ADVERTISEMENT

McCarthy

Didn't they already pass that?
Goat, thanks for your query.

Upon doing some research, apparently electoral reform was finally part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act signed into law by Biden last December thus settling the differences between bills offered by the House and Senate.

Therefore reform is seemingly a settled issue and will not require action by the newly elected Republican House leadership as I now understand it.
 
Can you explain what a ministerial role is? Giving sermons? (I keed, I keed).

Is Kamala being responsible for the border an example?

I'm asking an honest question - I really don't know what that means.
DANC, good question.

Here is a good definition of ministerial role as follows...

Ministerial functions means actions or functions performed by an individual under a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in accordance with a mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or without the exercise of, the individual’s own judgment as to the propriety of the action being taken.
 
DANC, good question.

Here is a good definition of ministerial role as follows...

Ministerial functions means actions or functions performed by an individual under a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in accordance with a mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or without the exercise of, the individual’s own judgment as to the propriety of the action being taken.
That makes even less sense.

Got an example?
 
I would like to pay what I pay in federal income tax to the state of Indiana and pay what I pay the state of Indiana to the Feds.
I had this same thought recently. It should be a point of embarrassment for every American that almost every person in the country pays more in federal than state income tax. When they do the autopsy on America, and it may be sooner than we think, The Great Society and the New Deal will be the cause of death. I don’t exaggerate when I say that LBJ and FDR are absolute demons from hell who completely bastardized how the American Federal government is supposed to function.

If you want social security or medicare? Move to a state that has it. Unbelievable how entitled the populous has become because of the actions of those wretched men.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
I had this same thought recently. It should be a point of embarrassment for every American that almost every person in the country pays more in federal than state income tax. When they do the autopsy on America, and it may be sooner than we think, The Great Society and the New Deal will be the cause of death. I don’t exaggerate when I say that LBJ and FDR are absolute demons from hell who completely bastardized how the American Federal government is supposed to function.

If you want social security or medicare? Move to a state that has it. Unbelievable how entitled the populous has become because of the actions of those wretched men.
Sniff

Sniff

Hoodatfarvarod?
 
Mike Pence on 1/06 when some wanted him to perform actions beyond his ministerial role as prescribed by law.
Doesn't the Constitution prescribe what the VP can do in that situation?
 
If your credit card spending is out of control, the solution is NOT to stop paying back what you already bought, it is to stop buying so much new stuff. The obligation to pay your debts is completely separate from your objective of not creating so much new debt. But the lazy folks pretend otherwise.
That's true but at least credit card companies have a credit limit and a person can't charge any more when they reach that limit. Can you imagine giving some people a credit card with no limit? That is essentially what our government has.
 
That's true but at least credit card companies have a credit limit and a person can't charge any more when they reach that limit. Can you imagine giving some people a credit card with no limit? That is essentially what our government has.
When push comes to shove there are only about 40 in the House that care about the budget. Probably roughly 20 in the Senate. So….we just keep kicking that can.
 
It actually sort of does, although the text is quite short and doesn't help DANC's side.
Not entirely sure what the DANC's side position is.

Is it the Trump position that the election was stolen, and the Vice President could somehow change the results when Congress met to certify the election as set out in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ?

Actually didn't Trump do the country a favor by challenging the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ? Some politician in the future was bound to take advantage of the ambiguities which have existed. Reform was long overdue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Not entirely sure what the DANC's side position is.

Is it the Trump position that the election was stolen, and the Vice President could somehow change the results when Congress met to certify the election as set out in the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ?

Actually didn't Trump do the country a favor by challenging the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ? Some politician in the future was bound to take advantage of the ambiguities which have existed. Reform was long overdue.
I had no 'side'. I was just asking a question. I mean, the VP electoral duties are defined, are they not?
 
I had no 'side'. I was just asking a question. I mean, the VP electoral duties are defined, are they not?
Here is an Wiki article about the ECA which has this to say about the Vice Presidential duties...

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the vice president (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The act clarified the vice president's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses could overrule the vice president's decision to include or exclude votes, and under the Act even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the vice president, broke the tie. On many occasions, the vice president has had the duty of finalizing his party's defeat, and his own on some of those occasions. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

DANC, "limited role" as in the Wiki piece quoted above for the Vice President comes very close to "ministerial role" which you questioned earlier in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Coming out hot with all of these plans and investigations. Hold the line gang. Hold the line
96c63be80418dfe0538e9971961ed4c2.jpeg
 
Here is an Wiki article about the ECA which has this to say about the Vice Presidential duties...

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the vice president (as President of the Senate) opens the electoral certificates. The act clarified the vice president's limited role in the count.[4][8][9] Both houses could overrule the vice president's decision to include or exclude votes, and under the Act even if the chambers disagree, the governor's certification, not the vice president, broke the tie. On many occasions, the vice president has had the duty of finalizing his party's defeat, and his own on some of those occasions. Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, and Mike Pence all notably presided over counts that handed them, or their party, a loss.[13][14]

DANC, "limited role" as in the Wiki piece quoted above for the Vice President comes very close to "ministerial role" which you questioned earlier in this thread.
So it's already defined? What am I missing?
 
No it doesn't. It just requires that debt payments be paid first, followed by other politically sensitive obligations, and leaves other unspecified obligations in the lurch.
It sure seems like it would eliminate most of the nonsense with regards to the debt ceiling.

Let me ask this: what is wrong with the bill?
 
After what we’ve seen from Biden you have balls with your republican attack posts. You sure as shit don’t have brains. One of the dumbest posters on the board. I’ve told you before don’t reply to my posts. I think you are a Fing moron
Wow! Are you having a bad day?
 
It prioritizes spending. Things not on the list don't get fully paid if/when they run short of money.
We should have priorities on spending in during certain situations.

I think it’s a good bill and would allow for negotiations without a good portion of the ignorant arguments
 
  • Love
Reactions: DANC
Wow! Are you having a bad day?
No I'm having a good day. It could turn bad tho. I have no idea what kind of day i was having when i posted that. It certainly could have been a bad day as I have had lots of them recently, but that wouldn't have had anything to do with what i posted.
 
It prioritizes spending. Things not on the list don't get fully paid if/when they run short of money.
We should have priorities on spending in during certain situations.

I think it’s a good bill and would allow for negotiations without a good portion of the ignorant arguments
It doesn't prioritize spending. It prioritizes bill paying. That's why it's a joke of a bill.
 
We should have priorities on spending in during certain situations.

I think it’s a good bill and would allow for negotiations without a good portion of the ignorant arguments

It's a nonsensical bill. The govt is out procuring goods and services via contracts with the private sector on a daily basis. Businesses provide those services or goods, and then the govt doesn't pay the bill?

The subsequent companies ( thousands of them) can't make payroll (about 4 million employees), or pay their own vendors/ suppliers. It would be an economic catastrophe.

Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how govt funding operates. If you want to have a battle royale over spending, do it over the annual govt funding bills, and shutdown the govt.

That's at least fair.... the govt isn't defaulting on their contractual obligations (as they have no funding authority to obligate). Just stiffing companies is banana republic nonsense.

This is especially rich coming from Rick Scott, considering his background
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT