Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SDHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I was kind of hoping Trump had some balls. I could use another five weeks off. With back pay and tax return I was good until the DoD shutdown deadline on September 30.

Yeah but the shutdown avoidance means we don't have your insufferable whiney ass bitch routine on these boards during that time.

93henfan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Yeah but the shutdown avoidance means we don't have your insufferable whiney ass bitch routine on these boards during that time.

Also, the bill that will go to Trump's desk this week overrides his pay freeze and gives feds a well-deserved retroactive raise for 2019. With backpay, a step increase that was retroactive to Jan 20, my tax return, and now this unexpected raise (which is even higher for DC locality), it's a good life.

I will continue to bitch when it pays off like this!

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You and your ilk are doing your damnest to make that an impossibility.

Yep they want you disarmed so they can be "progressive" and stuff

SDHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Also, the bill that will go to Trump's desk this week overrides his pay freeze and gives feds a well-deserved retroactive raise for 2019. With backpay, a step increase that was retroactive to Jan 20, my tax return, and now this unexpected raise (which is even higher for DC locality), it's a good life.

I will continue to bitch when it pays off like this!

You realize that this justifies all my ribbing aimed at you during the shutdown, right?

Companion legislation has been introduced in the House that would provide impacted federal workers not only back pay, but interest as well.

Like its counterpart bill in the Senate, The Back Pay Fairness Act (H.R. 1051) would provide federal workers back pay with interest matched to the Treasury Prompt Payment policy, the same interest rate federal agencies pay on late payments to vendors and contractors. The prompt payment interest rate for January 1, 2019 – June 30, 2019 is 3.625%. The legislation would apply not just to the recent shutdown but to future shutdowns as well.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Stop being such a faggot.

Go **** yourself douchebag

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote: But...it's still less than the deal that was on the table for Border Security in December.

Again WRONG.
Dec deal on the table had 1.6 billion increase for border security, zero for fencing/wall.
Deal now reportedly has over 3 billion increase for border security: 1.7 billion increase for border security other than fencing/wall, + 1.375 billion for fencing/wall.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Again WRONG.
Dec deal on the table had 1.6 billion increase for border security, zero for fencing/wall.
Deal now reportedly has over 3 billion increase for border security: 1.7 billion increase for border security other than fencing/wall, + 1.375 billion for fencing/wall.

Again, you aren't looking at the entire issue.

Dec deal had zero money for the wall. Trump pissed his panties and wanted $5B. He shut down the government, causing massive problems for ordinary Americans. He caved. Now he's signing a bill that is for substantially less than $5B.

He negotiated for less.

houndawg wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Again, you aren't looking at the entire issue.

Dec deal had zero money for the wall. Trump pissed his panties and wanted $5B. He shut down the government, causing massive problems for ordinary Americans. He caved. Now he's signing a bill that is for substantially less than $5B.

He negotiated for less.

And if he pulls that **** again Nancy will make the third "offer" even lower.

SDHornet wrote:I like how everyone was crowing about "compromise" then when compromise hits everyone on both sides screams bloody murder.

I agree with Ibanez (and others) that conks should have got border funding done in the first 2 years, but conks never had 60 votes in the Senate so it probably never would have gotten passed anyways.

No doubt Trump caved in round 1, but he got the dems to cave on "no wall money" in round 2. The only thing significant that happened between rounds 1 and 2 was the SOTU. Interesting ain't it?

Also Trump got some wall funding without budging an inch on DACA, which is a loss (or at a minimum a missed opportunity) for donks to appease Team Brown. If conks were smart (they aren't) they would highlight this issue to the Brown vote next election cycle.

I don't think Trump will go the emergency route now that donks caved in round 2 on wall/fence/metal slats/barrier funding. I think he (should) uses wall/barrier/fence/metal slats funding as a sticking point during the CR negotiations.

Ivytalk wrote:

houndawg wrote:
And if he pulls that **** again Nancy will make the third "offer" even lower.

Fifty cent.

Ibanez wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Fifty cent.

The man has been shot multiple times...I bet he ain't skeered of no cartel

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote: Again WRONG.
Dec deal on the table had 1.6 billion increase for border security, zero for fencing/wall.
Deal now reportedly has over 3 billion increase for border security: 1.7 billion increase for border security other than fencing/wall, + 1.375 billion for fencing/wall.

Again, you aren't looking at the entire issue.

Dec deal had zero money for the wall. Trump pissed his panties and wanted $5B. He shut down the government, causing massive problems for ordinary Americans. He caved. Now he's signing a bill that is for substantially less than $5B.

He negotiated for less.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Again, you aren't looking at the entire issue.

Dec deal had zero money for the wall. Trump pissed his panties and wanted $5B. He shut down the government, causing massive problems for ordinary Americans. He caved. Now he's signing a bill that is for substantially less than $5B.

He negotiated for less.

Would you rather he held out for the $5B and we were still shutdown?

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Would you rather he held out for the $5B and we were still shutdown?

I'd rather he not shutdown the government in the first place over $5B. Also, I'd rather he not hold hostage over 1M people on a campaign promise that he can't fulfill. Mexico isn't paying for it. We are.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I'd rather he not shutdown the government in the first place over $5B. Also, I'd rather he not hold hostage over 1M people on a campaign promise that he can't fulfill. Mexico isn't paying for it. We are.

I honestly don't give a shit who pays for it. Just BUILD it. Let El Chappo pay for it. He's a Mexican, ain't he?

SDHornet wrote:I like how everyone was crowing about "compromise" then when compromise hits everyone on both sides screams bloody murder.

I agree with Ibanez (and others) that conks should have got border funding done in the first 2 years, but conks never had 60 votes in the Senate so it probably never would have gotten passed anyways.

No doubt Trump caved in round 1, but he got the dems to cave on "no wall money" in round 2. The only thing significant that happened between rounds 1 and 2 was the SOTU. Interesting ain't it?

Also Trump got some wall funding without budging an inch on DACA, which is a loss (or at a minimum a missed opportunity) for donks to appease Team Brown. If conks were smart (they aren't) they would highlight this issue to the Brown vote next election cycle.

I don't think Trump will go the emergency route now that donks caved in round 2 on wall/fence/metal slats/barrier funding. I think he (should) uses wall/barrier/fence/metal slats funding as a sticking point during the CR negotiations.

BDKJMU wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I like how everyone was crowing about "compromise" then when compromise hits everyone on both sides screams bloody murder.

I agree with Ibanez (and others) that conks should have got border funding done in the first 2 years, but conks never had 60 votes in the Senate so it probably never would have gotten passed anyways.

No doubt Trump caved in round 1, but he got the dems to cave on "no wall money" in round 2. The only thing significant that happened between rounds 1 and 2 was the SOTU. Interesting ain't it?

Also Trump got some wall funding without budging an inch on DACA, which is a loss (or at a minimum a missed opportunity) for donks to appease Team Brown. If conks were smart (they aren't) they would highlight this issue to the Brown vote next election cycle.

I don't think Trump will go the emergency route now that donks caved in round 2 on wall/fence/metal slats/barrier funding. I think he (should) uses wall/barrier/fence/metal slats funding as a sticking point during the CR negotiations.

Yeah, I was thinking Trump was gonna get 2.5-3 billion for the barrier, but was gonna have to cave on DACA and TPS.

I don't get how FY 2020 is going to go. The FY starts 10/1. As I understand it, normally it would be either:
1. A FY budget deal(s) are made by 9/30.
2. Or CR/kick the can down the road is passed by 9/30 (most common scenario) (in which case everything would be the same as FY 2019, including another 1.375 billion for the barrier).
3. Or a partial shutdown.

But for FY 2020 we have the return of these automatic sequestration cuts if a deal isn't made. So does that mean either:
1. A budget deal is made/sequestration caps lifted.
2. Or sequestration automatically kicks in & sets the budget with across the board cuts (which I think would be good).
With no chance at a CR or a shutdown?

Anyone know how this process is going to work?

∞∞∞ wrote:Trump's declaring a national emergency. Good luck in the courts...

Ibanez wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Trump's declaring a national emergency. Good luck in the courts...

There were some good articles yesterday about the number of Republicans that don't want the emergency and the awful position it'll put them all in.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
What are your thoughts on the imminent domain implications?

I know you're against civil asset forfeiture... but, imminent domain seems an even more egregious abuse of federal power.

Since I’ve already said that I’m not a capital L libertarian on immigration (they are open borders) then it stands to reason that I’m also OK with eminent domain as it pertains to our borders. I do believe in just compensation- double the average asking price per acre. And we’d be talking about a 20-30 foot wide strip.

That’s also subject to the specificity of what the Federal government wants to do - in this case, there is no other place a border barrier can be placed other than on .. the border. A military base or a nuclear facility would be something different altogether because there are location alternatives.

I’m fully opposed to eminent domain for any other purposes - like when somebody wants to put in a Wal Mart.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I'd rather he not shutdown the government in the first place over $5B. Also, I'd rather he not hold hostage over 1M people on a campaign promise that he can't fulfill. Mexico isn't paying for it. We are.

I honestly don't give a shit who pays for it. Just BUILD it. Let El Chappo pay for it. He's a Mexican, ain't he?

BDKJMU wrote:The bill was just released today. How are in the hell are House members suppose to be able to read an 1169 page bill & know what's in it, before voting on it this evening? And what happened to the 72 hr rule (bill will be posted for 72 hrs before being voted on)?

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Since I’ve already said that I’m not a capital L libertarian on immigration (they are open borders) then it stands to reason that I’m also OK with eminent domain as it pertains to our borders. I do believe in just compensation- double the average asking price per acre. And we’d be talking about a 20-30 foot wide strip.

That’s also subject to the specificity of what the Federal government wants to do - in this case, there is no other place a border barrier can be placed other than on .. the border. A military base or a nuclear facility would be something different altogether because there are location alternatives.

I’m fully opposed to eminent domain for any other purposes - like when somebody wants to put in a Wal Mart.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the government is taking more than a 20-30 wide strip - they are planning on a 150' clear area on BOTH SIDES.