Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

Not bullshit. GAO-16-464SP, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. It's the law.

 

He can obey the law all he wants, that is great. It becomes hypocritical however when he previously said “Not another foot of border wall will be constructed under my administration” (direct quote) then, along with the entire leftist establishment, proceeded to use the border wall as ammo to call people racist. They are putting their foot in their mouth and it’s a bad look. Every claim they made now gets turned back on them quite easily. The immigrants finally showed up in places and in numbers where it inconveniences Democratic leaders now they want to change their tune. That is what this is. They no longer get to make border towns deal with it out of sight out of mind, it’s on their doorstep and they don’t like it.

 

I guess you’re correct from the conservative viewpoint but the law is the law. At least they are obeying it. And come election time the fact that that section of wall was built will matter more to conservatives than to liberals. Might even buy Joe a few unexpected votes just for being lawful….

 

You realize adults have talked and speculated about politics and topics of controversy for centuries without internet links right? I can tell you all about my experiences and travels but there was no internet to trot out as evidence back then. You don't have to believe anyone's speculation or personal views if you don't want to...choices No need to insult anyone over it.

 

I'm not seeing where it says the President is bound to waive dozens of federal laws in order to expedite the will of congress.

Can somebody point that part out?

 

I am not sure exactly where the thing is in the regulations, but I had access to multiple companies that worked as Government contractors that explained that this is how it works.

The house's own web site defines it as follows (cliff notes, basically):

"An appropriation allows the agency to incur obligations and to make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. Appropriations are definite (a specific sum of money) or indefinite (an amount for "such sums as may be necessary").

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/open-government/statement-of-disbursements/glossary-of-terms#:~:text=Appropriation: A law of Congress,as may be necessary").

I believe that in this bill case this was a specified purpose (thus the bolded part) - which means that the government had to, by law, use it for this purpose.

Again, if anyone really wants to scour the specifics - you are welcome to it, but that is what I heard many times before when discussions of government contracts (both at the state and federal levels) came - is that there are very specific parameters of how money can be appropriated and you can not change it even if the subject experts disagree with it being the smartest, most efficient way of using that money (*).

(*) Often, as you can imagine, agencies / contractors will use that money even if it is not the most efficient way to do it because it is a "use it or lose it" situation.

 

See, this is where I’m at. If someone wants to state an opinion, or even something they think is fact, then they are completely entitled to throw it out their citations or not. If somebody else takes issue with it, it’s perfectly acceptable for that person to then present whatever they can dig up to prove it wrong.
I get annoyed when someone in an armchair demands I lay facts at their feet or else everything I said is negated. It just seems lazy, argue your point if you feel you must, don’t expect your opponent to do it for you.
I’m not accusing Road Ratt of that btw just going off on a tangent. I ran into this a lot with another poster who’s since disappeared off my radar.

 

You’d think somewhere in the liberal discourse you find some opposition to this move by Biden. After all, there did seem to be a strong anti-wall consensus pretty much across the board on the liberal side. Like enough consensus to call other people racists over it. Where are the anti-wall people now? Are you still out there? Or does everyone just jump to defend power when the policies flip flop? Where’s people’s principles on this one? Not trying to call people out but genuinely curious what liberals think and how this move is defended, if it is.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I understand that the money can't be used for something else. And even that it must be spent. I don't see the mechanism that forces Biden to waive other federal laws to expedite the process though.

This comes off as the executive branch being incredibly dishonest, incredibly weak, or incredibly limited intellectually. As well as incredibly out of touch.

 

Maybe. I honestly do not know enough to know what federal laws were waived or if there is an order of operations one can or can not work, but the appropriations item is to my understanding 100% correct.

 

I'm an anti-wall person. I think borders should be pretty open just like airports...you go through the checkpoints and enter the country. Joe Biden is not a liberal nor has he ever been or voted as a liberal. He's a hawk and a middle ground conservative who happens to support civil rights legislation and he didn't always support that. Biden is a political survivor for his willingness to cave into conservative legislation that hard core Dems don't favor. Joe is not dumb, he knows the wall will get him some GOP voters that are fed up with the orange douche bag. Trump's wall didn't make him racist, it was his words that made him racist with the rapist, terrorist and murderers coming into the country bullshit. As if our American rapists and terrorists and murderers haven't fled to Mexico for hundreds of years.

 

The fact that Biden lied, yet again, will not factor into a Biden supporters thinking. Same as with a Trump supporter on Trump's lies.

The only thing that matters is the besmirching of their candidate/party. A good clean party name comes before facts, the truth, etc. .

 

I've asked you many times, who has your support? Who did you vote for?

 

And you're just now figuring that out...........welcome to America.

 

Here is Biden's statement on the subject:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...e-national-security-team-briefing-on-ukraine/

I do not see anything in here that constitutes a lie. It is, simply, following the law, even if you disagree with the appropriation of the money. You can all yell from here to eternity, but I for one am happy that the president, unlike the previous one, does not act like a dictator and ignores the law, even when it disagrees with his opinion. When presidents do that kind of nonsense, we end up with January 6 style insurrection.

If you complain about the president following the law, quite frankly, you are the effin' problem.

 

I'm complaining about the president waiving environmental laws to expedite thw will of congress that he claims to disagree with.

Does not compute.

 

I am going to suspect there is a order of importance of laws, I know there is in other areas, so I suspect they know what they are doing. I am sure that if they are wrong, someone will sue the government for that. I would suspect that the government "waving" the laws is just a click-bait article header not understanding the precedence, but I might be wrong.

The simplest example for precedence I can give you is from the CA driving code - in a 4 way stop (or all way stop, I suspect), the first one to arrive to a stop has the right of way, but if multiple cars arrive to the stop at the same time, the one on the right has the right of way - so, we have 2 laws here, but one of them has precedence over the other. If a guy on the left stopped first, he has right of way even tho the guy on the right has the right of way if they arrived to a stop at the same time.

I would imagine that's exactly what happened here and the government had to follow that precedence of laws. I just do not see any reason for the Biden administration which is on record as opposing the waste of money on the wall not to do so. Let's just say that I find online or newspaper articles on the interpretation of law to be of suspect quality vs. actual people that deal with the law - and that's what I believe is happening here.

 

Trump chatted about nuclear submarines secrets with an Australian Mar a Lago member, who shared information with friends and media. Information included how many warheads on ships, how close they could get without being detected, etc.

But Biden is old.

 

With himself as Exhibit A, Trump said "we have the worst education in the large world, the world we know". As opposed to the small world, I guess?

And while he threatens to execute General Millie, said shoplifting suspects should be killed without charges or trial, declared immigrants are poisoning our blood, Newsweek blamed Biden's language for increase in political violence.