Comments posted organically
Homepage

Top Contributors Articles by: Curt_Anderson Donna HatetheSwamp Indy! islander meagain Navy2711 oldedude Ponderer ROB3RT tuk22

Recent Article Activity Most Commented Articles Highest Rated Articles All Articles Most Viewed Articles Articles Without Comments

Who dom Trump and thr GOP really workm for?
Politics by meagain (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments)

Is Christianity "Woke"...?
Religion by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (22 comments)

Since po refuses to define terms, I aksed AI po's question: Is Christianity woke?
Philosophy by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments)

MS-13 Hit Man Assassinates Ex President's Son
Crime by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (7 comments)

Glenn Beck puts Curt's words into action.
Health by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments)

Tim Walz and his family are being terrorized by MAGAs driving by their house and screaming the R-word at their special needs son, Gus.
Philosophy by islander (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (39 comments)

Why is MAGA silent about Trump's Caribbean boat kills while he pardons drug kingpins?
Crime by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (36 comments)

"Not so fast, there, Mr Comey and Letitia," says pb's Legal Goober #2!!!!! Bahaha ha ha ha
Crime by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (12 comments)

D.C. appeals court keeps Trump’s transgender military ban in place despite one judge’s blistering dissent
Gay & Lesbian by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (7 comments)

Recently HtS asked me an honest question.
Philosophy by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (10 comments)

Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map in major blow to his gerrymandering push
Politics by Curt_Anderson (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments)

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is released from ICE custody following judge's order
Humor by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments)

News Supreme Court allows Trump administration to temporarily block SNAP benefits By HatetheSwamp November 8, 2025 2:59 am Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post & Tips. Write & edit articles How To Post Here

And, America’s stoopidest Justice wrote the order. How bout that!!!!!?

In a two-page order issued Friday night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted the administration a temporary reprieve from paying full food aid benefits for November. A district court had earlier ordered they be paid by the end of Friday.

Gang,

This is a Separation of Powers issue. And Roberts Court is really good at requiring Dem lower court judges to allow the US to be a Constitutional Republic.

Ole pb'll say it again. Susie Wiles is aces at getting Trump to stretch Article 2 in a way that can't be challenged.

Cited and related links:

1. msnbc.com

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on November 8, 2025 4:06 am I also think it's interesting that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the decision. I think there's a couple of interesting features about that. The biggest question for me is how much political gain was in that decision. I'm not doubting Justice Brown, but she's been a striking contrast with the rest of the justices. So it could be political, or not. I don't know either way. Potentialities; 1. It gives time for the dims to set themselves up against trumpster. This would be used to blame the administration for stonewalling the money. 1a. The problem with that is they could just pass the CR and have the money settled. 2. It gives time for the administration to get things settled to pay the states, which is what they asked for a couple of days ago. I'm not sure how real that is. Moving money is an issue, and if it wasn't set up earlier, that's an problem. Dept of Ag maintains it can't spend money that isn't there, which is a true statement. It would take congress to approve the money, which they can't do without the CR because the "money" isn't there yet. 3. Regardless of which way this goes, it screws the folks that really do need the money. For many of us, it doesn't make any difference if they hold the funds or not. For those honest folks that truly need those resources, it makes a whole "heck" of a lot of difference. by Ponderer on November 8, 2025 7:01 am Jesus God, the hard-ons you two get whenever you hear that Trump is sticking it to those worthless poor people again. You are disgusting examples of human beings. by HatetheSwamp on November 8, 2025 7:13 am And, po, your narcissism is otherworldly! The US has a friggin Constitution. We can't set aside our governing principles for your convenience. This is why pb's been making the point that, as soon as the CR passes, SNAP benefits will be completely restored. It's yinz who hate the people who receive SNAP benefits. by Ponderer on November 8, 2025 7:29 am Trump could have released the funds any time he wanted to release the funds. He does not want to release those funds. Even when a judge orders him to. How is that not blatantly obvious to you? Oh that's right. You're stoopid. by HatetheSwamp on November 8, 2025 7:41 am Y'mean, even when a judge UNCONSTITUTIONALLY orders him to. po, No matter what you think about SNAP, Trump had to handle this in the way he did. He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Based on recent Supreme Court rulings, it was all but obvious that the judge's order was unconstitutional. Trump needed to get the issue to the Supreme Court ASAP. Now we're finding out... and,.. the fact that KJP wrote the order strongly suggests what the Court will decide. by oldedude on November 8, 2025 1:09 pm Trump could have released the funds any time he wanted to release the funds. He does not want to release those funds. Even when a judge orders him to. How is that not blatantly obvious to you? I've been following this since the government closed. First. Trumpster cannot LEGALLY spend money that hasn't been released. That is a fact. The President does not have the purse strings. Everyone has to work within the money congress gives them- for each line item. It takes congress to do that. My bet is the GOP wasn't ready for the dims to hold up paying for the government. It's been the same CR since Oct 1. No changes. No offered changes from the dims. Until now. And the block isn't indefinite. The only other thing is the lower court is not a final say in any case. You can take something really simple to SCOTUS, it depends of if they'll take the case or not. So until you run out of money, you can keep it in the court system. by Curt_Anderson on November 8, 2025 1:16 pm Jackson wrote that she expected the appeals court to act “with dispatch” and stated that her administrative stay would end 48 hours after the appeals court rules. [Procedurally], had she denied the request, the Justice Department could have gone to another justice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by issuing the order herself, she was able to set the limits. lawdork.com by oldedude on November 8, 2025 9:19 pm Ooookaaaayyyy... Pretty much what I said. I glad you did clarify the 48 hours though. Hopefully, they will also be for the full amount also. by HatetheSwamp on November 9, 2025 3:20 am Curt, Let's not lose the point that, on behalf of the whole Supreme Court, she addressed the issue. IOW, she acknowledged that the issue was not settled, as po claims, when a Circuit Court judge issued a universal injunction. Bahaha. by Ponderer on November 9, 2025 8:16 am So why does Trump, who has always had the power that the courts are now trying to make him use to release the funds? The MAGAGOP sure looks pretty stupid lamely trying to blame the Democrats for not doing something that the president could have easily done anytime with the stroke of a felt tipped pen. by HatetheSwamp on November 9, 2025 9:14 am po, So, does Trump still beat his wife, eh!!!!!? Trump, and the GOPs, have already done what they can do. They passed the CR. It's absolutely the Dems who have created this mess. 100%. by Curt_Anderson on November 9, 2025 9:37 am "Trump, and the GOPs, have already done what they can do. They passed the CR." ---HtS No, they haven't already done what they can do. The job is not finished. Republicans in theSenate did not pass the continuing resolution. The Republicans have two choices: they can modify the bill to make it acceptable to at least 10 or so Democrats or end the filibuster and pass it with just 50 votes. by oldedude on November 9, 2025 9:38 am po- I'm really not in a position to ask a favor, but could you let me know if/when SNAP come in? I'm trying to see how bad the administration did on this...🙄 by HatetheSwamp on November 9, 2025 10:13 am Curt, My minor error. All GOPs have agreed to the CR... with the exception of my #1 DC pbGOP, Rand Paul. And, of course, the GOP have an option you ignore, i.e., they can stick to their guns and wait until enuff Dems cave. Realistically, that's what they have to do. If they don't do it, they'll never, ever, win a negotiation with the Dem again. by Curt_Anderson on November 9, 2025 10:20 am HtS, It is clear that Republicans do NOT want to negotiate. They even refused to consider Schumer's offer of a one year extension of ACA subsidies. by oldedude on November 9, 2025 10:43 am po-So why does Trump, who has always had the power that the courts are now trying to make him use to release the funds? I believe YOU'RE the only one that says he always ha the power to release the funds. AND, had you been keeping up on this, the administration only asked for "time to move money and get the money out." It wasn't trumpster that couldn't Federal audit laws prevent it. Agriculture has to move money from ACCT# 123, and had to put them in ACCT #abc. Agriculture has to have authorization from GAO to move the money and the reason (24hours). Secondly, AG has to change the accounts of "x" amount of money (the amount that is authorized by GAO) That's 24-48 hours because when they change the money over it has to be in the computer backup. Once that's done, AG informs GAO they're ready to shift money to the states (maybe an hour). Next they have to give the states the money, and ensure it made it to the states in the correct amounts. Next the states must ensure the money is received and they certify the exchange (24-48 hours). This is a certification that "X" $ are now in the hands of the state so the feds and the state have that certification for future audits. The states can't move a penny of that money until the certification is done. The states have to audit the recipients and if people have died, moved, whatever. This should be done prior, but is another step. The states send the money to each account. Banks will hold that money until they get a ping back on the computers 24?- 72 hours or the time it takes to receive a check confirmation back. The money is put in your account. That's 4-6 days "assuming" there's no weekend or bank holiday. (the only hold up would be the banks. AG and the states may have people working on this during the weekend. The states may have the same issue regarding moving money, etc which would draw it out. I know it's not what you want to hear, but that's the facts of moving federal funds. It's longer depending on the states. by Ponderer on November 9, 2025 10:56 am od, yes, he has always had the power to release them. There are emergency contingencies that have been used in shutdowns before that only need to be employed by the president signing and authorizing it. He's refused to do that and that's why the courts are trying to make him do it. It's always been an automatic thing for a president to do. Here you go. This AI response pretty much covers it... bing.com by Ponderer on November 9, 2025 11:02 am So, why is everyone blaming the Democrats for not doing something that the president has always had the ability to do..? Because he wants to blame the Democrats for not doing something that he himself has the power to do. Having something that he thinks he can make the Dems look bad with is more important to him than American citizens going hungry. Plain and simple. by oldedude on November 9, 2025 11:17 am If the CR were passed, this would have started on 10/1. It took the court case to legally change that ruling. If the CR was passed, it didn't have to specially move that money. The CR would have covered that. by oldedude on November 9, 2025 11:45 am od, yes, he has always had the power to release them. There are emergency contingencies that have been used in shutdowns before that only need to be employed by the president signing and authorizing it. Here's the answer from DOJ, which is an answer to the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Constitution provides that “no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The treasury is further protected through the Antideficiency Act, which among other things prohibits all officers and employees of the federal government from entering into obligations in advance of appropriations and prohibits employing federal personnel except in emergencies, unless otherwise authorized by law. See 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq. 2 In the early 1980s, Attorney General Civiletti issued two opinions with respect to the implications of the Antideficiency Act. See Applicability of the Antideficiency Act Upon A Lapse in an Agency’s Appropriations, 4A Op. O.L.C. 16 (1980); Authority for the Continuance of Government Functions During a Temporary Lapse in Appropriations, 5 Op. O.L.C. 1 (1981) (“1981 Opinion”). The 1981 Opinion has frequently been cited in the ensuing years. Since that opinion was written, the Antideficiency Act has been amended in one respect, and we analyze the effect of that amendment below. The amendment amplified on the emergencies exception for employing federal personnel by providing that “[a]s used in this section, the term ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property’ does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. Long story short. The way trumpster did it, was correct. I know your sources don't believe that, and I quoted the law. The money cannot be shifted except by the courts and cannot be included for ongoing, regular functions of the government. That's the difference between the law per se, and having someone tell you what the law is (meaning third hand). I'm not doubting what your sources say, and thanks for them. THAT'S when I went to the law per se. The difference is the Definition of the "safety of human life and protection of property." I've obviously been on your side of this and am a little more than pissed about how this transpired. And for DC, it's nothing more than a "political game." Obviously it isn't and am also pissed about congress getting paid while this BS is going on. Just a note here. The CR isn't the year's budget. All it says is justice.gov by Navy2711 on November 9, 2025 11:49 am We all know the Repubs are going to blink. Dems and purple district Repubs (unless their seat is up in 2026) will chalk up a win. The question is, how will it be fashioned so that it doesn't LOOK like a blink? by oldedude on November 9, 2025 12:12 pm You don't get out often, do you? It's already been ordered and trumpster is following that. Read the thread. Or have your Dom do it. It's not an instantaneous thing to change money, and it's in the works. Please read above. by Ponderer on November 9, 2025 12:28 pm "If the CR were passed, this would have started on 10/1. It took the court case to legally change that ruling. If the CR was passed, it didn't have to specially move that money. The CR would have covered that." -olde dude Okay! This is great, od. *We are both right!* We're dealing with two different, actual ways that the funds could/would be released... A. (Mine) The president could have signed off on releasing the SNAP funds at any time. Probably even ahead of the shutdown so there wouldn't have been any break in payments. B. (Yours) The Democrats could have voted for the CR and the SNAP funds would have be released. Now... I'll explain why I think that the president/MAGAGOP hasn't done Plan A, and then you explain why you think that the Dems won't sign off on Plan B. 'K? And let's see whose argument makes the most sense. One reason that I can think of that he hasn't just released the funds is because he wants to use it as like... a hostage to force the Dems into signing off on decimating Obamacare and its subsidies, thereby cutting off tens of millions of Americans from access to healthcare (which the Dems are quite loathe to do). But SNAP would be paid for, and he'll just get rid of that some other way later on down the road. The Dems are not going to trade one for the other when both rightfully should be available to the American people. Trump may be well aware of that but if he could get the Dems to break on this, he'll feel like he has every Dem member of congresses' head on his trophy wall. Plus, he'll have killed Obamacare like he always promised he would. It would be the rug and centerpiece in his mental hunting lodge den. So he is acting like the only way that the SNAP funds could be released is if the Dems pass the CR. And all of MAGAGOP is crying about how his hands are tied. Forcing an impossible decision on the Democrats by means of creating a hostage situation to get them to make the choice that Trump wants them to make is actually the only reason I can think of for him to have not let the hostage go long ago. As it were. It would be kinda dumb for a kidnapper to release the hostage before getting what he wants. So, od. Why do you think that the Dems won't vote for the CR and release SNAP funds? ... by HatetheSwamp on November 9, 2025 12:38 pm po, You need to stop it with getting your so-called news from The Rachel. Dems have been admitting for a couple weeks that they are the ones holding the CR hostage to gain a political advantage... and, let their constituents just go to #£ll. Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh, man! Catch up on your current events!!!!! View Video by Ponderer on November 9, 2025 12:50 pm Oh I'd heard that. Much ado about nothing. As usual. But why don't we let olde dude give us his answer before you try to feed him one, shall we? by Donna on November 9, 2025 1:03 pm ACA subsidies expire in 9 weeks. Congress goes on vacation for the rest of the year in early December. The CR doesn't include funds to continue the ACA subsidies. This is why the Democrats are insisting on funding the ACA subsidies for another year before passing the CR. by HatetheSwamp on November 9, 2025 3:40 pm "ACA subsidies expire in 9 weeks." And, neither side is doing anything that shows concern for the people who will be impacted. They're both spewing propaganda and, you can be d@ng sure, sending out fundraising letters. I HatetheSwamp. It stuns me that you don't too. by Donna on November 9, 2025 4:04 pm If the Dems don't save those subsidies now, millions of Americans are going to see the out of pocket costs of their ACA premiums skyrocket. When my wife and I had ACA coverage, we saved about $12K/yr on premiums. Without those subsidies, we wouldn't have been able to afford healthcare insurance. The Republican Party has been determined to kill the ACA since it was voted into law. That's part of what's going on here. by oldedude on November 9, 2025 8:13 pm In a CR they would because in a CR we continue as they were. I'm a little shocked that a CR is so misunderstood by so many on SS. Truly, this is a basic thing that anyone that calls themselves "politically aware" especially about things that directly affect them. So to reiterate... A CR would bring back last year's spending. Including SNAP. Is that so fucking hard? A CR would also pay SNAP, the military, open all federal offices fully (meaning they would pay all federal workers), etc. States would have their usual money for that time period. The dims have "protected" social security (interesting, since most of them can collect on that), and their own pay. They don't give a fuck about you. It's simple as that. Please read above. The "offer" chuckie offered would stop pay for military, including deployed. What's awful about that is that if you're an E5 with a wife and two kids, you're also eligible for SNAP generally. So they're working 50-60+ hours a week, living in poverty. I understand your concern. I have supported that concern many times and will continue. I'm just trying to show you the political side of this. And your party is buddy fucking you and your wife. I know you don't like it. And honestly, I think it's a chickenshit thing to do. When I say the dims don't like the working, blue collar worker anymore, THIS is what I'm talking about. I'm trying honestly to support you and po, and it goes to naught, since I live in a very GOP/Conservative area (yes, even the immigrants). Had they voted for the CR, all the rest of the things they want in the budget they would work out now. And you would be paid without a lapse. by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2025 3:33 am "If the Dems don't save those subsidies now, millions of Americans are going to see the out of pocket costs of their ACA premiums skyrocket." Donna, Okay, we're going to find out. My prediction is that the The Sky is Falling propaganda you get from Ben and The Rachel, et.al. is going look idiotic by the time the dust settles. by Donna on November 10, 2025 6:51 am My most optimistic prediction is that in December, there will be enough votes to preserve the original ACA subsidies while shitcanning the expanded subsidies. by Donna on November 10, 2025 6:57 am Btw, I wish that you, Hts, would converse with me without the constant ad-homs. If you've noticed (probably not) I don't do that to you. This is why I don't converse with you very often. by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2025 7:07 am Donna, I'll be stunned if the COVID era expansions will survive. Also, for own mental health, try not to take Ben's and The Rachel's editorializing as journalism. by Ponderer on November 10, 2025 7:19 am "So to reiterate... A CR would bring back last year's spending. Including SNAP. Is that so fucking hard? A CR would also pay SNAP, the military, open all federal offices fully (meaning they would pay all federal workers), etc. States would have their usual money for that time period." -olde dude And also, again, once more, to reiterate... This CR is going to eliminate access to healthcare for tens of millions of Americans. Why is this such a meaningless and ignorable fact for MAGA Hats? by HatetheSwamp on November 10, 2025 7:22 am po, You can't possibly be that STOOPID! by Donna on November 10, 2025 3:16 pm Hts, as Ben often says, "I have the receipts". And those receipts are in the form of video clips. All of his videos rely heavily on video clips. by Donna on November 10, 2025 3:19 pm olde dude: The Continuing Resolution currently does not fully cover ACA subsidies. While there are discussions about extending enhanced ACA premium subsidies, the specific provisions for these subsidies are not included in the latest continuing resolution proposal. The subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025, and without an extension, ACA enrollees may face increased out-of-pocket costs for health insurance. - Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget bing.com by Donna on November 10, 2025 3:29 pm Btw, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget contains a wealth of information about ACA subsidies. Link below. crfb.org by oldedude on November 10, 2025 3:48 pm #37. Okay, I know they're a special thing, and I think that is part of the fight in congress. Good info though. #38. I linked into their website. I'm very skeptical when anyone says "non-partisan." as I read some of the folks that are in charge of them, I was impressed by the mix. Obviously, I want everyone to agree with me, AND I think they're a good group to listen to regardless of the question. Like it or not, I think they'll be fair-minded. It sounds more like an INTEL Group, which tends to be very "fact-minded." Good catch BTW. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page