mspart

If they did sex trafficking, they should face the consequences like I've said and you guys ignore. But the butchering of youth's bodies seems to be ok with all y'all and you say I am diverting the conversation. I don't see much of a difference. Both are making money by sexually exploiting youth. mspart

My computer froze and I accidentally posted this twice. I apologize. The other post has a more complete first post. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/19/were-winning-across-the-board-raskin-takes-a-slightly-premature-victory-lap-just-before-a-slew-of-court-losses/ On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases. For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions. There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue. On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief. He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.” Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of DOGE, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.” There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general. Even before Raskin’s boast, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.” Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward. Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.” These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.” The race is far from over so both sides may want to stay focused on the finish line in the ongoing litigation. Those claiming unconstitutional actions by the admin should note that the admin has won their cases so far. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/19/were-winning-across-the-board-raskin-takes-a-slightly-premature-victory-lap-just-before-a-slew-of-court-losses/ On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) repeated the talking point of Democratic politicians and pundits that the courts are stopping President Donald Trump’s lawless actions taken after his inauguration. Raskin declared “we’re winning in court…we’re winning across the board.” The boast was dubious at best on Sunday given earlier losses, but became embarrassing on Monday and Tuesday as additional courts ruled in favor of the Trump Administration in major cases. For weeks, some of us have expressed confusion over the basis for some of the Democratic challenges and initial injunctions in court. President Trump clearly has the authority to designate federal officials to look at the books and track expenditures in the executive branch. After losing both houses and the majority vote, Democratic groups sought to use the courts to block such executive actions. There was obvious forum shopping as these groups went to many of the same courts and judges for relief. However, even judges viewed as decidedly hostile to Trump like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington ultimately balked at the demand for an injunction and allowed the access and actions to continue. On Monday, Judge Randolph Moss, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia delivered a blow to groups seeking to block the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to data from the Department of Education on student borrowers. Judge Moss found in his ruling that the University of California Student Association failed to show sufficient irreparable harm to receive such immediate relief. He, however, left the door open a crack: “The Court leaves for another day consideration of whether USCA has standing to sue and has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Those questions are less clear cut and are better answered on a more complete record.” Judge Chutkan also refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request to issue a temporary restraining order of DOGE, again citing the failure to demonstrate evidence of “irreparable harm.” There was a palpable sense of reluctance, even regret, in the opinion by Chutkan who noted that “Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.” This, of course ignores the “elected individual” in the body of the President who is allowed to delegate such responsibility to subordinates. Chutkin would have been reversed by the higher courts if she had issued the requested TRO as demanded by the coalition of 14 Democratic state attorneys general. Even before Raskin’s boast, U.S. District Judge John Bates also rejected a request to block DOGE from accessing records of three government agencies, writing in his own opinion Friday that plaintiffs “have not shown a substantial likelihood that [DOGE] is not an agency.” Likewise, challengers thought that they had a victory in hand when U.S. District Court Judge George O’Toole enjoined the buyout offer by the Administration. Some of us criticized the injunction as lacking any cognizable basis given the clear authority of the President to make such an offer. Then, as many were citing the victory as proof of the Trump Administration’s unlawful actions, Judge O’Toole lifted the injunction on the buyout program, agreeing to allow the buyouts to go forward. Then Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) in Doe v. Office of Personnel Mgmt. rejected another challenge to testing by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) of a new email system. The federal employees argued that the move violated federal law including privacy protections. The court, however, ruled that the “Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating (1) that they likely have standing to bring this action, and (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of emergency relief.” These and other setbacks do not mean that new cases cannot be brought with new records and parties. However, it is a far cry from the claim of Democrats “winning across the board.” Those claming unconstitutional actions by the admin should note that the admin has won their cases. 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

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

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

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

Apparently not. mspart

On the contrary. The original point of this was made moot when he was confirmed. Then you jump to a conclusion that of course is wrong about what he is drinking at a conference. Who drinks bourbon or whiskey while in a working meeting, especially government representatives? Did you ever think of that? You didn't think to do a little more looking at it. You jumped to your conclusion, and I love to say this, without any evidence at all. You just said it. Bigbrog's attention span is on that. 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

But would you have? mspart

This is what I see with your fpds.gov link. Yep, nothing, white screen. Care to try again? mspart

So you don't care to back up your "facts"? Then you are correct, we have nothing more to talk about because you are not participating. I am simply asking you to back up your assertions but you can't or won't so they are not true. You don't know what you are talking about but you want everyone to think you do. Put up or shut up. My guess is you'll shut up or keep on yammering on like no one noticed your fraud. mspart

You have to read RV. That helps. I said, the sex traffickers need to be prosecuted. Apparently you don't think that butchers of youth should be prosecuted, or at the very least they are trafficking in sex predation. It's good to know where everyone stands on these issues. Selective outrage is what you are handing out. mspart

You still have not providing anything to support your specious claim, other than to say it seems pretty clear. I think it seems pretty clear that most liberal women in that age group are white women, of means and education. That shoots down a few of your "it seems clear" suggestions. And you saying Religion is for mental midgets is pure leftism like I said and yet you said it anyway. Proving the point. Bring some proof of your suggestions and then a more intelligent conversation can be held. mspart

It's not just liberal women who are not happy. Just take the win RV. It'll be good for you. mspart

No, he was pointing out your selective outrage. If these guys are sex offenders, they should be prosecuted. Where is the outrage for sex offenders masquerading as doctors who want to butcher youth for money, teachers that groom these kids to think that they may need surgery or puberty blockers, school systems that won't tell parents what is going on with their kids. Selective outrage indeed. And that is not a what about ism. That is exactly what voters rejected in the last election. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/ One of the mysteries of this election is how the Democrats approached polling day with a set of policies on gender identity that they were neither proud to champion—nor prepared to disown. Although most Americans agree that transgender people should not face discrimination in housing and employment, there is nowhere near the same level of support for allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports—which is why Donald Trump kept bringing up the issue. His campaign also barraged swing-state voters and sports fans with ads reminding them that Kamala Harris had previously supported taxpayer-funded gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. The commercials were effective: The New York Times reported that Future Forward, a pro-Harris super PAC, found that one ad “shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.” The Harris campaign mostly avoided the subject. Since the election, reports of dissent from this strategy have begun to trickle out. Bill Clinton reportedly raised the alarm about letting the attacks go unanswered, but was ignored. After Harris’s loss, Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts went on the record with his concerns. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” he told the Times. The recriminations go as far as the White House, where allies of Joe Biden told my colleague Franklin Foer that the current president would have countered Trump’s ads more aggressively, and “clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in women’s sports.” mspart

Oh, you knew there were 160 year olds on the SS rolls? And a 300 year old? You didn't know until this was discovered. I'm really surprised, I thought you would be overjoyed that they are on to SS now. Wonders never cease. mspart

Just because YOU want to gut it it must be fraud? Not seeing that. mspart

Musk has found 31 million people eon the social security rolls that are over 110 years old. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/17/are-150-year-old-americans-receiving-social-securi/ This website tries to explain this all away. But the fact remains that the SS database is not correct and it should be more correct. The listing seen above is not complete. It lists one person between 240-249 years old, and 1 person 360-369 years old. There is something seriously wrong with this. So this is a great find that RV should love. I'm not saying all these people get payments, but the article does say: Between fiscal years 2015 and 2022, which includes Trump’s first presidency, the Social Security Administration sent almost $71.8 billion in improper payments, according to a July 2024 agency inspector general report. The inspector general’s office called improper payments "a longstanding challenge." A November 2021 inspector general’s report found $298 million in payments after death to some 24,000 beneficiaries. (About $84 million was returned, the report said.) These are not huge numbers, but it sis concerning that so many people are on the rolls that are obviously dead. It will be interesting to see more on this. Hopefully they are just listed but not actively being paid. Assuming an average $2000/month per old person, that's around 63Billion that could be saved. Hopefully that is not the case but that is significant. mspart

Continually being obtuse is not working for you. msaprt

I couldn't have walked into it any better than this. Do you have anything that proves your point here. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. mspart

Excellent example of the media lying about Biden!! mspart

And at the bottom of that article is this: Why you can rely on the Guardian not to bow to Trump – or anyone They are advertising their opposition to Trump. Very clearly not a neutral outlet. mspart