Amateur Hour Continues

#25,776
#25,776
Rifleman said:
For me, the funny thing about that whole incident was this: despite how little esteem I have for Trump, I kind of wanted to run in there with a huge American flag like Hacksaw Jim and b*tch slap Trudeau. I'm sure a lot of Canadians weren't impressed with his "Mean Girls" routine either.
Click to expand...
According to what I've read his detractors didn't miss an opportunity to call him out on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#25,783
#25,783
zeppelin128 said:
The dude doing the shouting and that took the mic from the councilwoman is a member of an unofficial Bernie 2020 group as well as BLM. Bernie's campaign distanced themselves and called out this nonsense today, so good for the Bern and pals.
Click to expand...
Bernie’s supporters would club baby seals if You told them the seals were moderates.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan, Rifleman, JCP201 and 3 others
#25,785
#25,785
Rifleman said:
Three jars of over-priced Swiss concealer for ladies is a very poor solution to being a pasty SOB. I'm guessing he poached this off Melania to start with and now he can't stop. Should seriously see a dermatologist.

The writers on any television satire would be fired for presenting any of the last three years as plausible::

"So you're telling me his Manhattan apartment looks like Liberace decorated it, he poops on a gold toilet while applying orange Swiss concealer, has a quaff of golden hair that looks like drag queen's wig, wears four inch lifts, and not only is he not a gay man but blue-collar middle Americans believe he is the manliest man ever? Hand in your writers' guild card and get the hell out of here."
Click to expand...

That is pretty good, 👍
 
#25,788
#25,788
evillawyer said:
Brought to you by the party that also likes to ask "what would Jesus do"?

Click to expand...

and what exactly is wrong with this proposal? Of course Vietor lies in his tweet when he says the this will affect people with physical or mental disabilities, it won’t. It’s abled bodied people ages 18-49 with no dependents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and NurseGoodVol
#25,789
#25,789
Boston Vol said:
and what exactly is wrong with this proposal? Of course Vietor lies in his tweet when he says the this will affect people with physical or mental disabilities, it won’t. It’s abled bodied people ages 18-49 with no dependents.
Click to expand...
You have a source on that?
 
#25,790
#25,790
zeppelin128 said:
You have a source on that?
Click to expand...
Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change
“The USDA rule change affects people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are childless and not disabled. Under current rules, this group is required to work 20 hours a week for more than three months over a 36-month period to qualify for food stamps, but states have been able to create waivers for areas that face high unemployment.”

“The new rule would limit states from waiving those standards, instead restricting their use to those areas that have a 6 percent unemployment rate or higher. The national unemployment rate in October was 3.6 percent.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 615vols, volfanjustin and CagleMtnVol
#25,791
#25,791
Boston Vol said:
Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change
“The USDA rule change affects people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are childless and not disabled. Under current rules, this group is required to work 20 hours a week for more than three months over a 36-month period to qualify for food stamps, but states have been able to create waivers for areas that face high unemployment.”

“The new rule would limit states from waiving those standards, instead restricting their use to those areas that have a 6 percent unemployment rate or higher. The national unemployment rate in October was 3.6 percent.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for the source on this.
 
#25,792
#25,792
Boston Vol said:
Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change
“The USDA rule change affects people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are childless and not disabled. Under current rules, this group is required to work 20 hours a week for more than three months over a 36-month period to qualify for food stamps, but states have been able to create waivers for areas that face high unemployment.”

“The new rule would limit states from waiving those standards, instead restricting their use to those areas that have a 6 percent unemployment rate or higher. The national unemployment rate in October was 3.6 percent.”
Click to expand...
That's one way to increase the population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imw8n4u
#25,793
#25,793
Boston Vol said:
Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change
“The USDA rule change affects people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are childless and not disabled. Under current rules, this group is required to work 20 hours a week for more than three months over a 36-month period to qualify for food stamps, but states have been able to create waivers for areas that face high unemployment.”

“The new rule would limit states from waiving those standards, instead restricting their use to those areas that have a 6 percent unemployment rate or higher. The national unemployment rate in October was 3.6 percent.”
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to be dismissive by the way, I do appreciate the source. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the argument.
 
#25,794
#25,794
zeppelin128 said:
I wasn't trying to be dismissive by the way, I do appreciate the source. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
The only drawback I see is in the definition of disabled. The government is not very good at that.
 
#25,796
#25,796
zeppelin128 said:
Agreed. Especially a GOP Executive Order defining it. I wouldn't trust them with folding my socks.
Click to expand...
So I agree with you in terms of not trusting the Trump administration to do almost anything that doesn’t involve self-enrichment, but the XO will just direct the promulgation of regulations, which the executive Branch does very frequently.

Unfortunately, most of what Congress does now is pass resolutions commanding some executive agency to deal with whatever problem, which is probably how this program came into existence in the first place. The agency the creates regulations which are codified in the CFR. I don’t know anything about that process.

Most of social security disability, for example, is governed by rules set out in the CFR. So there is a bureaucracy in place and this type of regulation is within their wheelhouse. It won’t likely be Trump and Stephen Miller deciding how to do it. It’ll be the “deep state.”

That said, Social Security’s evaluation of disability is pretty badly flawed and it wouldn’t be good for this situation, so just the government in general is not great at making this particular determination in a timely or accurate manner.

It’s just a political doggy treat for those of us who care about the deficit.
 
#25,797
#25,797
zeppelin128 said:
Agreed. Especially a GOP Executive Order defining it. I wouldn't trust them with folding my socks.
Click to expand...

If it is done by any parties executive order it should bother you. If we don't want Presidents to act like kings, perhaps we should not let them have the power of kings. The legislative branch needs to take back its power from the executive branch.
 
#25,798
#25,798
Sandman 423 said:
If it is done by any parties executive order it should bother you. If we don't want Presidents to act like kings, perhaps we should not let them have the power of kings. The legislative branch needs to take back its power from the executive branch.
Click to expand...
Trump would use the executive order to govern. With Obama, he at least urged congress to act and even proposed bills. Trumps unconstitutional EO came when his party controlled both chambers.
 
#25,800
#25,800
Mick said:
Trump would use the executive order to govern. With Obama, he at least urged congress to act and even proposed bills. Trumps unconstitutional EO came when his party controlled both chambers.
Click to expand...
Mick said:
Trump would use the executive order to govern. With Obama, he at least urged congress to act and even proposed bills. Trumps unconstitutional EO came when his party controlled both chambers.
Click to expand...
Like he did with Daca. If only President Obama had control of both chambers they could have done actual immigration reform. Mick, this is not a Trump problem and as long as people continually look away when it is their guy it will never get fixed.


There was a little blue font in case anyone missed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top