power is unforgivable. This has a better chance of real change, it's just more uncomfortable.

I have had polite conversations with thousands of family, friends, and conservative strangers the last 10 years. I've convinced a couple of them to move towards empathy, kindness, science and reason, maybe 3+. But what a waste of time.

It's time to adjust the strategy. I don't want to live in a conservative dictatorship, and it's here. It's time to fuck some shit up. How you fuck shit up, I don't care, just do anything. RFK wants to put Adderall takers in labor camps. These people are somehow unserious and incredibly dangerous (thanks to 77 million fucking morons) all at the same time.

Ugh

 

[Shenanigans]

Which technical school do you recruit for? Durham Tech was looking to add a recruiter.

I recruit entry level technicians to service your mom. She pays well.

 

[Shenanigans]

Any evidence of such accusations?

You assume Elon is finding fraud, you assume liberals are the more untrustworthy ones in govt. Your assumptions are 100% wrong.

You never answered my question. Why do you trust trump, who has bankrupted multiple businesses and stiffed numerous contractors? Why do you trust Elon, the richest man in the world, who will be pocketing taxpayer money on anything saved from firing very talented, smart federal workers?

They just passed a budget including 4.5 trillion tax cuts to benefit the uber rich. 2 trillion in spending cuts to hurt people like you.

Why do you all not want to help yourselves? Increasing income inequality is only going to prove all of my predictions true.

You have installed unwittingly a conservative dictatorship, and now we all get to suffer from your stupidity. Thanks bro

 

[Zoo_View]

You assume Elon is finding fraud, you assume liberals are the more untrustworthy ones in govt. Your assumptions are 100% wrong.

You never answered my question. Why do you trust trump, who has bankrupted multiple businesses and stiffed numerous contractors? Why do you trust Elon, the richest man in the world, who will be pocketing taxpayer money on anything saved from firing very talented, smart federal workers?

They just passed a budget including 4.5 trillion tax cuts to benefit the uber rich. 2 trillion in spending cuts to hurt people like you.

Why do you all not want to help yourselves? Increasing income inequality is only going to prove all of my predictions true.

You have installed unwittingly a conservative dictatorship, and now we all get to suffer from your stupidity. Thanks bro

I doubt people such as silence unwittingly voted for right-wing authoritarianism.

 

[Shenanigans]

I doubt people such as silence unwittingly voted for right-wing authoritarianism.

Probably true for him. Knowing a lot of trumpers, I think a lot them did. They have no way to connect the dots to the point that right wing authoritarianism will hurt them personally. It's coming.

I see a big recession on the horizon, with the uber rich buying up cheap property and low-priced stocks like hotcakes.

Trumpers should just give their double wide trailers to Elon, with a nice note saying, "thanks for letting me lick your boots, you glorious nazi weirdo."

Signed, some dumb rube