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

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.
 
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...
Wait, you think that the military is having recruitment problems right now because of identity politics and not because the generation that it would be trying to recruit right now grew up watching us send young men and women overseas for two decades to get their brains scrambled and their limbs blown off, and then have them come home and find that we don’t give a fuck about them after they take off the uniform? Are you fucking insane?
 
rodoheel said:
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"?
Click to expand...
haha you could count the number of condemnations on your hands.
 
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...
Actually, Joe Biden got a lot of flack for the Hunter Biden pardon. Personally, I don't give a shit. It was a minor offense that hurt nobody and certainly the pardon didn't threaten rule of law in any way. The reason that you people are so upset about it is that you've been deluded into thinking that there was a Biden Crime Family and that was just pure misinformation, from the very outset.

As for the student loan debacle decision, please stop talking. You are trying to argue law with lawyers and law professors. That case shouldn't even have been in court, because the plaintiff states had no standing. The Court didn't really even make a serious argument that they did. They just kind of waved away the problem that not a single plaintiff in the case could prove any injury at all.

And then the Court completely invented a supposed principle of . . . . well, actually, they haven't figured out what it is, other than an excuse to do whatever they want. Some of them have said that the "major questions doctrine" is constitutionally required by separation of powers, even though the constitution says absolutely nothing about it; there's no history to justify it; and nobody ever thought it was a thing until Scalia wanted to defeat tobacco regulation. Some of them, instead, say that's it's a principle of statutory interpretation that Congress could override, except that the principle comes from nowhere and it's unclear what counts as an override. They say, "we just want Congress to speak clearly" but then when Congress speaks as clearly as possible in unambiguous language, they say, "well, Congress didn't specifically speak to the precise problem of post-pandemic debt when granting these powers to the Secretary in unambiguous language." I guess Congress has to be able to predict the future?
 
CFordUNC said:
We have had many dumber people on this board, but I’m not sure we’ve ever had someone so obviously out of their depth.
Click to expand...
CF you are like the kid that got his ass whipped and then tries to back out and claim he was never in a fight. Maybe learn what conservatism means and try again.
 
Callatoroy said:
CF you are like the kid that got his ass whipped and then tries to back out and claim he was never in a fight. Maybe learn what conservatism means and try again.
Click to expand...
Oh, there’s that’s sweet, sweet projection that we all know and love from you, Roy! Maybe try to remove the tip of Trump’s mushroom from the back of your throat long enough to read up on the classical conservatism of Eisenhower and Nixon and Reagan and Bush and McCain and Romney, and then come back like a good little boy and present a book report to the rest of the class on what you learned about how you and Donald Trump are not conservatives.

By the way, you have no idea how much satisfaction I am getting out of knowing that it strikes such a nerve with you. I don’t have very many talents or gifts in life, but I certainly have one for knowing exactly where to push buttons where stupid people are feeling their most insecure and vulnerable. Seriously, every time that little red number lights up in the upper right hand part of my screen on the homepage of the board, and I see that it is you, it feels like Christmas morning.
 
Callatoroy said:
haha you could count the number of condemnations on your hands.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't count above the number of fingers on your hands doesn't mean that bigger numbers don't exist.

Again, the rest of us don't have to be limited by your intellectual, or literal, laziness. But I realize it would be a big blow to your psyche to realize you aren't the special courageous maverick you think you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top