fishbane

Red cards are not appealable and cannot be taken away. Article 27 cannot lift a suspension from a red card it can only suspend the penalty (ban) for 1-4 years. In Balogun's case they suspended the sanction for 1 year. I assume the judicial body in question here was the disciplinary committee since he doesn't have the right to appeal a red card. So in this case the backroom review decided to be more lenient. In Ronaldo's situation, the only other time this was ever done, the disciplinary committee opted for more discipline but then suspended all of it. Why was article 27 used in these two instances and no others?

How much was he paid?

So free that crime is legal at least for some.

Can't undo a red card there is no mechanism for that. And if this backroom review decided it wasn't a red here the official review in Ronaldo's case decided it as worse than a red card. Instead of the mandatory one game ban they decided it was worthy of a three game ban. Why give two more games only to suspend them? It would be better for the integrity of the competition if vague catch all exceptions weren't used in this manner and if politicians stayed out of sports. Not unexpected from an organization like FIFA sadly.

The only other time it’s been done. Why was it done for Ronaldo and Balogun and not Sithole, Zwane, Montes, Mokoene, Muharemović, Ahmed, Madibo, Almiron, Nagoya, Cabral, Gomez, or Lasheen who all served suspensions at this World Cup? There isn’t a rational argument to explain it. How is that fair to those individuals and the countries of South Africa, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Qatar, Paraguay, Belgium, Cape Verde, and Egypt? How does FIFA suspend Quanshah for England’s next match? FIFA is favoring the USA and Portugal over these other counties.

And yet you see no problem with the president selling and promoting trash?

Feel free to buy some and ad to the trading volume!

Folarin Balogun ban from a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina has been suspended and will be served outside of the tournament. Whilst this is good news for the US in their game today, it seems unjust. President Trump personally lobbied FIFA for this to happen and no other player in the tournament has similarly had a ban suspended. Twelve players have served bans at this world cup due to red cards, suspensions, or an accumulation of yellow cards so far. Three of them served suspensions in the knock out stage so far. Three others received a red card in their country's final game and will serve the suspension outside of the World Cup by necessity. Jarell Quansah received a red card yesterday and will be suspended for England's quarterfinal match. If you let Balogun and the US off here how were the rules consistently applied across the other 16 suspensions?

I don't care about the new livery. You seem to care about waste fraud and abuse except when it comes to Trump. If the Qatari plane is necessary then it should remain with the Air Force. If not then it was wasteful to modify it. There exists a similar tension with his crypto ventures. If his coins are supposed to be either an investment or a store of value then investors losing $2.28B whilst the president profited $1.4B would be a problem for investors. If investors are not upset with the losses then did they somehow get value for money? That is concerning if the investors got value by lobbying Trump for policy that benefits their interests buy maybe not be the same as the American public.

I don't think there are many questioning Trump for ordering the replacement planes from Boeing. I think that made sense. The question is whether the modifications to the gifted plane makes sense. Boeing said that if the AIr Force agreed to modification to the requirements one of the planes could be delivered in 2027 up from 2029. So if the modifications were acceptable then the need for a bridge plane to replace the VC-25As only has a useful lifetime of 1.5-2.5 years. If they weren't then the replacement could be in use 2.5-3.5 years until both VC-25Bs are delivered, but that's without additional delays and Trump doesn't give away the gifted plane after 2.5 years. The gifted plane cant really be a cost savings over maintaining the current VC-25As because those aren't being retired. They will still be maintained as backups and are more capable for the purposes of protecting the president than the hastily modified Qatari gift. They can't even fully retire one of them because with Trump fixing to give this plane away in early 2029 both planes might be needed if their is a delay. Also both planes remain superior at defending the president in the air meaning one is still needed for higher risk uses and the other as backup in case something happens to the other one. In other words there is little to no maintenance cost saved because now instead of maintaining two 35 year old aircrafts they are maintaining two 35 year old aircrafts being used a little less and a 15 year old aircraft. If you think I am wrong and the Qatari plane is actually better in all regards than the old VC-25As then it should remain in possession of the Air Force until both replacement planes have been delivered. The latest reporting I could find said one VC-25B will be delivered is mid 2028 and the other in mid 2029. This might mean that the not all the modifications were accepted. It also means that a delay of 6 months and the next president could take office and have to use both old VC-25As with Trump having given away the modified Qatari plane. The decision to modify the Qatari plane is dubious from a cost and necessity standpoint. Having made the modifications the plane should remain in possession of the Air Force until both VC-25Bs have been delivered and they've determined there doesn't exist an alternative use for it in the military. Then if the Trump library still wants it they can request it from the DOD. Bush's presidential library has requested one of the VC-25As after its retirement. This is how presidential planes typically end up at presidential libraries/museums. The outgoing president doesn't give them away before leaving office.

You’re going senile old man. I never once said it was a personal gift to Trump and you didn’t ask me that question. I responded to your statement “Umm...the jet was a gift to the US not Trump personally...you guys and your TDS is in strong form lately” asking what Trump’s plans for the plane are in 2029. You never responded. If it the plane is a gift to the US, property of the US, and hundred millions of taxpayer dollars were used to renovate it, then it should remain in possession of the US government through 1/21/2029.

You forgot to compare the value of these gifts with the value of the plane. The plane is vastly more expensive. You are also overlooked the utility of the item in question. All the expensive items in your list that other presidents transferred to their libraries are show pieces. If they remained with the government they would either be on display somewhere or in storage. It’s not like you can sell or regift ceremonial gifts and it’s not like if Obama left that Malaysian sword with the government the DOD would use it in battle. Conversely the plane has actual utility it can move people and things from place to place. It could be left with the DOD and serve a purpose. Then at the end of its usable life get moved to a museum for display. This is what happened to the small plane LBJ purchased to transport him from the Air Force base to his ranch in Texas. He didn’t transfer it to his library before he left office. It was left to the DOD and continued to transport people for decades. When it was finally retired from service it was put on display in a museum where it remains today. Finally none of those gifts you listed required hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer dollars for modification. If Obama had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to modify that Malaysian sword when the DOD has two older perfectly good swords that would be better suited for their intended purpose even after modifications to the Malaysian sword some might call into question the spending. Obamas preference for the style of the Malaysian sword would not justify it to many. Especially when he has an order for two brand news swords from an American company the first of which could be delivered only 1.5 years after modifications to the Malaysian sword are completed. It shouldn’t be surprising that some view the plane as an example of waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it can certainly be looked at as waste and abuse given the large sums that were spent on it only to get a less capable less secure plane than the two we already have and with such a limited service life. Allegations of bribery and fraud are more speculative, but likely driven by how non sensical the decision appears to be.

You didn't answer my question. What is Trump going to do with the plane no later than Jan 1, 2029? It also wasn't just a gift from Qatar, tens of millions of tax payer $$ have been used to modify this gift.

Feel free to compare the value of those gifts to the value of the plane. Also feel free to answer my question as to what Trump is going to do with it in 2029?

Demonstrably untrue. I am sure some people that have no problem with Trump doing this would have a big problem if an elected official they disagree with tried something similar.

Before you call everyone crazy, what was Trumps stated intent for the plane come 2029?

A year ago you were confident the court was going to rule the opposite that it ultimately did. Now you are predicting Trump vs Barbara to be Dred Scott 2.0. It should not be surprising if you end up being wrong on this given how confidently you were wrong on this topic in the past. You are not prescient on this topic.

I believing the mocking in the post you responded to, like most of the mocking in this thread, was directed at AJ Ferrari not God or yahweh. Ferrari uses unusual names for god. I haven seen him use yahweh. On instagram he often uses Yahuah (His victim also said he uses this one), Yahusha, or Yahusha Christ. Are all these referencing the same person?

You have an amazing track record on this topic lol.

Bribery is literally illegal too. What evidence do you have of insider trading? "You have that on audio or an email or something. Where is your evidence of this"

And never called into question Nancy Pelosi's trading because "Tis all legal boss?" Both are an example of taking something too far. Every politician in their position might do it a little - a de minimis amount in the grand scheme, but these two max it out and force action. Pelosi made hundreds of millions and Trump billions.

Should we be unconcerned with Nancy Pelosi's stock market gains? Neary all politicians invest in the stock market one way or another. And besides her husband is the stock trader not her just like Trump's sons are running his crypto ventures. All legal and completely above board, no? You shouldn't vote for someone that abuses their position in this way. Its a fraud on the public.

Ask your AI to compare the cumulative value of all gifts the previous presidents received and compare it to the $1.4B in Cypto profits Trump has made over the past year and a half.

He isn't supposed to accept any gifts without congressional consent. This is to prevent corruption. A quid pro quo is difficult to prove. Those engaged in such things typically are careful to stop short of spelling it out. Rules exist to prevent corruption and preserve the integrity of the institution. If it looks bad it is bad. Would you be okay with a democrat selling a meme coin either just before taking office or whilst in office and profiting billions? Aren't you the one that said all politicians are trash? Why give benefit of the doubt here? At best it is wrong because it only creates the appearance of a conflict of interest/bribe and at worst is bribery/fraud/abuse.

It certainly would fall under the DOGE mandate to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. I think it fits most cleanly under the last one abuse, but it is also a fraud. It all depends on the viewpoint. If an elected official is taking bribes and putting the interest of those paying the bribes over his constituents and the country than that is a fraud on the voters and the country.