boschePG's forum posts

Avatar image for boschepg
#1 Edited by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg: I walk back into this post and now people are talking about circumcisions? I don't get where this post has gone, I've got a lot of catching up to do...lol

lol, I saw that and said WHAT!?!?!?

Avatar image for boschepg
#2 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin: I'm baacckk... The Mueller report was just released ya'll

God to see you back. Kids can be busy.

Also, DoJ has said no more indictments. Meaning Trump is free!!!

Avatar image for boschepg
#3 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: This has been a bad week for Trump. Why is he bashing a dead man in John McCain? Why doesn't he sign the limit of Presidential Emergency Power?

Avatar image for boschepg
#4 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:

@buttersdaman000: No, the powers came from the 1970s cuz as I said its faster to get the Executive (President) to do it in an emergency than Congress - thus the abdication. Out of the 136 filed only 12 got through Congress. Its faster to go through the executive and the Legislative never restricted the power even though they are the 1st article of government. GOP today did not give 45 grounds cuz it was already in the law. DEMs don't like it now cuz 45 is using it. Supreme Court isn't going to restrict the rights of the President in this matter. They never do. Hell, I didn't agree with the trans military ban but the Supreme Court has upheld it so far. Most of the national emergencies on record have something to do with money spent thus why I think he is getting his wall. It needs to get Amended anyways since there is no way any President is going to get 67 votes to suppress the emergency for an actual check. Its just political. More so on the DEMs

I meant using the powers in a way they weren't intended, like declaring a national emergency to get a wall built. There's no emergency. Trump set the precedent. Instead, you're trying to flip it on the Democrats.

I know what you meant,. Illegal crossings are at its highest since 2007 and we have spent more in the past 5 months on housing and medical treatment of the influx that isn't sustainable on the national budget. Its about money and not being able to sustain it since they are not paying taxes. That is the emergency. Not the actual people crossing. Its us taking care of people that aren't American citizens with tax dollars. The Korean War had less ground to stand on than the wall and that got through. Supreme Court is going to upheld it and the Legislative don't have enough votes to beat Trumps veto. Its perfectly legal. DACA not so much, yet the DEMs keep trying to keep that in effect. Why is one's emergency more correct than the others. Its a Democratic political game.

Avatar image for boschepg
#5 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000: No, the powers came from the 1970s cuz as I said its faster to get the Executive (President) to do it in an emergency than Congress - thus the abdication. Out of the 136 filed only 12 got through Congress. Its faster to go through the executive and the Legislative never restricted the power even though they are the 1st article of government. GOP today did not give 45 grounds cuz it was already in the law. DEMs don't like it now cuz 45 is using it. Supreme Court isn't going to restrict the rights of the President in this matter. They never do. Hell, I didn't agree with the trans military ban but the Supreme Court has upheld it so far. Most of the national emergencies on record have something to do with money spent thus why I think he is getting his wall. It needs to get Amended anyways since there is no way any President is going to get 67 votes to suppress the emergency for an actual check. Its just political. More so on the DEMs

Avatar image for boschepg
#6 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:
@buttersdaman000 said:
@boschepg said:
  • Pelosi said she would reject the GOP bill to limit national emergencies - cuz it wouldn't effect Trumps border issue. Its no surprise cuz we all know the DEMs wanted to use it for global warming and gun control. This is coming from the woman that said she would want to raise the Supreme Court judges cuz Trump has nominated two to make court 5-4 (which it has been) (per Rueters)

Why did you turn this around on the Democrats?? Trump and the GOP are the ones who opened the flood gates. They're just playing in the game he created.

I didn't turn it on the Democrats. I stated above that the legislative has abdicated too much power to the Executive cuz it wouldn't be on their voting record. I don't even know what Pelosi would have to do with it since its a law. Im stating that the DEMs want to shift rules to favor their desires. The nuke option was created by the DEMs cuz they thought the GOP wasn't playing fair with Obama but it created severe partisan schism. Pelosi doesn't want to back it cuz we all know as I said they were going to try and use national emergency on their platform. Limiting National Emergency power is actually a good thing, but Pelosi doesn't want it cuz they didn't get their chance to use it..

The bolded is where you turned it around on them.

because its true.

Avatar image for boschepg
#7 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:
  • Pelosi said she would reject the GOP bill to limit national emergencies - cuz it wouldn't effect Trumps border issue. Its no surprise cuz we all know the DEMs wanted to use it for global warming and gun control. This is coming from the woman that said she would want to raise the Supreme Court judges cuz Trump has nominated two to make court 5-4 (which it has been) (per Rueters)

Why did you turn this around on the Democrats?? Trump and the GOP are the ones who opened the flood gates. They're just playing in the game he created.

I didn't turn it on the Democrats. I stated above that the legislative has abdicated too much power to the Executive cuz it wouldn't be on their voting record. I don't even know what Pelosi would have to do with it since its a law. Im stating that the DEMs want to shift rules to favor their desires. The nuke option was created by the DEMs cuz they thought the GOP wasn't playing fair with Obama but it created severe partisan schism. Pelosi doesn't want to back it cuz we all know as I said they were going to try and use national emergency on their platform. Limiting National Emergency power is actually a good thing, but Pelosi doesn't want it cuz they didn't get their chance to use it..

Avatar image for boschepg
#8 Edited by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

Im having troubles with links so let me put some political news out there

  • Trump set to nominate two judges to the 9th circuit ignoring DEM senators plea (per ABC) - my thought - he doesn't have to not fill it. The 9th circuit is a federal court in California. It doesn't belong to California. The article is BS too cuz Schummer talked about lacking qualifications and getting more moderate judges. Funny thing is, its always the conservative judges that swing moderate and not the liberal judges. And GOP vote on pure qualifications more than play political. Just look historically at vote counts. History is saying Schummer is BS
  • McConnell may bring up legislation to limit Presidential Emergencies to keep GOP for voting against Trumps national emergency. Its actually a 30 day limit but I agree with this. The legislative has abdicated too much to the executive. (per the Hill)
  • Pelosi said she would reject the GOP bill to limit national emergencies - cuz it wouldn't effect Trumps border issue. Its no surprise cuz we all know the DEMs wanted to use it for global warming and gun control. This is coming from the woman that said she would want to raise the Supreme Court judges cuz Trump has nominated two to make court 5-4 (which it has been) (per Rueters)
  • Ilhan Omar was bashing Obama a little

Avatar image for boschepg
#9 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

Some Democrat politicians are very bad at math.

Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income plan of giving every adult $1,000 a month seems like a great idea, unless you've looked at other studies where it has been tried or unless you happen to have a calculator:

First, let’s look at the funding. Yang says his 10 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) would raise $800 billion per year, save $600 billion per year from the costs of other welfare programs, save $200 billion per year from reducing the demand on health care services and incarceration, and eventually raise $600 billion extra per year from economic growth.

Before the economic growth (which would not actually happen as I explain below), he has only $1.6 trillion of funds. Even after his expected economic growth, he will have only $2.2 trillion of funds per year, still far from the $2.8 trillionrequired excluding bureaucracy (234 million people 18+ at $12,000 per year). Yang never mentions debt as a means for payment, but his own math doesn’t add up.

Assuming that Yang's plan would work as he says, which it wouldn't and it would end up costing us a trillion plus annually in increased debt but that's another discussion, even under 100% perfect conditions, his plan results in 600 billion more debt per year. Do Democrats not own calculators?

My alt posted the whites on air pollution above - but I wanted to answer this since you asked me this before

Now Yang's supposed UBI is more wide in scope than Booker's or Harris' but I think he means to shift funds from cutting back on student loans as per his Joe Rogen interview. That is why I liked the thought. He actually gave an answer to the question instead of giving the usual political non-sense of who cares who is going to pay for it the world is going to end speech. Hell, DeBlaisio just banned meat from NY schools to help with global warming - I sure hope those meal cost go down

Avatar image for boschepg
#10 Posted by boschePG (6315 posts) - - Show Bio

Gump speed blitzes