If this doesn't sound like a dictator then I don't know what a dictator is

[Tripnsweep]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/donald-trump-latest-executive-order-only-president-attorney-general-pam-bondi-can-interpret-us-law-article-118371626/amp

 

How many of you sycophants are going to be able to rationalize this? 

[jross]

I was told Elon Musk is the president so...?

[red viking]

1 hour ago, jross said:

I was told Elon Musk is the president so...?

Nice deflection, but a completely different subject. Whether Musk is telling Trump what to do or Trump approves whatever he does (as if there's a huge difference), there are no checks and balances anymore. You ever hear of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers? You don't care about that  garbage anymore though. How convenient. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:22 PM by red viking

[jross]

I was more trolling...

Can you tell me 10 ways that the last administration did not follow the constitution?  Did you care?

Of course I care.  Where did I say differently?

[red viking]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

I was more trolling...

Can you tell me 10 ways that the last administration did not follow the constitution?  Did you care?

Of course I care.  Where did I say differently?

They followed it by not trying to shut down whatever govt agencies they wanted without congressional approval. 

[Tripnsweep]

34 minutes ago, jross said:

I was more trolling...

Can you tell me 10 ways that the last administration did not follow the constitution?  Did you care?

Of course I care.  Where did I say differently?

If Biden had said this, the aspies on this board would have screamed it was a communist takeover of this country. 

[mspart]

But would you have?

mspart

[mspart]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/feb/18/trump-signs-executive-order-allowing-attorney-gene/

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

This puts the issue in a different context.   How is it a problem for agencies to defer to their boss before making a proclamation about the law?   Honest question.  

mspart

[headshuck]

Since you don’t know what a dictator is, here’s one…

[Tripnsweep]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/feb/18/trump-signs-executive-order-allowing-attorney-gene/

Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch.

This puts the issue in a different context.   How is it a problem for agencies to defer to their boss before making a proclamation about the law?   Honest question.  

mspart

Because they know what they are doing? It's like asking a chimpanzee whether he thinks it's a good idea to do something. He doesn't know, doesn't care, and isn't interested enough to make an informed decision. 

[mspart]

So how is getting the messaging correct a bad thing?   The executive branch should be in agreement.   There should not be cases where an agency says one thing that is contrary to the Executive's understanding.  

Trump is trying to reign in bureaucrats doing what they want, a la USAID sending money to house illegals in hotels after Trump said to stop.   Those guys that did that are now gone. 

mspart

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

If Biden had said this, the aspies on this board would have screamed it was a communist takeover of this country. 

Biden can’t say that many words in a row and make sense.   Nice try 

[red viking]

30 minutes ago, mspart said:

So how is getting the messaging correct a bad thing?   The executive branch should be in agreement.   There should not be cases where an agency says one thing that is contrary to the Executive's understanding.  

Trump is trying to reign in bureaucrats doing what they want, a la USAID sending money to house illegals in hotels after Trump said to stop.   Those guys that did that are now gone. 

mspart

It's very simple. The money was appropriated by Congress and the agencies are charged with enforcing laws that were also passed by Congress.

It's a very straightforward 100% violation of the Constitution for President Musk (with diaper donald's approval) to decide on their own to shut down whatever agencies they choose. 

[Caveira]

21 minutes ago, red viking said:

It's very simple. The money was appropriated by Congress and the agencies are charged with enforcing laws that were also passed by Congress.

It's a very straightforward 100% violation of the Constitution for President Musk (with diaper donald's approval) to decide on their own to shut down whatever agencies they choose. 

Similar to sanctuary cities?

[Bigbrog]

26 minutes ago, red viking said:

It's very simple. The money was appropriated by Congress and the agencies are charged with enforcing laws that were also passed by Congress.

It's a very straightforward 100% violation of the Constitution for President Musk (with diaper donald's approval) to decide on their own to shut down whatever agencies they choose. 

Weee...mental gymnastics are fun....weee....being immature and calling people names are fun....

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Similar to sanctuary cities?

more deflecting, and not even a good deflection since that's a local issue

Edited Wednesday at 06:11 PM by red viking

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

more deflecting, and not even a good deflection since that's a local issue

Defo not needing federal funds to help fix then ?

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

So how is getting the messaging correct a bad thing?   The executive branch should be in agreement.   There should not be cases where an agency says one thing that is contrary to the Executive's understanding.  

Trump is trying to reign in bureaucrats doing what they want, a la USAID sending money to house illegals in hotels after Trump said to stop.   Those guys that did that are now gone. 

mspart

Except what Trump wants isn't the law. His interests don't necessarily align with our country and from his personal views or way of doing business, not always legal or constitutional. Plus it's good to have independent oversight where authority doesn't come from just one person's opinion. 

I always think of the first time Obama met with the people who were in the DOJ. He came in and said, your job is to uphold justice and the constitution, not be beholden to me or anything else. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:38 PM by Tripnsweep

[mspart]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

It's very simple. The money was appropriated by Congress and the agencies are charged with enforcing laws that were also passed by Congress.

It's a very straightforward 100% violation of the Constitution for President Musk (with diaper donald's approval) to decide on their own to shut down whatever agencies they choose. 

The executive branch is tasked with enforcing laws.   The President is the head of the executive branch.  The President saying all proclamations on the law by agencies must be coordinated with the AG and/or President is 100% within his Constitutional duties.   Have you read the Constitution lately?   Congress passes bills, The President signs them and then enforces them.  It's very clear. 

mspart

[red viking]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

The executive branch is tasked with enforcing laws.   The President is the head of the executive branch.  The President saying all proclamations on the law by agencies must be coordinated with the AG and/or President is 100% within his Constitutional duties.   Have you read the Constitution lately?   Congress passes bills, The President signs them and then enforces them.  It's very clear. 

mspart

He is single-handedly (or double if you want to count President Musk) away money that was appropriated by Congress and also choosing NOT to enforce the laws that he is supposed to. Clearly violating the Constitution on two fronts.  It really can't get any simpler. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:06 PM by red viking

[mspart]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

He is single-handedly (or double if you want to count President Musk) away money that was appropriated by Congress and also choosing NOT to enforce the laws that he is supposed to. Clearly violating the Constitution on two fronts.  It really can't get any simpler. 

Are you complaining about money not being spent right now, or that it will never be spent according to Congressional mandate in the law?   If the former, yes, money is not being spent right now.   If the former, you have no basis for making such conjecture.   You just aren't happy that money has temporarily been stopped from being spent.   On those things that Congress did not mandate, you have no valid position.   Unless Congress mandated funding LGBT operas in Colombia or  trans comics in Peru or circumcision in Africa, I think those things can be stopped easily.

mspart

[red viking]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Are you complaining about money not being spent right now, or that it will never be spent according to Congressional mandate in the law?   If the former, yes, money is not being spent right now.   If the former, you have no basis for making such conjecture.   You just aren't happy that money has temporarily been stopped from being spent.   On those things that Congress did not mandate, you have no valid position.   Unless Congress mandated funding LGBT operas in Colombia or  trans comics in Peru or circumcision in Africa, I think those things can be stopped easily.

mspart

He doesn't have authority to do either, by himself. This is much larger than anecdotal, cherry-picked expenditures through USAID. It is across federal agencies and laws. 

[mspart]

Again, he is the chief executive.   He can slow sdown payments to get a handle on what the payments are for.  If they are not mandated by law, he can get rid of them.   Very clear.

mspart

[jross]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

They followed it by not trying to shut down whatever govt agencies they wanted without congressional approval. 

And there is a deflection.  Or are you trolling?

The Supreme Court case Biden v. Nebraska (June 2023) directly addressed that Biden's administration's plan on student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional.

[Offthemat]