Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Trump tried to withhold EPA and DOE monies from California and other states who were fighting his shenangins and you kept your sloppy hole silent, despite his exceeding Executive authority trying to do so. Now you have a problem with Congress passing laws which obey the wishes of Congress an Senate officials who want to deny their constituents financial assistance.

My my you have such a retarded view of the law. You need to go back to eighth grade social studies. Leave politics and governance to the intelligent.

---

What do you think about Andrew Cuomo though? Asking for Chris Cuomo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Now let's get to the lesser important issue, of which you clearly know nothing about. There is a world of difference between withholding funds from states and cities until they abide by certain stipulations laid out in said funding regulations (it's what Congress did in the 80's to get states to raise the drinking age), and completely cutting off an entire state until all of their elected officials get on board with said legislation. One approach is reasonable in certain situations, the other is the making of a fascist state. I'll let you figure out which is which, but spoiler alert: The one you are pushing for is the fascism one.

---

No really, let's start with your obvious lies, namely the fact that Congress threatened to withhold 5% of highway funds unless the drinking age was set to 21. There is no way that 5% is even close to cutting off an entire state. But what's more if Congress passed such legislation and it was signed into law, then that's the law. Trump not only tried to circumvent congressional authority in budget appropriation, but tried to revoke California's EPA waiver to set its own more stringent emissions standards.

So let's compare, 5% of highway only funding by law, versus Trump trying to withhold disaster relief funds, Medicaid funding and highway allocations by executive decree only. Well guess what, our drinking age is 21 and Trump's supposed mandates were struck down as unconstitutional.

And by then way, his fat ass was voted out of office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

No really, let's start with your obvious lies, namely the fact that Congress threatened to withhold 5% of highway funds unless the drinking age was set to 21. There is no way that 5% is even close to cutting off an entire state.

---

...and yet you are arguing for cutting off an entire state if all of their elected members don't get on board with the legislation, you know the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in a representative democracy. Just admit you want the US to be a fascist state while Democrats are in power.

Oh yeah and by the way, stop defending murderers and rapists just because they are Democrats.

Seranpk lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

...and yet you are arguing for cutting off an entire state if all of their elected members don't get on board with the legislation, you know the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen in a representative democracy. Just admit you want the US to be a fascist state while Democrats are in power.

---

A member of Congress who votes against funding, does not want funding and does so as the duly elected representative of their state. The biggest joke about Republican and Conservative politics, is the right wants every bit of spending as Democrats, but they don't want to pay for it and instead drive up the debt. Democrats meanwhile actually care for the country and enact progressive tax policies meant to pay to keep out country safe and secure.

Reality is now shoeing the people that Republicans in Congress snipe, scream and cry, all the while praying Democrats do all the responsible governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

How is that different than those twenty or so Senators getting their way and their states not getting any assistance? Again, taxation isn't voluntary and it is unavailable, but appropriations occur as a result of written budgets. Nothing stopping you fiscal conservatives from taking the moral high ground and refusing money.

---

The twenty or so senators DONT get their way. If it was 26 then it needs to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

How is that different than those twenty or so Senators getting their way and their states not getting any assistance? Again, taxation isn't voluntary and it is unavailable, but appropriations occur as a result of written budgets. Nothing stopping you fiscal conservatives from taking the moral high ground and refusing money.

---

The twenty or so senators DONT get their way. If it was 26 then it needs to be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

The twenty or so senators DONT get their way. If it was 26 then it needs to be changed.

---

That's not how our system of governance works. Entire governance initiatives shouldn't be held hostage by a minority of objectors. The change I brought up would make collaboration more palatable or at least advantageous. Don't like something? Compromise. If you object and are overridden, sorry but your constituents lose out because of your choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

That's not how our system of governance works. Entire governance initiatives shouldn't be held hostage by a minority of objectors. The change I brought up would make collaboration more palatable or at least advantageous. Don't like something? Compromise. If you object and are overridden, sorry but your constituents lose out because of your choices.

---

It isn't. 26 is the majority. I'm talking full states, not 26 Senators, for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

It isn't. 26 is the majority. I'm talking full states, not 26 Senators, for clarification.

---

Seran is the expert here. How dare you. Reported.