UJRefugees.net

spudoc wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:37 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:28 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:11 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:44 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:27 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:08 am 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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:43 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:28 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:11 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:44 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:27 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:08 am 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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:43 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:28 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:11 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:44 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:27 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:08 am 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.

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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:43 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:28 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:11 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:44 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:27 am

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 2:08 am 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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:20 am 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.

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.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:31 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:20 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:44 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:20 am 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.

DandyDon wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:27 am
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.

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:58 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:00 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:58 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:05 pm

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:00 pm

CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:58 am 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"?

Cassandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 12:05 am 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.

Cassandros wrote: 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).

Biker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:39 pm Oh, a Twitter typo. Thats it, Im not voting for him next year

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

Wut wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:39 pm Oh, a Twitter typo. Thats it, Im not voting for him next year

Was the joke in the meme too complex for you?