I legitimately wasn't sure at first. I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about.
"The key phrase here is "in response to TX" which proves it is not literally the same thing. Just like if someone hits you in the face and you respond by hitting back, it is called self-defense and is treated differently than assault or battery."
What you are overlooking is proportionality and continuing threat. Calling on additional states to do this is like telling someone to keep hitting someone after a single punch, which would be an escalation and result in charges in many cases. Frankly, it's a dumb comparison because doing something illegal just because someone else did it doesn't absolve you of any illegality and doesnt directly negate any harms from the first occurrence, only leading to the creation of additional harms in other states.
"Threatening to do something is different than doing it and demanding payments."
True. There can be other examples of both parties pulling funding for programs and organizations they don't like.
"Going back 80 years to find your "counter argument" kind of proves my point."
Or proves your cognitive bias.
"It's in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation has spoken about it plenty."
Wasn't your prior argument that threats and actually doing it are two different things? Wouldn't that make this a moot point until it occurs? Sounds like this plan is basically just withholding federal funds if the states or cities don't comply with conditions. The feds do this with highways funds, schools funds, etc. Again, not really news if you've been paying attention.
"This explains how Hegseth signed the deal with Qatar that allows him to keep a $400 million free plane even after his Presidency."
It's going to the presidential library foundation. He might be able to use it, but he can't personally own it. Guess where ethe other gifts go? That's right, to the presidential libraries through the national archives. You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.
You're trying really hard to play a game of 'gotcha', but you just aren't looking at all the facts or examining your own biases.
==I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about.==
Seems you are only paying attention to one side if you had to look up the examples, as they are all quite recent. It doesn't seem like we are going to see eye-to-eye on things, as you completely dismiss facts, like the Democrats introducing actual legislation (multiple times) to stop gerrymandering, in order to lecture me about my own biases.
==You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.==
Trump doesn't have a charity anymore because he was found guilty of stealing money from kids. This is your party, accept it.
Enjoy your day.
giantg2|7 months ago
I legitimately wasn't sure at first. I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about.
"The key phrase here is "in response to TX" which proves it is not literally the same thing. Just like if someone hits you in the face and you respond by hitting back, it is called self-defense and is treated differently than assault or battery."
What you are overlooking is proportionality and continuing threat. Calling on additional states to do this is like telling someone to keep hitting someone after a single punch, which would be an escalation and result in charges in many cases. Frankly, it's a dumb comparison because doing something illegal just because someone else did it doesn't absolve you of any illegality and doesnt directly negate any harms from the first occurrence, only leading to the creation of additional harms in other states.
"Threatening to do something is different than doing it and demanding payments."
True. There can be other examples of both parties pulling funding for programs and organizations they don't like.
"Going back 80 years to find your "counter argument" kind of proves my point."
Or proves your cognitive bias.
"It's in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation has spoken about it plenty."
Wasn't your prior argument that threats and actually doing it are two different things? Wouldn't that make this a moot point until it occurs? Sounds like this plan is basically just withholding federal funds if the states or cities don't comply with conditions. The feds do this with highways funds, schools funds, etc. Again, not really news if you've been paying attention.
"This explains how Hegseth signed the deal with Qatar that allows him to keep a $400 million free plane even after his Presidency."
It's going to the presidential library foundation. He might be able to use it, but he can't personally own it. Guess where ethe other gifts go? That's right, to the presidential libraries through the national archives. You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.
You're trying really hard to play a game of 'gotcha', but you just aren't looking at all the facts or examining your own biases.
supplied_demand|7 months ago
Seems you are only paying attention to one side if you had to look up the examples, as they are all quite recent. It doesn't seem like we are going to see eye-to-eye on things, as you completely dismiss facts, like the Democrats introducing actual legislation (multiple times) to stop gerrymandering, in order to lecture me about my own biases.
==You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.==
Trump doesn't have a charity anymore because he was found guilty of stealing money from kids. This is your party, accept it. Enjoy your day.