Political cartoon and meme thread for both sides of the spectrum.

[Cassandros]

And now we have texts from the crew members complaining about and questioning the unusual stop, and how their per diem was not enough to cover the meals at the resort.

Again... So?

If you join the military you have to go where you are told.

Still, in and of itself this is a non-issue. (Save the part I already mentioned that is technically not illegal, but absolute bullshit).

It is indeed illegal if directed by the administration. Its a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. It's not like we havent already had plenty of those.

You blues keep echoing he is violating the emoluments clause, so again I ask: How?

The Commander in Chief can direct the military, and there are no (visible and direct) personal profits to Trump by entities foreign or domestic.

If you have a "blatant" case, fucking present it already. Because the shit the three of you have presented thus far is, unfortunately, not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Goddamn you fucking moron, he cant direct military operations to change normal operations that have been in place for years to visit his personal businesses that make a profit for him, and patronize businesses that give perks for such diversions. How fucking stupid (or obtuse) are you?

He is being willingly obtuse. He already has admitted that what Trump is doing is bullshit but the ball washer in him just won't admit that what Trump is doing is a violation of the emoluments clause. Because orange balls taste sooo good.

No, I am pointing out that you are all full of shit when you are squawking about him violating the emoluments clause.

By making erogenous claims like this you diminish real issues.

And the real issues stay obfuscated because people by and large can't fucking be honest about what's happening. You want your side to win so bad you are willing to parrot their narratives- even when they are clearly false. All this will accomplish is when Trump actually starts violating that clause (and others) no one will listen because you cried wolf way too much.

[spudoc]

And now we have texts from the crew members complaining about and questioning the unusual stop, and how their per diem was not enough to cover the meals at the resort.

Again... So?

If you join the military you have to go where you are told.

Still, in and of itself this is a non-issue. (Save the part I already mentioned that is technically not illegal, but absolute bullshit).

It is indeed illegal if directed by the administration. Its a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. It's not like we havent already had plenty of those.

You blues keep echoing he is violating the emoluments clause, so again I ask: How?

The Commander in Chief can direct the military, and there are no (visible and direct) personal profits to Trump by entities foreign or domestic.

If you have a "blatant" case, fucking present it already. Because the shit the three of you have presented thus far is, unfortunately, not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Goddamn you fucking moron, he cant direct military operations to change normal operations that have been used for years to visit his personal businesses, and patronize businesses that give perks for such diversions. How fucking stupid (or obtuse) are you?

Actually, he can. But I am very curious why you believe otherwise.

Regardless, how the fuck does that impact the emoluments clause? The emolument clauses are about entities bribing Federal officials. I see no way diverting a plane to get fuel someplace else and making people stay at your hotel as evidence of violating this clause.

So, instead of name calling how about you actually answer the fucking question. Be specific, or stfu.

How can you not? If ( and I'll concede that there in't 100% proof that Trump ordered this) Trump ordered this change in military procedure or if he directed Pence to stay at a property that he owns he is directly profiting off of the government. And it doesn't't matter if he's charging more or less than standard rates. He is directing the federal government to put government money into his pocket. That is a clear violation of the emoluments clause.

[DandyDon]

And now we have texts from the crew members complaining about and questioning the unusual stop, and how their per diem was not enough to cover the meals at the resort.

Again... So?

If you join the military you have to go where you are told.

Still, in and of itself this is a non-issue. (Save the part I already mentioned that is technically not illegal, but absolute bullshit).

It is indeed illegal if directed by the administration. Its a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. It's not like we havent already had plenty of those.

You blues keep echoing he is violating the emoluments clause, so again I ask: How?

The Commander in Chief can direct the military, and there are no (visible and direct) personal profits to Trump by entities foreign or domestic.

If you have a "blatant" case, fucking present it already. Because the shit the three of you have presented thus far is, unfortunately, not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Goddamn you fucking moron, he cant direct military operations to change normal operations that have been used for years to visit his personal businesses, and patronize businesses that give perks for such diversions. How fucking stupid (or obtuse) are you?

Actually, he can. But I am very curious why you believe otherwise.

Regardless, how the fuck does that impact the emoluments clause? The emolument clauses are about entities bribing Federal officials. I see no way diverting a plane to get fuel someplace else and making people stay at your hotel as evidence of violating this clause.

So, instead of name calling how about you actually answer the fucking question. Be specific, or stfu.

How hard is it for you to understand that the POTUS cannot direct official US government business to patronize his businesses for personal profit, especially when he has refused to divest from said businesses? Even though he "claims" he did by putting them into control of his children, but then makes them official WH staff and advisers.

[Cassandros]

For Spudoc and DandyDon:
(Because this addresses both of your post and makes things a bit cleaner)

I am telling you, this is a gray area (for a reason).

This is why Presidents are supposed to relinquish their private lives to be a public servant.

The clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

We know the first one doesn't apply automatically. In the second it says he cannot accept emoluments from the US or any State.

There is simply not enough info here to know- because if the room was free and the food was at cost- then no profit went to Trump. And that is just as possible as any other scenario.

BUT more importantly we have to remember: per diem pay for the military is a reimbursement... that means that they paid for anything and everything out of pocket. Are we even for sure military personnel spending their own money at a hotel constitutes an emolument from the US? I don't think that has ever been tested, but the spirit of the clause is that its a government payment, not a private payment from a government employee.

This is why, ultimately, the bottom line here is: this is a non-issue. Let this go and focus on things that matter, things that do have concrete proof and that bolster your position.

Unless there is concrete proof of a violation (which there isn't) latching on to this will only diminish your credibility in the future. It will only serve to re-elect Trump down the road.

[DandyDon]

And now we have texts from the crew members complaining about and questioning the unusual stop, and how their per diem was not enough to cover the meals at the resort.

Again... So?

If you join the military you have to go where you are told.

Still, in and of itself this is a non-issue. (Save the part I already mentioned that is technically not illegal, but absolute bullshit).

It is indeed illegal if directed by the administration. Its a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. It's not like we havent already had plenty of those.

You blues keep echoing he is violating the emoluments clause, so again I ask: How?

The Commander in Chief can direct the military, and there are no (visible and direct) personal profits to Trump by entities foreign or domestic.

If you have a "blatant" case, fucking present it already. Because the shit the three of you have presented thus far is, unfortunately, not a violation of the emoluments clause.

Goddamn you fucking moron, he cant direct military operations to change normal operations that have been used for years to visit his personal businesses, and patronize businesses that give perks for such diversions. How fucking stupid (or obtuse) are you?

Actually, he can. But I am very curious why you believe otherwise.

Regardless, how the fuck does that impact the emoluments clause? The emolument clauses are about entities bribing Federal officials. I see no way diverting a plane to get fuel someplace else and making people stay at your hotel as evidence of violating this clause.

So, instead of name calling how about you actually answer the fucking question. Be specific, or stfu.

He can because we have a spineless fucking Repub Senate who will suck Trump cock as long as he is their useful idiot. If he were a Dem, impeachment articles would have flooded the legislature Jan. 21 3 years ago.

[DandyDon]

For Spudoc and DandyDon:
(Because this addresses both of your post and makes things a bit cleaner)

I am telling you, this is a gray area (for a reason).

This is why Presidents are supposed to relinquish their private lives to be a public servant.

The clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

We know the first one doesn't apply automatically. In the second it says he cannot accept emoluments from the US or any State.

There is simply not enough info here to know- because if the room was free and the food was at cost- then no profit went to Trump. And that is just as possible as any other scenario.

BUT more importantly we have to remember: per diem pay for the military is a reimbursement... that means that they paid for anything and everything out of pocket. Are we even for sure military personnel spending their own money at a hotel constitutes an emolument from the US? I don't think that has ever been tested, but the spirit of the clause is that its a government payment, not a private payment from a government employee.

This is why, ultimately, the bottom line here is: this is a non-issue. Let this go and focus on things that matter, things that do have concrete proof and that bolster your position.

Unless there is concrete proof of a violation (which there isn't) latching on to this will only diminish your credibility in the future. It will only serve to re-elect Trump down the road.

No, there is plenty of info. You simply choose to ignore it. You conveniently ignore it is a Trump owned hotel, and they had no problems with their per diem at the previous hotels they stayed at.

On previous trips to the Middle East, the C-17 had landed at U.S. air bases such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or Naval Station Rota in Spain to refuel, according to one person familiar with the trips. Occasionally the plane stopped in the Azores and once in Sigonella, Italy, both of which have U.S. military sites, the person added.

But on this particular trip, the plane landed in Glasgow — a pitstop the five-man crew had never experienced in their dozens of trips to the Middle East. The location lacked a U.S. base and was dozens of miles away from the crew’s overnight lodging at the Turnberry resort.

Had the crew needed to make a stop in the U.K., Lakenheath Air Base is situated nearby in England. The layover might have been cheaper, too: the military gets billed at a higher rate for fuel at commercial airports.

One crew member was so struck by the choice of hotel — markedly different than the Marriotts and Hiltons the 176th maintenance squadron is used to — that he texted someone close to him and told him about the stay, sending a photo and noting that the crew’s per diem allowance wasn’t enough to cover food and drinks at the ritzy resort.

[spudoc]

For Spudoc and DandyDon:
(Because this addresses both of your post and makes things a bit cleaner)

I am telling you, this is a gray area (for a reason).

This is why Presidents are supposed to relinquish their private lives to be a public servant.

The clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

We know the first one doesn't apply automatically. In the second it says he cannot accept emoluments from the US or any State.

There is simply not enough info here to know- because if the room was free and the food was at cost- then no profit went to Trump. And that is just as possible as any other scenario.

BUT more importantly we have to remember: per diem pay for the military is a reimbursement... that means that they paid for anything and everything out of pocket. Are we even for sure military personnel spending their own money at a hotel constitutes an emolument from the US? I don't think that has ever been tested, but the spirit of the clause is that its a government payment, not a private payment from a government employee.

This is why, ultimately, the bottom line here is: this is a non-issue. Let this go and focus on things that matter, things that do have concrete proof and that bolster your position.

Unless there is concrete proof of a violation (which there isn't) latching on to this will only diminish your credibility in the future. It will only serve to re-elect Trump down the road.

A per diem for just about anyone is a meal reimbursement. It has nothing to do with lodging. That would be covered by the government.

[Cassandros]

For Spudoc and DandyDon:
(Because this addresses both of your post and makes things a bit cleaner)

I am telling you, this is a gray area (for a reason).

This is why Presidents are supposed to relinquish their private lives to be a public servant.

The clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

We know the first one doesn't apply automatically. In the second it says he cannot accept emoluments from the US or any State.

There is simply not enough info here to know- because if the room was free and the food was at cost- then no profit went to Trump. And that is just as possible as any other scenario.

BUT more importantly we have to remember: per diem pay for the military is a reimbursement... that means that they paid for anything and everything out of pocket. Are we even for sure military personnel spending their own money at a hotel constitutes an emolument from the US? I don't think that has ever been tested, but the spirit of the clause is that its a government payment, not a private payment from a government employee.

This is why, ultimately, the bottom line here is: this is a non-issue. Let this go and focus on things that matter, things that do have concrete proof and that bolster your position.

Unless there is concrete proof of a violation (which there isn't) latching on to this will only diminish your credibility in the future. It will only serve to re-elect Trump down the road.

No, there is plenty of info. You simply choose to ignore it. You conveniently ignore it is a Trump owned hotel, and they had no problems with their per diem at the previous hotels they stayed at.

On previous trips to the Middle East, the C-17 had landed at U.S. air bases such as Ramstein Air Base in Germany or Naval Station Rota in Spain to refuel, according to one person familiar with the trips. Occasionally the plane stopped in the Azores and once in Sigonella, Italy, both of which have U.S. military sites, the person added.

But on this particular trip, the plane landed in Glasgow — a pitstop the five-man crew had never experienced in their dozens of trips to the Middle East. The location lacked a U.S. base and was dozens of miles away from the crew’s overnight lodging at the Turnberry resort.

Had the crew needed to make a stop in the U.K., Lakenheath Air Base is situated nearby in England. The layover might have been cheaper, too: the military gets billed at a higher rate for fuel at commercial airports.

One crew member was so struck by the choice of hotel — markedly different than the Marriotts and Hiltons the 176th maintenance squadron is used to — that he texted someone close to him and told him about the stay, sending a photo and noting that the crew’s per diem allowance wasn’t enough to cover food and drinks at the ritzy resort.

/facepalm.

Cost of fuel means nothing when citing the emolument clause.

Per diem for the military is a reimbursement. Thus, technically, all money spent at the resort was out of pocket by people- NOT from government bodies.

You can keep re-posting the same non-evidence, it won't magically become proof of a crime.

[Cassandros]

For Spudoc and DandyDon:
(Because this addresses both of your post and makes things a bit cleaner)

I am telling you, this is a gray area (for a reason).

This is why Presidents are supposed to relinquish their private lives to be a public servant.

The clauses:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

We know the first one doesn't apply automatically. In the second it says he cannot accept emoluments from the US or any State.

There is simply not enough info here to know- because if the room was free and the food was at cost- then no profit went to Trump. And that is just as possible as any other scenario.

BUT more importantly we have to remember: per diem pay for the military is a reimbursement... that means that they paid for anything and everything out of pocket. Are we even for sure military personnel spending their own money at a hotel constitutes an emolument from the US? I don't think that has ever been tested, but the spirit of the clause is that its a government payment, not a private payment from a government employee.

This is why, ultimately, the bottom line here is: this is a non-issue. Let this go and focus on things that matter, things that do have concrete proof and that bolster your position.

Unless there is concrete proof of a violation (which there isn't) latching on to this will only diminish your credibility in the future. It will only serve to re-elect Trump down the road.

A per diem for just about anyone is a meal reimbursement. It has nothing to do with lodging. That would be covered by the government.

Per Diem is a daily allotment to reimburse servicemembers for the out-of-pocket cost of food, lodging and incidental expenses that occur while on military business or temporary assigned duty (TDY or TAD) away from their home station.

cite

[Cassandros]

He can because we have a spineless fucking Repub Senate who will suck Trump cock as long as he is their useful idiot. If he were a Dem, impeachment articles would have flooded the legislature Jan. 21 3 years ago.

You are absolutely correct.

Obama would never get away with this shit.

But then, that's why they perpetrated this stunt with a red m&m under the pretext that he was somehow an anti-establishment person... voters by and large are easily fooled, but the reds are armed.

[DandyDon]

The big question is this; We have already seen the NOAA, NWS, and others bend to support his lies. When the military caves and justifies this bullshit, we are over and done as a democratic republic.

[CHEEZY17]

Its interesting and telling that you 3 just blow off entire city governments and agencies helping illegal aliens clearly break/ignore the law every fucking day yet you are having a meltdown about this.

[CaptQuint]

Its interesting and telling that you 3 just blow off entire city governments and agencies helping illegal aliens clearly break/ignore the law every fucking day yet you are having a meltdown about this.

So you and Cas are advocating rounding up entire city governments and agencies and mass arresting them?

[CHEEZY17]

Its interesting and telling that you 3 just blow off entire city governments and agencies helping illegal aliens clearly break/ignore the law every fucking day yet you are having a meltdown about this.

So you and Cas are advocating rounding up entire city governments and agencies and mass arresting them?

Of course not. I'm advocating for consistency in your OUTRAGE!!1!11
Ask yourself why the POTUS seemingly not following the rules outrages you yet entire city governments not following the rules simply warrants an apathetic "meh"?

[CaptQuint]

Its interesting and telling that you 3 just blow off entire city governments and agencies helping illegal aliens clearly break/ignore the law every fucking day yet you are having a meltdown about this.

So you and Cas are advocating rounding up entire city governments and agencies and mass arresting them?

Of course not. I'm advocating for consistency in your OUTRAGE!!1!11
Ask yourself why the POTUS seemingly not following the rules outrages you yet entire city governments not following the rules simply warrants an apathetic "meh"?

What specific law are you accusing these city governments of breaking?

[Evil.Fkn.Mean,Nasty]

[AnalHamster]

No shit. What's your point?

Using human stem-cells to create animal hybrids is not, as it currently form, ethical.

iPSC can potentially affect an animals brain, making more aware. More human. Until that is addressed and resolved- this research really shouldn't continue. But instead we have places taking the next step and mixing humans with something even closer related- monkeys.

Unethical.

My point, as clearly and repeatedly stated is that the purpose of the research is to develop the tech to grow organs for transplant, which would save tens of thousands of lives every year.

Induced pluripotent stem cells are unrelated, you appear to be just throwing in random references to things you don't know about again. Not an approach that ever works for you, is it?

Things are not unethical just because you find them icky.

Oh, hahaha!! I'm "inventing caveats" now. That's rich.

Unless there is evidence he is forcing people to stay at his hotels, or evidence that the fees these people are paying are somehow higher than the room fee and the excess is funneling to Trump, or both- you really don't have much of a leg to stand on here.

And no amount of insults (veiled or vulgar) changes this reality. (But thanks for the laugh anyway).

Yes, you added the caveat 'only if they charge higher fees' and declared only that would make it a violation of the domestic emoluments clause. You made that up and it is false.

There is evidence he is using the powers of his office to direct federal employees to spend money at his properties. Even Pence's chief of staff admitted it was trump's suggestion.

[CaptQuint]

[CaptQuint]

[CaptQuint]

Trump had to throw in a "and me" didn't he?

[CaptQuint]

[Wut]

Oh, a Twitter typo. Thats it, Im not voting for him next year

Was the joke in the meme too complex for you?

[Burn1dwn]

Trump had to throw in a "and me" didn't he?

Never miss an opportunity to pat yourself on the back. Narcissism at it's finest.

[CaptQuint]

Oh, a Twitter typo. Thats it, Im not voting for him next year

Was the joke in the meme too complex for you?

He only likes the simple false ones that "appear" on his feed

[CaptQuint]