The Trump Presidency

nsacpi said:
no...I think if by now you don't see any difference I'd be wasting my time
Click to expand...

interesting. the amount of time you spend researching every single oped article in the name of aiding the impeachment process seems like a worse way to spend your time than typing out why these aren't both abuses of power
 
sturg33 said:
did I miss your response to this question, Julio?
Click to expand...

Hadn’t seen it yet, but I’m happy to answer.

Do health care providers have lobbyists? Industry groups that lobby, run ads, endorse specific legislation, etc? Because they receive the same kind of “federal funding” as PP does—federal reimbursements through Medicaid, etc. The only other federal money PP receives—only about 10%—are Title X grants, which are designed for family planning education and granted to many other health care providers.

You’ve obviously bought a line without doing your homework. Is it your position that any trade organization whose member entities receive “federal funds” not be able to engage in political activity? Cause that seems like a tough needle to thread.
 
Julio3000 said:
Hadn’t seen it yet, but I’m happy to answer.

Do health care providers have lobbyists? Industry groups that lobby, run ads, endorse specific legislation, etc? Because they receive the same kind of “federal funding” as PP does—federal reimbursements through Medicaid, etc. The only other federal money PP receives—only about 10%—are Title X grants, which are designed for family planning education and granted to many other health care providers.

You’ve obviously bought a line without doing your homework. Is it your position that any trade organization whose member entities receive “federal funds” not be able to engage in political activity? Cause that seems like a tough needle to thread.
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't know if there are other examples, which is why I asked the question. I can't think of any.

My position is, if a organization is receiving federal (tax funded) money, then that organization should not be spending money on partisan political activism.

I know the common talking point for PP is that their money is used for family planning... but that is nothing but a technicality. If the government sends me a $110 check (which I just got from VA)... and I use that money to pay electric bill. I can say "I used that money to pay for my electric bill!" But in reality, it just freed up $110 for me to go spend on whisky

Advocacy is one thing... if PP wants to spend money on advocating for easier access to birth control (bad example as they rely on abortions for the $ - but you get the point)... that's one thing. But to spend money specifically to help a politician beat another - I don't see how any reasonable person would support that.
 
yes, biden going after actual corrupt people

is the same as a corrupt person (trump) doing what he did


false equivalency after false equivalency
 
9/9/19: Bill Taylor (charge d'affaires to Ukraine): As I said on the phone, I think its crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

We all know that's what happened. I would substitute "impeachable abuse of office" for "crazy"
 
sturg33 said:
I genuinely don't know if there are other examples, which is why I asked the question. I can't think of any.

My position is, if a organization is receiving federal (tax funded) money, then that organization should not be spending money on partisan political activism.

I know the common talking point for PP is that their money is used for family planning... but that is nothing but a technicality. If the government sends me a $110 check (which I just got from VA)... and I use that money to pay electric bill. I can say "I used that money to pay for my electric bill!" But in reality, it just freed up $110 for me to go spend on whisky

Advocacy is one thing... if PP wants to spend money on advocating for easier access to birth control (bad example as they rely on abortions for the $ - but you get the point)... that's one thing. But to spend money specifically to help a politician beat another - I don't see how any reasonable person would support that.
Click to expand...

Your example isn’t a good analogy. PP receives about $60M/year of title X grants, which are specifically earmarked, and used for, a specific purpose. I work in the non-profit world, so maybe I can offer a more relevant example. My organization gets a $50K grant to provide X specific service within specific parameters. We are accountable for showing our work and demonstrating that the funds were spent for the purposes allocated. So, if we were going to provide X service regardless, then yes, the grant frees up funds for other uses. But that’s not typically how these things work. Organizations get programmatic funds, either from public or private grants, for specific purposes. The programs generally don’t happen without the grant funds.

But, again, you’re kinda glossing over the point that the vast majority of “federal funds” received by PP are reimbursements from medical services, just like any other health care provider...who certainly engage in political advocacy. So is it your opinion that say, any hospital who receives a federal grant can’t join an industry organization that engages in lobbying or advocacy?

How about the ag subsidies that the Trump administration is handing out? Should companies which receive those funds be barred from political advocacy? Corporations can’t directly contribute to campaigns, but they can and do spend money on so-called issue advocacy, which run ads targeting/supporting specific candidates. Is this similarly bad, if those corporations get government subsidies?
 
goldfly said:
yes, biden going after actual corrupt people

is the same as a corrupt person (trump) doing what he did


false equivalency after false equivalency
Click to expand...

They are different circumstances but they are outlined as such:

"You won't get your money unless you do xyz"

"Do me a favor, look into xyz and you'll get your military aid"
 
Julio3000 said:
Your example isn’t a good analogy. PP receives about $60M/year of title X grants, which are specifically earmarked, and used for, a specific purpose. I work in the non-profit world, so maybe I can offer a more relevant example. My organization gets a $50K grant to provide X specific service within specific parameters. We are accountable for showing our work and demonstrating that the funds were spent for the purposes allocated. So, if we were going to provide X service regardless, then yes, the grant frees up funds for other uses. But that’s not typically how these things work. Organizations get programmatic funds, either from public or private grants, for specific purposes. The programs generally don’t happen without the grant funds.

But, again, you’re kinda glossing over the point that the vast majority of “federal funds” received by PP are reimbursements from medical services, just like any other health care provider...who certainly engage in political advocacy. So is it your opinion that say, any hospital who receives a federal grant can’t join an industry organization that engages in lobbying or advocacy?

How about the ag subsidies that the Trump administration is handing out? Should companies which receive those funds be barred from political advocacy? Corporations can’t directly contribute to campaigns, but they can and do spend money on so-called issue advocacy, which run ads targeting/supporting specific candidates. Is this similarly bad, if those corporations get government subsidies?
Click to expand...

If it's true that PP wouldn't do the service without the funds, then yes, that changes the equation. I don't know if that is true or not.

Regarding the rest of your post... I don't agree with any tax subsidies to any organization. But if we're going to hand them out, then yes, I don't agree that they should be allowed to partake in political lobbying for a particular candidate.

But I appreciate your response as your other examples highlight what I was asking for... and that is just a reminder we have way too much corporate wellfare in this country
 
sturg33 said:
If it's true that PP wouldn't do the service without the funds, then yes, that changes the equation. I don't know if that is true or not.

Regarding the rest of your post... I don't agree with any tax subsidies to any organization. But if we're going to hand them out, then yes, I don't agree that they should be allowed to partake in political lobbying for a particular candidate.

But I appreciate your response as your other examples highlight what I was asking for... and that is just a reminder we have way too much corporate wellfare in this country
Click to expand...

Agree with that last bit, certainly.

There are pretty specific rules for advocating for candidates. And then there are miles-wide loopholes for how billions get spent on elections, in support of those candidates anyway, which is (to me) arguably the biggest problem.
 
Rudy keeps saying in interviews that he received information about the Bidens from Ukranian Nationals. Who wants to bet it's the two that were just arrested? Remember when Trump said he would listen if any foreign nationals offered him dirt on his opponent. That's exactly what this all is. It doesnt even matter if it is true, the only appropriate to handle that situation would have been to refer them to the FBI.



Remember when the OG AG wouldn't answer the question of "did Trump ask you to investigate anyone" and he danced around the question? There is no chance Trump did not try and get his people like the OG AG to investigate Biden.
 
Thethe: trump is ending wars and bringing troops home

Actually: trump, we actually will lie that no troops are in Syria and they almost get killed by turkey while doing nothing to help our allies and he announces he’s sending troops to Saudi Arabia

Lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top