The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.


Because, you know, work!

This should never be called the "Southern White House", it should called what it actually fecking is; a golf course. Any time a media outlet has to mention it, they should say golf course. The President is staying at a golf course.
 
This should never be called the "Southern White House", it should called what it actually fecking is; a golf course. Any time a media outlet has to mention it, they should say golf course. The President is staying at a golf course.

You know who else has two residences of power? Russia.
 
You know who else has two residences of power? Russia.
Putin's office is any room he wants it to be. Like that bad guy in Sherlock who pissed in the fireplace. Might be another reason why Trump likes him.
 
Putin's office is any room he wants it to be. Like that bad guy in Sherlock who pissed in the fireplace. Might be another reason why Trump likes him.

Well, I was thinking of the Kremlin and the Winter Palace.

checkmate trump

He would have preferred the Winter White House but someone probably said it would be too obvious.
 
checkmate trump
Oh hey it's Eboue. Thanks for the input. Now, here, please take this propeller hat - that's yours to keep Eboue, all yours - and go and ask those nice folks over there if they would like to see your impression of an airplane. Yes, those ones over there. Now, once you're done with that don't forget to recount the number of grains of rice in the bag - very important work, Eboue, no idea what we'd do without your help - it's important that we know exactly how many grains are in there otherwise the pudding is going to be too runny. Yes, that's right, off you pop and we'll see you in a few hours. That's a good lad, we're so very proud of you.
 
Oh hey it's Eboue. Thanks for the input. Now, here, please take this propeller hat - that's yours to keep Eboue, all yours - and go and ask those nice folks over there if they would like to see your impression of an airplane. Yes, those ones over there. Now, once you're done with that don't forget to recount the number of grains of rice in the bag - very important work, Eboue, no idea what we'd do without your help - it's important that we know exactly how many grains are in there otherwise the pudding is going to be too runny. Yes, that's right, off you pop and we'll see you in a few hours. That's a good lad, we're so very proud of you.

do i get a lolly when im done?
 
It would be amusing if half of his cabinet members get fired/quit and they get replaced by 'acting' members because no one wants to take those jobs.
 
I thought SC already ruled that it was fine with constitution?

The new budget (or maybe tax bill) includes a provision that the individual mandate no longer exists, according to the judge this invalidates ACA (maybe with the exception of the Medicaid expansion, I don't know)
 
The new budget (or maybe tax bill) includes a provision that the individual mandate no longer exists, according to the judge this invalidates ACA (maybe with the exception of the Medicaid expansion, I don't know)

That's not a technically accurate description though. Although widely reported as a "repeal" the Individual Mandate still exists in principle and in law it is just that by reducing the Individual Mandate penalty to $0 it ceases to exist in practice. Here's the relevant text of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:

PART VIII--INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
SEC. 11081. ELIMINATION OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT
FOR INDIVIDUALS FAILING TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--Section 5000A(c) <<NOTE: 26 USC 5000A.>> is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking ``2.5 percent' and inserting ``Zero percent'', and

(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``$695'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ``$0'', and
(B) by striking subparagraph (D).​

This is essentially a choice of tax level, not a full throated repeal and I suspect this difference may be the kicker for Roberts when it comes back before the SCOTUS. As far as I understand it (and I may be wrong) this judge's decision indicates that if income tax were reduced to 0% then the principle of income tax itself would no longer be constitutional. That seems to be a quite obviously unreasonable inference.
 
Last edited:
DujHFM3XQAEoV1i
 
Status
Not open for further replies.