OMB freezes all disbursements / USAID shutdown / GOP begs for exceptions for their states

superrific said:
This is going to be our first major court battle of Trump's term. You can tell he's got competent people advising him now. They are picking the fight over an agency that most Americans won't notice. That's optics for a court.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that last part?
 
CFordUNC said:
What in the world are you trying to argue? My guy, if the one man to whom you are referring- who does not have a single conservative bone in his entire bloated, obese, orange painted body –causes the entire conservative movement and the entire Republican Party to capitulate like beta cuck bitches and completely abandoned conservatism, then you are goddamn right it is imperative for anyone like me who cares about conservative principles to oppose that person in that party. Do you even have any idea of what you are arguing? You are literally saying that one person is more important than an entire multiple hundred year-old movement!

Here’s what happened. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Over the course of his first presidency, I started to realize, hey you know what, goddamn, this motherfucker doesn’t stand for any of the shit I have claimed to believe in my entire life. I guess I won’t vote for him the next time, or the next time! See how easy that was?

Now here is what you did. You claimed to be a conservative, and then when Trump proved himself to be the complete antithesis of classical American conservatism, instead of looking yourself in the mirror and doing some introspective soul-searching, you decided to double down and then triple down and break out your most comfortable kneepads. Some fucking principled conservative you are.

The reasons you like Donald Trump are the exact same reasons as to why you are not conservative. You think that conservatism means pissing down your leg afraid of the fact that transgender people might exist or that people may use pronouns to identify themselves. That’s what you think conservatism is. You think conservatism is gaining power and then being able to completely run roughshod over the United States constitution and the entire federal government just for shits and giggles. You think conservatism is being the biggest, loudest, most belligerent, most bellicose bully in the room.

Here is what I believe conservatism is. I believe it is sticking by your principles even when it is not convenient. I believe it is sticking by your principles even when your party or your party’s presidential candidate are completely antithetical to everything you believe in. I believe conservatism is commitment to free trade and free markets. I believe conservatism is commitment to preserving individual liberties and personal freedoms, even when we don’t agree with those liberties and freedoms. I believe conservatism is projecting peace through strength, not through being the loudest cage rattling monkey. I believe conservatism is a deep seated respect for the military and law enforcement, and not just win we think they are aligned with our political persuasions. I believe conservatism is protecting the right of every other human being to identify how they want, live how they want, etc., even when we don’t understand or agree with their choices. I believe conservatism is following the letter of the law spelled out in the United States Constitution, even when it’s inconvenient. I believe conservatism means protecting your right to say the dumbest, most outlandish, most asinine bullshit you can possibly spew even when I hate it and disagree with it with every fiber of my being. I believe conservatism means that government should be as small as is possible while being able to effectively and efficiently improve life for the overwhelming vast majority of its citizens. I believe conservatism means that every single able bodied soul should work but that we should also provide helping hands up, not necessarily handouts, to the least fortunate among us. I believe conservatism means adhering to biblical principles of loving your neighbors, sheltering the immigrant, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and healing the sick. I believe conservatism means maintaining a strong and secure national border, while advocating for a quick, efficient, inhumane system of legal immigration to allow the best and the brightest and the hardest working from around the world to come to the United States of America to make their lives and our lives better.

We can agree and disagree of actual policy principle. Lots of liberals disagree with one another and lots of conservatives disagree with one another on matters of policy. Where you and I disagree is not policy, but rather conviction. My conviction for my conservative principles runs a hell of a lot deeper than anyone political candidate or anyone political moment in time. Your conviction for your conservative principles got surrendered faster than the French at Dunkirk the moment that someone arrived on the scene and made you feel better about how much you hate people who don’t adhere to the narrowminded way in which you think people should live or be governed.
Click to expand...

"You are literally saying that one person is more important than an entire multiple hundred year-old movement!" - Sounds to me like that's exactly what you are doing. I voted for republican control despite trump. You voted for a democrat (who is almost the opposite of what you say you believe) because of trump. I voted party, you voted individual.

"I believe it is sticking by your principles even when your party or your party’s presidential candidate are completely antithetical to everything you believe in." - Yet you voted for the party who is opposite for what you claim to believe in.

"I believe conservatism means that government should be as small as is possible while being able to effectively and efficiently improve life for the overwhelming vast majority of its citizens." No conservative believes that because conservatives don't believe its the role of g'ment to improve life for an overwhelming majority of its citizens. That's actually a liberal's view of the role of g'ment. You don't have a good grasp of what small g'ment and conservativism is.


- Which candidate and party is more likely to strengthen the military over the next 4 years? Can't meet recruitment goals, zero accountability, rampant dei
- Which candidate and party has been more supportive of the police? Defund ring a bell
- Which candidate and party has been more protective of free speech? Setting up fact checking boards and asking social media to censor for them sound familiar?
- Which candidate and party has been more active through policy and vocal about able bodied people working vs providing incentives and handouts for not working? Which party creates g'ment dependents?
- Which candidate and party actually ran on reducing the size of g'ment?


Literally almost everything you profess to value resides in the republican control of g'ment. Yet, you vote dem due to hatred for 1 man. You are a conflicted and contradictory mess is seems like.
 
rodoheel said:
It's good to know that when the courts rule numerous Trump policies and actions unconstitutional (as they already have with his loony birthright citizenship EO) you'll be right here with us condemning him for his lawless overreach.
Click to expand...
I'm far more critical of trump on this board than you or any zzl cultist has ever been of a dim president. I have zero hesitation to be critical. Sad you and the majority of the rest of the board can't say the same.

I suspect he will pull a biden after the court ruled his student loan forgiveness bullshit was lawless overreach. Remind me of all you your condemnations of biden's approach to that.
 
Callatoroy said:
"You are literally saying that one person is more important than an entire multiple hundred year-old movement!" - Sounds to me like that's exactly what you are doing. I voted for republican control despite trump. You voted for a democrat (who is almost the opposite of what you say you believe) because of trump. I voted party, you voted individual.

"I believe it is sticking by your principles even when your party or your party’s presidential candidate are completely antithetical to everything you believe in." - Yet you voted for the party who is opposite for what you claim to believe in.

"I believe conservatism means that government should be as small as is possible while being able to effectively and efficiently improve life for the overwhelming vast majority of its citizens." No conservative believes that because conservatives don't believe its the role of g'ment to improve life for an overwhelming majority of its citizens. That's actually a liberal's view of the role of g'ment. You don't have a good grasp of what small g'ment and conservativism is.


- Which candidate and party is more likely to strengthen the military over the next 4 years? Can't meet recruitment goals, zero accountability, rampant dei
- Which candidate and party has been more supportive of the police? Defund ring a bell
- Which candidate and party has been more protective of free speech? Setting up fact checking boards and asking social media to censor for them sound familiar?
- Which candidate and party has been more active through policy and vocal about able bodied people working vs providing incentives and handouts for not working? Which party creates g'ment dependents?
- Which candidate and party actually ran on reducing the size of g'ment?


Literally almost everything you profess to value resides in the republican control of g'ment. Yet, you vote dem due to hatred for 1 man. You are a conflicted and contradictory mess is seems like.
Click to expand...
Buddy, how in the fuck is this such a difficult concept to understand? This really is not tough at all. Donald Trump is not conservative. The Republican Party under Donald Trump is not conservative. I am a conservative. Ergo, I am not going to vote for Donald Trump or the current Republican Party. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were as reasonably close to the kind of conservatism that is important to me, so I voted for both of them.

You’re saying that you voted for party over man is not making the point that you are hoping that it is making. Donald Trump is not conservative. Therefore, you voted for someone who isn’t conservative to lead a party that is no longer conservative. Therefore, you are someone who is an enormous hypocrite! This really isn’t that difficult, dude.

There’s nothing contradictory at all about what I’ve been saying. The Democratic Party has been the closest thing to upholding conservative principles of free markets, free trade, protection of individual freedoms and liberties, protection of the environment, protection of our geopolitical alliances, opposition to our biggest geopolitical enemies who happen to be the complete antithesis of everything for which our great country stands, etc. you can scream and cry and stomp your feet and call all of us hypocrites and wine about TDS and until your balls fall off, and none of that is going to make it any less true that you are a liar and a hypocrite and a small and petty angry little man who has no conviction and no guiding principles other than anger. Be mad at me and everyone else here all you want, none of us give a fuck. Lash out at us all you want. None of us give a fuck. But every single one of us who used to vote for the Republican Party, who no longer do so because Donald Trump is an anti-conservative cocksucker, are right and you are wrong. I don’t give a damn how angry that makes you.

I also don’t give a damn how angry it makes you that I’m telling you, you are no conservative. And I don’t care how loudly you scream about how hypocritical I am or how contradictory I am or how full of shit I am. I am pretty goddamn comfortable knowing that I did not abandon my core principles and beliefs, and you damn well know you can’t say the same. That’s why I sleep like a baby at night, completely comfortable with my political choices and my political viewpoints even while my preferred political candidate lost an election,l while you are here on the board screaming about transgender people and woke this and woke that and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and TDS.
 
Callatoroy said:
I'm far more critical of trump on this board than you or any zzl cultist has ever been of a dim president. I have zero hesitation to be critical. Sad you and the majority of the rest of the board can't say the same.

I suspect he will pull a biden after the court ruled his student loan forgiveness bullshit was lawless overreach. Remind me of all you your condemnations of biden's approach to that.
Click to expand...
If you had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity you would see criticism of Democratic politicians, including Biden, all over this board. You can find threads criticizing Biden specifically and threads where people debate which Dem politicians are more worthy of blame for various things. I can only suspect that in patting yourself so vigorously on the back for your supposed impartiality, you are somehow unable to read the screen of your laptop that would show you these things.

And the example of Biden's student loan forgiveness is a terrible one for the point you're trying to make. Biden was faced with a Supreme Court that was ideologically opposed to him; Trump with one that is ideologically on his side and, I predict, will still find that he is acting blatantly unconstitutionally in several ways. There is also a clear difference in degree; to wit, the Reagan judge who first enjoined Trump's EO on birthright citizenship openly questioned how any member of the bar could possibly think Trump's EO was constitutional. A similar thing is going to happen when the challenges to Trump's impoundment and related actions make it up to the higher courts, because what he is doing very obviously flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedent.
 
hedge said:
What do you mean by that last part?
Click to expand...
I mean that litigation outcomes often depend on factors other than the law. Often the judge's sympathies are more determinative than anything else. This is why, for instance, public service litigators are always on the lookout for sympathetic plaintiffs.

For instance, take Elon Musk's pay package in Delaware. The compensation process was absurd and clearly contrary to basic corporate governance principles. But that doesn't necessarily mean that recission is the appropriate remedy. And I don't think it would have been if the pay package was $2B instead of $50. Or if Musk hadn't done all that shit to try to get out of buying twitter. Or if Musk hadn't ignored SEC orders and didn't respond to questions with poop emojis. That's all bad optics. The judge walked into that courtroom with disgust for Musk, and that's where you don't want to be as a litigant.

Does that answer the question?
 
Callatoroy said:
I'm far more critical of trump on this board than you or any zzl cultist has ever been of a dim president. I have zero hesitation to be critical. Sad you and the majority of the rest of the board can't say the same.

I suspect he will pull a biden after the court ruled his student loan forgiveness bullshit was lawless overreach. Remind me of all you your condemnations of biden's approach to that.
Click to expand...
1. What are you talking about? Biden obeyed the terms of the court order. The loan forgiveness did not happen. Biden's people subsequently re-assessed their policies and developed a different policy that addressed the issues that the Supreme Court identified in its opinion. That was done absolutely the right way.

2. One president in history, and only one, lost 60 lawsuits challenging an election result and then disregarded all of them to foment an insurrection and try to take control by force and chicanery. How is it possible that you think HE is the one who will obey a court order, when he literally is the only one who hasn't.
 
rodoheel said:
If you had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity you would see criticism of Democratic politicians, including Biden, all over this board. You can find threads criticizing Biden specifically and threads where people debate which Dem politicians are more worthy of blame for various things. I can only suspect that in patting yourself so vigorously on the back for your supposed impartiality, you are somehow unable to read the screen of your laptop that would show you these things.

And the example of Biden's student loan forgiveness is a terrible one for the point you're trying to make. Biden was faced with a Supreme Court that was ideologically opposed to him; Trump with one that is ideologically on his side and, I predict, will still find that he is acting blatantly unconstitutionally in several ways. There is also a clear difference in degree; to wit, the Reagan judge who first enjoined Trump's EO on birthright citizenship openly questioned how any member of the bar could possibly think Trump's EO was constitutional. A similar thing is going to happen when the challenges to Trump's impoundment and related actions make it up to the higher courts, because what he is doing very obviously flies in the face of established Supreme Court precedent.
Click to expand...
Yea, I was amazed at all the condemnation the board heaped on joe for pardoning crackhead hunter. Forgot about that.
So I understand, joe got shot down because the refs were biased? His action wasn't a violation of the law? And trump never gets called for charging because the refs are in the tank for him? What a great argument you made there. And you actually used the words intellectually curiosity. I guess you have been practicing them and just waiting for the opportunity to drop them.
 
Lololllol BUT JOE! BUT HUNTER! BUT KAMALA! BUT TRANSGENDER!

This is how you know that even callatoroy deep down realizes how exposed as a fraudulent hypocrite he has become. This is progress. When you have no way to defend the merits of your own preferred presidential candidate or party, start screaming as loudly and as frequently as you can about people who are about as far away from holding power as you can possibly be.
 
ChileG said:
www.economist.com

Pete Hegseth’s culture war will weaken America’s armed forces

Donald Trump’s nominee for defence risks driving away talent
www.economist.com www.economist.com

There you go, I googled again and found this article. Maybe you are right about the military being weakened.
Click to expand...
Holy shit you mean that woman's opinion (guessing it was written by a woman but was behind a pay wall so not sure) is your rebuttal. Something that is projected to happen vs something that has happened:

"In 2022 and 2023, the Army missed its recruitment goal by nearly twenty-five per cent—about fifteen thousand troops a year. It hit the mark last year, but only by reducing the target by more than ten thousand. The Navy has also fared badly: it failed to reach its goals in 2023, then met them in 2024 by filling out the ranks with recruits of a lower standard; nearly half measured below average on an aptitude exam. The Army Reserve hasn’t met its benchmark since 2016, and the ranks are so depleted that active-duty officers have been put in charge of reserve units. Some experts worry that, if the country went to war, many reserve units might be unable to deploy. A U.S. official who works on these issues put it simply: “We can’t get enough people.”

Did you catch the part about "lower standard" and "below average"? "We can't get enough people" I guess recruits don't buy in to biden's dei crap and all the identity politics crippling the military. But we will see if Pete's anti dei approach will improve recruiting. I bet it will.
 
Callatoroy said:
Yea, I was amazed at all the condemnation the board heaped on joe for pardoning crackhead hunter. Forgot about that.
So I understand, joe got shot down because the refs were biased? His action wasn't a violation of the law? And trump never gets called for charging because the refs are in the tank for him? What a great argument you made there. And you actually used the words intellectually curiosity. I guess you have been practicing them and just waiting for the opportunity to drop them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I and others specifically criticized Joe's pardons of Hunter's and others. I'm pretty sure you even upvoted a post where I did that like two days ago. I swear you must have the memory of a goldfish.

We had like a 50-page-long thread fighting about what Dems did wrong after the election. We had huge threads fighting about whether Biden should resign, and whether the Dems should have a primary, and so on and so forth. Again, the only way to not realize these things is to be intentionally blind to them.

Unlike you I actually use words like "intellectual curiosity" in my normal vocabulary. If you find those words challenging, it's very easy to look up their meaning online. Perhaps you might Google "what does intellectual curiosity mean" right after you Google "what are condoms for"?
 
CFordUNC said:
Lololllol BUT JOE! BUT HUNTER! BUT KAMALA! BUT TRANSGENDER!

This is how you know that even callatoroy deep down realizes how exposed as a fraudulent hypocrite he has become. This is progress. When you have no way to defend the merits of your own preferred presidential candidate or party, start screaming as loudly and as frequently as you can about people who are about as far away from holding power as you can possibly be.
Click to expand...
Nice cut and run. Don't blame you. You were all tied up in contradictions.
 
Callatoroy said:
Holy shit you mean that woman's opinion (guessing it was written by a woman but was behind a pay wall so not sure) is your rebuttal. Something that is projected to happen vs something that has happened:

"In 2022 and 2023, the Army missed its recruitment goal by nearly twenty-five per cent—about fifteen thousand troops a year. It hit the mark last year, but only by reducing the target by more than ten thousand. The Navy has also fared badly: it failed to reach its goals in 2023, then met them in 2024 by filling out the ranks with recruits of a lower standard; nearly half measured below average on an aptitude exam. The Army Reserve hasn’t met its benchmark since 2016, and the ranks are so depleted that active-duty officers have been put in charge of reserve units. Some experts worry that, if the country went to war, many reserve units might be unable to deploy. A U.S. official who works on these issues put it simply: “We can’t get enough people.”

Did you catch the part about "lower standard" and "below average"? "We can't get enough people" I guess recruits don't buy in to biden's dei crap and all the identity politics crippling the military. But we will see if Pete's anti dei approach will improve recruiting. I bet it will.
Click to expand...
You have CGDS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top