Trump's Federal Spending Freeze

Author: Sidewalker

Posts

Total: 151
#121
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,895
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
More made up dumbass nonsense, nobody is giving "equal opportunity to both retards and intelligent people to be doctors". 
They are literally lowering standards to meet DEI requirements in lots of industries.

You can just Google it and article after article appears asking for standards to be lowered because firefighting is 95% white. A school dropped it's honor roll program because it was mostly white and Asian kids.

The FAA is currently being sued because it was determined they were too white and they had to lower standards so the non whites applying could get the jobs.

It's about white supremacy

It's about planes not falling out of the skit. Here is an article about the Bar exam changing to lower standards for DEai reasons. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-bar-exam-puts-dei-over-competence-ncbe-family-law-schools-9c0dd4e8

Do you really want an incompetent lawyer when your wife divorces you.

Again I can pull up article after article of industries lowering standards for DEI. Are you a retard who denies it? Or a liar?
#122
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
If it DEI was just a boilerplate stamp for skin color, it wouldn't have been so damaging, but it's so much worse when DEI enforces the employment of people with mental disabilities.

Sidewalker is just calling you a racist because he was told to by MSNBC.




#123
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,372
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I'm not racist, I've just read the works of these Uncle Toms who make a fortune validating white racism. How oblivious do you have to be to cite these guys? What other market niche are they filling?

It's just a coincidence that I've ended up at this Nazi rally with all these illiterate trailer trash Americans.
#124
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
After 4 years of Trump culminating in the pandemic, the American people said, “We deserve better!” and elected Biden. After 4 years of Biden, the American people said, “We deserve better!” and reelected Trump.
People didn't want Trump back, they wanted 2019 back. Sadly, the American voter just wasn't educated enough to understand that Trump did little to nothing to get us there, he was just the guy bragging about it.

Perhaps once people head to the grocery store this weekend and see what Trump's genius economic plan has wrought they'll finally realize the con he always was.

Then again, we already saw January 6th and yet half the country thinks the democrats are the real threat to democracy so I'm not holding my breath.

#125
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The advent of radio changed politics, and TV changed it even more. Social media has changed it yet even more.
This is exactly the concept I was trying to show Double R...sadly, my lesson plan stunk.
The issue isn't that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. Again, I'm not a political strategist so it's not my job to figure out how to apoeal to stupid people. I know this is difficult for you to understand, but not everyone thinks of politics as a sport. To some people the issues at hand really do matter, because they really do impact people's lives. So telling those people "duh well my argument is winning elections" isn't just stupid, but a demonstration of how unserious of a person you are to listen to and how void you are of anything to say of any intellectual value.
#126
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
it's not my job to figure out how to appeal to stupid people.
Yet, it's people like you that select leaders in primaries. And this is how your party flops, when people don't care enough to select the best for their leaders. Or the party just decides on their own to skip primaries and select leaders via secret ballot in a cigar filled room for all the people that do not care. That's democracy for you.
#127
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
...a demonstration of how unserious of a person you are ..
Says the person who admitted he doesn't care who leads his party...
#128
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Trump should have been fairly easy to beat in 2024, though not as easy to beat as in 2020. Why was the DNC unable to generate better candidates than Biden/Harris?

I ask this rhetorically if you are equally confounded and are asking yourself the same thing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t even agree with the premise of the question…

#129
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
And this is how your party flops, when people don't care enough to select the best for their leaders.
Double_R: ['I don't care about political strategy, I'm talking about actual issues that affect actual people, do you have anything to say about that or is the sport of politics all you care about and all you have to offer']

Greyparrot: ['here's why your party flops...']

Great job avoiding the discussion of any real issue, and congratulations on your home team winning the prize, since that is clearly all you care about.

Or the party just decides on their own to skip primaries and select leaders via secret ballot in a cigar filled room for all the people that do not care. That's democracy for you.
We had a primary genius. The candidate dropped out. Democracy doesn't entail forcing someone to continue running against their will.
#130
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The candidate dropped out.
Honest question: if there was an open primary at the convention, would Trump have likely lost?
#131
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Honest question: if there was an open primary at the convention, would Trump have likely lost?
Trump beat 16 republicans in his first primary to go on to win the elections in 2016.
#132
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Trump should have been fairly easy to beat in 2024
For any republican candidate yes. The election I think proved that the democrats would have likely lost no matter what.

Donald Trump's stated economic plan was tariffs, something every economist agrees if implemented in the fashion Trump ran on would be terrible for inflation and economic growth. Yet when Trump was asked for his plan to just about anything, like say childcare, tariffs was all he had in response. When he was asked whether Google should be broken up he responded by talking about the voter rolls in Virginia. When he was asked about healthcare said he had "concepts of a plan". He couldn't have made it any clearer that he was deeply unqualified to fix any perceived economic problems, yet voters thought he was the strong economy guy because he was lucky enough to inherit Obama's economy. 

There's nothing the democrats can do with that. If you show people the worst of who you are and they are willing to set it all aside and assume you're actually terrific... The outcome is pretty much set.

Why was the DNC unable to generate better candidates than Biden/Harris?
Biden was picked by the voters in 2020 because every poll showed that he was the best candidate to beat Trump, that's what the party was focused on as they should have been.

In 2024 Biden made the fatal mistake of trying to run again. There were no good options at that point.
#133
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Honest question: if there was an open primary at the convention, would Trump have likely lost?
See my response to Cristo
#134
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
For any republican candidate yes.
Huh? Obviously the opposite was true in the Republican primaries. That’s the problem— if one sees Trump’s success in the primaries as problematic.

The election I think proved that the democrats would have likely lost no matter what.

There's nothing the democrats can do with that. If you show people the worst of who you are and they are willing to set it all aside and assume you're actually terrific... The outcome is pretty much set.
That’s a very defeatist mentality. Instead of blaming the leadership, blame the followers? That is worse than defeatism. This reminds me of a mediocre math teacher who chastised her students for poor test scores. That she was perhaps teaching ineffectively never entered her mind.

Biden was picked by the voters in 2020 because every poll showed that he was the best candidate to beat Trump,
Yes, I know. Biden was supposedly the most electable the DNC had. That’s the problem!

In 2024 Biden made the fatal mistake of trying to run again.
And the DNC allowed this charade to occur and continue until it became unsustainable and unwinnable. Again, that’s the problem!
#135
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
See my response to Cristo
See Cristo's response to that.
#136
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
For any republican candidate yes.
Huh? Obviously the opposite was true in the Republican primaries.
The opposite turned out to be true, that's not where we started. Recall that prior to the indictments and assassination attempts there were viable challengers to Trump, but the party coalesced around him after those events.

That is of course, a perfect example of what we're talking about when we say MAGA is a cult. Despite the fact that Trump was the most flawed candidate the republican party could have nominated, the party suddenly decided he was the guy - not on the basis of him having the best chance of winning or because they thought her was offering the best policies - but because they felt the need to prioritize protecting him personally. Because on the right, it's not about what he can do for you, it's about what you can do for him.

If you show people the worst of who you are and they are willing to set it all aside and assume you're actually terrific... The outcome is pretty much set.
That’s a very defeatist mentality.
It's literally what happened. Despite everything I just listed and so much more demonstrating that Trump was a terrible choice to fix any of the problems most people said they cared about, they excused it all away and voted for him anyway.

Instead of blaming the leadership, blame the followers?
The "followers" are the ones who get to decide, so yes. When someone makes a poor decision the only rational reaction is to blame the decision maker(s). Just because "America" is a large group doesn't excuse them from that criticism. The world once believed the earth was flat, they were wrong.

This reminds me of a mediocre math teacher who chastised her students for poor test scores. That she was perhaps teaching ineffectively never entered her mind.
I'm not the teacher, it's not my job to teach my classmates, especially given that there are over 300 million of them.

Again, and as I've made clear repeatedly to GP, I am entirely uninterested in arguing political strategy or effectiveness. I care about real, actual issues. If all you've got is "you're wrong because Trump voters said so" I couldn't care less what you have to say.

Biden was picked by the voters in 2020 because every poll showed that he was the best candidate to beat Trump,
Yes, I know. Biden was supposedly the most electable the DNC had. That’s the problem!
You seem to have forgotten that he won.

And the DNC allowed this charade to occur and continue until it became unsustainable and unwinnable. Again, that’s the problem!
A political party standing in the way of their own incumbent President's reelection campaign would have been unprecedented, do not pretend this would have gone over any better if the republican party tried to pull that one. Hell, I don't even believe they would stand in the way if Trump tries to run for a third term. That's not how any political party works and you know that.
#137
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
The opposite turned out to be true, that's not where we started. Recall that prior to the indictments and assassination attempts there were viable challengers to Trump, but the party coalesced around him after those events.
No, I don’t recall that. The only viable challenger turned out to be Hayley, but she dropped out, ceding the nomination to Trump prior to the events you mention.

I'm not the teacher, it's not my job to teach my classmates, especially given that there are over 300 million of them.

Again, and as I've made clear repeatedly to GP, I am entirely uninterested in arguing political strategy or effectiveness. I care about real, actual issues. If all you've got is "you're wrong because Trump voters said so" I couldn't care less what you have to say.
Where did you get the idea I was talking about you? I have been talking about the DNC and how I blame the DNC. And I’m not talking about teaching per se; I am using good/bad teaching as a metaphor for good/bad leadership. I get it:  you blame the DNC for nothing. That fact does not come as a shock to me.

You seem to have forgotten that he won.
No, but you seem to have forgotten that you said this:

“congratulations on your home team winning the prize, since that is clearly all you care about.”

And how did Biden’s win in 2020 work out in 2024 for the Democratic Party?

A political party standing in the way of their own incumbent President's reelection campaign would have been unprecedented
Geesh, man. What do you think happened right after the Trump/Biden debate??

Anyhoo, to sum up:  I blame the DNC whereas you blame the American people.



#138
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
No, I don’t recall that. The only viable challenger turned out to be Hayley, but she dropped out, ceding the nomination to Trump prior to the events you mention.
The assassination attempts were the icing on the cake. The indictments is where it started, prior to that Desantis was polling about even with Trump and Haley was down but on the rise. I don't think Desantis would have stuck because he was unlikable and that was starting to come through, but I think Haley stood a very real chance... If not for the indictments.

Trump is the only candidate in American political history who voters wanted even more  because he was indicted. That's cult level stuff.

Where did you get the idea I was talking about you?
From the fact that it was my comments you were criticizing as a "defeatest mentality" and then said "this reminds me of a teacher who...". If you weren't talking about my comments then I don't know what "This" in that sentence was talking about.

You seem to have forgotten that he won.
No, but you seem to have forgotten that you said this:

“congratulations on your home team winning the prize, since that is clearly all you care about.”

And how did Biden’s win in 2020 work out in 2024 for the Democratic Party?
You seem to have forgotten what this conversation is about. You asked why Biden was picked, I answered and showed that it worked out for its purpose. What happens in the following election has nothing to do with that, moreover it's just a dumb thing to say. Trump won in 2016, so how did that work out in 2020? We can play that silly little game all day.

A political party standing in the way of their own incumbent President's reelection campaign would have been unprecedented
Geesh, man. What do you think happened right after the Trump/Biden debate??
An unprecedented response to an unprecedentedly terrible performance. It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers always seem to forget what happened before the action they criticize as if everything happens in a vacuum.

I get it:  you blame the DNC for nothing.
There is plenty to criticize the DNC for, especially when Monday morning quarterbacking it. But those criticisms pale in comparison to the culpability of the American voter. It isn't hard to understand why, just ask yourself... What do you think people in the EU, or China, or South America are thinking? Hint: none of them are asking how the DNC failed so badly, they're asking what is wrong with Americans.

Anyhoo, to sum up:  I blame the DNC whereas you blame the American people.
Pretty much yeah, I find your position absurd. Like I said, you can criticize the DNC, that's fine and fair. But to pretend it's the DNC's job to hold Americans hands and tell them who to vote for is ridiculous. It's there job to make the case, but the case couldn't have been any clearer.

Again, when a terrible decision is made, the responsibility falls onto the party making that decision. This is basic common sense. The American people chose Trump, and unlike in 2016 they did so with no excuse. Trump showed us who he is. He showed us what a liar he is, he showed us what an imbecile he is, he showed us what a narcissist he is, and despite all that people looked at him and saw a savior. It's beyond absurd, and anyone who was fooled by him deserves all of the contempt they get.
#139
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
but I think Haley stood a very real chance... If not for the indictments.
Haley was always well behind. I have no reason to believe that the indictments changed the outcome of the primaries. I think they appealed more to people who were not very politically engaged to begin with.

From the fact that it was my comments you were criticizing as a "defeatest mentality" and then said "this reminds me of a teacher who...". If you weren't talking about my comments then I don't know what "This" in that sentence was talking about.
Yes, you have a defeatist mentality which absolves the DNC of any responsibility to lead. Not YOU engaging voters more effectively but the DNC.

You asked why Biden was picked…
No, I didn’t ask that.

An unprecedented response to an unprecedentedly terrible performance. It never ceases to amaze me how right wingers always seem to forget what happened before the action they criticize as if everything happens in a vacuum.
Ah, there’s the gaslighting. I was wondering when you were going to resort to that, Mr. Anton.

Me: “They should have done [A] before it was too late.”
You: “To do [A] would have been unprecedented.”
Me: “That IS what they ended up doing!”
You: “And it was unprecedented just as I claimed.”

But to pretend it's the DNC's job to hold Americans hands and tell them who to vote for is ridiculous.
Not what I said. Your routine and predictable strawmanning and gaslighting is tedious.

It's there job to make the case, but the case couldn't have been any clearer.
Indeed, the case was clear: “Trump is an existential threat. He is, quite simply, unfit for the office. Instead, vote for me, Kamala Harris, despite the possibility that I may be the worst major candidate for president any y’all ever seen!”
#140
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@cristo71
Indeed, the case was clear: “Trump is an existential threat. He is, quite simply, unfit for the office. Instead, vote for me, Kamala Harris, despite the possibility that I may be the worst major candidate for president any y’all ever seen!”
America was not ready for a woman president. But they were ready for Trump a convicted criminal because he had served office before.
#141
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Ah, there’s the gaslighting. I was wondering when you were going to resort to that, Mr. Anton.

Me: “They should have done [A] before it was too late.”
You: “To do [A] would have been unprecedented.”
Me: “That IS what they ended up doing!”
You: “And it was unprecedented just as I claimed.”
Why do right wingers seem so incapable of understanding what context is and why it matters?

The context before and after the debate performance was night and day different. Up until that point the DNC was not in any position to stand up against Joe Biden the way you are claiming they should have. And in fact they rightly refrained from stepping in afterwards allowing Biden the space to make his own decision as he was entitled to do. So what are you talking about?

Yes Joe Biden is old. Everyone knew that. What ended his campaign was the image of him standing on that debate stage fumbling his words spectacularly. That was the point he was no longer viable, any action taken before that moment would have been premature, especially for an organization whose literal job it is to support the Democratic candidate.

But to pretend it's the DNC's job to hold Americans hands and tell them who to vote for is ridiculous.
Not what I said.
You said you "blame the DNC" in the context of why Americans voted for the moron. My interpretation is exactly what those words mean. If you meant something different then by all means enlighten me.

Your routine and predictable strawmanning and gaslighting is tedious.
So is swatting aside your epithets.

Indeed, the case was clear: “Trump is an existential threat. He is, quite simply, unfit for the office. Instead, vote for me, Kamala Harris, despite the possibility that I may be the worst major candidate for president any y’all ever seen!”
That's a neat little trick you got there by starting off as if you're representing Kamala's message to suddenly switch to your own view of it mid message. Turns out it becomes very easy to make a message sound stupid when you inject your own stupidity into it. Who knew?

To the point, the first half is accurate. Trump is an existential threat and he is unfit as he is now proving it daily. The people should have seen that, but they were too stupid. And you all knew that, which is why you guys go so hard at Democratic candidates. No way to defend the barrage of stupidity he unleashes every day so the only way to win is to paint the other side as evil. All you need is a populace susceptible to it, and that's exactly what we have.
#142
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
The context before and after the debate performance was night and day different. Up until that point the DNC was not in any position to stand up against Joe Biden the way you are claiming they should have. And in fact they rightly refrained from stepping in afterwards allowing Biden the space to make his own decision as he was entitled to do.
So, we disagree on that.
Predicted response: “Well, it is absurd and stupid to disagree with the very lucid point I just made.”

Yes Joe Biden is old. Everyone knew that. What ended his campaign was the image of him standing on that debate stage fumbling his words spectacularly. That was the point he was no longer viable, any action taken before that moment would have been premature, especially for an organization whose literal job it is to support the Democratic candidate.
Ah, right. Similarly, the “emperor with no clothes” was doing juuust fine until a little child pointed out the situation openly so that the it could no longer be ignored. 
Predicted response: “What a silly comparison to make. The two situations could not be more different.”

You said you "blame the DNC" in the context of why Americans voted for the moron. My interpretation is exactly what those words mean. If you meant something different then by all means enlighten me.
To quote you back to yourself: “Turns out it becomes very easy to make a message sound stupid when you inject your own stupidity into it. Who knew?”

This particular line of discussion started with a question I posed (and which you “reinterpreted”) in post 128 which you should have left as rhetorical as I had suggested. You don’t wish to discuss political strategy, remember? You and I could see a black sedan and disagree on what color it is, so I don’t see the point in “enlightening you” any further on this.

So is swatting aside your epithets.
I’m not sure what you expect with your stubborn, strawman reinterpretations of what I am saying. Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited anyway.
#143
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Predicted response: “What a silly comparison to make. The two situations could not be more different.”
The difference between you and me as that at least I provide justification for my positions.

This particular line of discussion started with a question I posed (and which you “reinterpreted”) in post 128 which you should have left as rhetorical as I had suggested.
This topic started when you asked me: "Why was the DNC unable to generate better candidates than Biden/Harris?"

So I answered substantively and meaningfully pointing out that the democrats didn't "pick" anything, they already had an incumbent president which historically never gets challenged by either party and for good reasons politically. You broke up my response with two silly and meaningless retorts;

The idea that he was the best candidate in 2020 is the problem - That has nothing to do with anything, we're talking about 2024, not 2020.

Also the idea that the DNC allowed Biden to run - this is ridiculous framing. They didn't "allow" anything, the DNC doesn't decide whether a first term president gets to run again.

And once I pointed this out to you the conversation devolved even further by you asking me how 2020 worked out for 2024, as if one had anything to do with the other, and you pretending that the actions/decisions of the DNC occurred in a vacuum.

I've addressed your questions, but rather than accept that your questions are based on nonsense premises you just keep digging in, then when the entire conversation seems silly you pretend I'm responsible for that.

You don’t wish to discuss political strategy, remember?
I never forgot. I'm responding to your points, as much as I would love to stay focused on the topic we were discussing, this is what you decided to focus on instead. Perhaps if you provided more substantive rebuttals rather than hiding behind caricatures of what you think I would have said this conversation might have been more meaningful.

I’m not sure what you expect with your stubborn, strawman reinterpretations of what I am saying. Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited anyway.
I post to you just like I post to anyone here who says something I find questionable for the same reason; to see if you have a coherent response.

If you do, then maybe I can learn something.

If not, like when you respond by attacking me as stubborn, a sophist, a propagandist, or by telling me I'm strawmanning you, all without any rational attempt to justify your accusations or the arguments you dropped in favor of them, it just further confirms for me that my position is probably right. If you had a better argument you would have offered it.

Either way, I come out better for it. So respond back or don't, I really don't care.
#144
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
My post 128:

“I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t even agree with the premise of the question…”

… your questions are based on nonsense premises…
Called it! You could have saved both of us time and trouble by just saying that upfront, but that obviously isn’t your style.
#145
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
It's not my style because I approach conversation on this site as if I were on a debate site, where disagreements are a reason to have a discussion, not a reason to stop one.
#146
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,821
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
No, you came here for an argument.


Ah, that must be why you have so many debates under your belt— you love the art of debate and make superior arguments.
#147
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Trump just "violated the constitution" pausing funding to USAID....

It's so weird to realize the 4th branch of government can be eradicated, since the 4th branch has zero constitutional protections...
#148
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
No, you came here for an argument.
Yes, that's what a conclusion derived from premises and logic is called

Ah, that must be why you have so many debates under your belt— you love the art of debate and make superior arguments.
lol

I don't get into too many debates because I don't care to commit to the time it takes to craft a 10k character response with limited internet service. So glad I was able to clear your genuine inquiry up.
#149
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Trump just "violated the constitution" pausing funding to USAID....

It's so weird to realize the 4th branch of government can be eradicated, since the 4th branch has zero constitutional protections...
Trump removed God’s authority from the Bible and replaced his authority with the US Constitution which he has threatened to replace with Trump doctrines.
#150
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Shila
Moderna just lost 5%