Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Aside from all of that, let's just pretend that Trump & Company is right and the program does nothing academically. That still leaves the simple fact that the budges boils down to "I don't want to give food to poor children." And "feth the poor" is just standard MO for many of the GOP leaders in charge up there.
Here's the kicker...
The last Federal budget that was passed was in 2007 for fiscal year '08.
POTUS' budget since then are basically meaningless. Can't see the House to simply pick up Trump's Budget and use it as a framework.
Wait till (or if) Congress starts passing budgets to get your blood pressure up... otherwise, it's MOAR continuing resolutions...
Out of curiosity, how often were federal budgets passed before then? Were they barely ever passed before then or is it only since the election of Obama and then subsequent Republican control of both houses of congress that federal budgets have ended up in limbo?
Much more common. [edit: Actually, I take that back... it depends on what the process we're talking about. Continuing Resolutions basically extends the deadlines by using the last passed budget as the benchmark. That's happens alot. Then there's the Omnibus, which takes the 12 separate appropriate bills and rolls it up in one, that could be considered uncommon/common. In recent years, it appears, for whatever reasons, the House/Senate would rather just keep passing CR (as the benchmarks does 'increase' the spending priority) instead of working to pass an actual budget/Omnibus. Chalk that up due to the increase partisan nature of these institutions. \edit] [edit #2: ninja'ed]
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the federal budget is non-discretionary, which means it’s mandatory spending by law. We have to pay certain bills, and we don’t have a choice about it. Among them is entitlement spending, such as Social Security & Medicare. It is spent based on existing laws rather than the iterating budgeting process, and without actual entitlement reform, we must pay it. That's why any 'Government Shutdowns' isn't as ominous is the media portrays it, since these mandatory spendings + things deemed as essential services are always paid.
So, whenever you see an actual-to-god budget submitted by President and/or crafted by the House, and in absence of any entitlement reforms, it's really just discretionary spending, which in the whole grand scheme of things constitutes a pretty small portion of the overall federal budget.
Aside from all of that, let's just pretend that Trump & Company is right and the program does nothing academically. That still leaves the simple fact that the budges boils down to "I don't want to give food to poor children." And "feth the poor" is just standard MO for many of the GOP leaders in charge up there.
Here's the kicker...
The last Federal budget that was passed was in 2007 for fiscal year '08.
POTUS' budget since then are basically meaningless. Can't see the House to simply pick up Trump's Budget and use it as a framework.
Wait till (or if) Congress starts passing budgets to get your blood pressure up... otherwise, it's MOAR continuing resolutions...
Out of curiosity, how often were federal budgets passed before then? Were they barely ever passed before then or is it only since the election of Obama and then subsequent Republican control of both houses of congress that federal budgets have ended up in limbo?
Much more common.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the federal budget is non-discretionary, which means it’s mandatory spending by law. We have to pay certain bills, and we don’t have a choice about it. Among them is entitlement spending, such as Social Security & Medicare. It is spent based on existing laws rather than the iterating budgeting process, and without actual entitlement reform, we must pay it. That's why any 'Government Shutdowns' isn't as ominous is the media portrays it, since these mandatory spendings + things deemed as essential services are always paid.
So, whenever you see an actual-to-god budget submitted by President and/or crafted by the House, and in absence of any entitlement reforms, it's really just discretionary spending, which in the whole grand scheme of things constitutes a pretty small portion of the overall federal budget.
But, it doesn't differentiates between actual budgets vs. continuing resoution...
Yeah, only about a quarter of Federal spending is actually discretionary spending that gets budgeted by Congress, the other 3/4th of Federal spending is already mandated by law. Since Congress took control over discretionary spending from PotUS back in 1974 the process has become intensely politicized and Congress has rarely passed a proper appropriations bill for discretionary budget spending on time.
In a perfect world, the appropriations process isn’t that much different than what’s supposed to happen to a normal bill: the House passes a bill, the Senate passes its own version, they work out the differences, pass the bill again and send it to the president for his signature.
There are a couple key differences when the budget is concerned. First, the president starts the process by sending his budget to Congress, usually in early February.
The document is basically advisory, indicating where the president thinks Congress should focus its spending.
Not that it really matters. Lawmakers can — and do — ignore the president’s budget. So Congress’ first job is to pass a budget of its own by mid-April. This budget takes the form of a resolution, a statement of Congress’ own spending priorities that does not have the force of law. To get there, the House and Senate both write and pass their own budget resolutions, establish a conference committee — a team of both House and Senate members — to merge them together, and then each body must again pass the final version.
The resolution never goes to the president — it just serves as a framework to guide the next step in the process.
So everybody’s said what they want, but when do they actually make the decisions?
By the end of spring, the real work on the budget begins. In the House and Senate appropriations committees, lawmakers begin poring over the 12 bills that make up the whole of the federal budget:
•Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies;
•Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies;
•Defense;
•Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies;
•Financial Services and General Government;
•Homeland Security;
•Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies;
•Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;
•Legislative Branch;
•Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;
•State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and
•Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
Each bill has its own subcommittee, whose job it is to pass their appointed appropriations bill, sending it to the full committee and eventually onto the floor for a full vote. These bills are supposed to conform to the overall spending framework already set in the budget resolution.
The House usually takes the first stab at this process. When it passes a bill and sends it to the Senate, senators can make changes and pass the bill again. Then Schoolhouse Rock kicks in: there’s a conference committee, the House and Senate pass the compromise bill, and the president signs it. Lawmakers are supposed to do this 12 times before a new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
So under normal order, passing the federal budget requires hundreds of votes in committees and in the full houses of Congress.
And how often does it actually happen like that?
Well, almost never.
The process breaks several times along the way. First, Congress is historically spotty when it comes to agreeing on a budget resolution — the last time it happened was in 2009. In fact, before 2013, the Senate had gone several years without passing its own budget resolution. That’s why Republicans would deploy the technically correct but misleading soundbite accusing Senate Democrats of not passing a budget for 1,000 or however many days — the Senate had indeed skipped the part where it sets internal spending targets, but it was still passing bills directing federal spending.
Without an agreed-upon budget framework, the House and Senate tend to go their own ways in appropriating funds, especially during times of divided government. That means critical steps in the process — like conference committees, or the Senate even voting on House-passed funding bills — simply don’t happen, especially for large or controversial spending areas. Last session, the House passed eight appropriations bills; the Senate didn’t vote on any of them.
What happens then?
If a budget isn’t in place by Oct 1, the start of the fiscal year, the government could shut down.
Congress avoids shutdowns by passing a short-term budget bill maintaining current spending levels called a “continuing resolution,” or “CR.” These give lawmakers more time to either write the 12 individual budget bills, or wrap them altogether in one overarching budget called an “omnibus bill,” which directs federal spending across all of the 12 appropriations areas.
Are omnibuses common?
Congress relies on CRs and omnibuses a lot. The last time Congress actually passed every individual budget bill was ahead of the 2002 fiscal year, and it took 8 CRs to get there first. Congress has passed its appropriations bills without needing a CR only four times since the 1977 fiscal year, University of Minnesota Congress expert Kathryn Pearson said, referencing a Congressional Research Service report.
Has budgeting always been this hard?
Lawmakers instituted the current budget and appropriations process in 1974 to take back some spending power from the president, who had, at the time, abused it by exercising too much discretion in how he spent appropriated funds. But many of the problems plaguing the process today are symptomatic of moving it back to Congress in the first place.
It sets up an annual clash on spending levels, Pearson said, a problem that grew especially as power centralized with party leadership. Lawmakers began attaching riders to the bills, which led to vetoes and delays in the process, especially under divided government in the Clinton years. Pearson said no one has come up with any serious reforms to help speed the process along.
“It’s become so routine that there’s sort of no hope going into the process that they’re going to follow the schedule,” she said.
Really we could just end the war with North Korea. We don't have to be technically at war with them anymore. Its doing significant damage to the US and it needs to stop. At the rate we are going North Korea will eventually win because the US will finally crap the bed.
How do we end the war with North Korea without North and South Korea's aggreement? To end a war all the warring parties have to agree on a peace treaty......or one side has to surrender, right? Whose going to surrender?
Does the US unilaterally withdraw and tell South Korea, sorry we are no longer going to abide by the defense treaty? What is the political consequences of the US unilaterally withdrawing from a defense treaty? Would the US unilaterally withdrawing actually result in North Korea changing its military posture in a posistive way, i.e. Stop developing and deploying nuclear weapons and no longer threaten the US or its allies?
How does North Korea eventually win? What is North Korea's end game?
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
No 10 has been assured the allegations would not be repeated, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said.
He said it had been made clear to US authorities the claims were "ridiculous and should have been ignored".
I wonder if the US realises how potentially a big deal a statement like that is. This is the British Civil Service. The Civil Service has been doing their thing for hundreds of years. I legitimately wonder if they practically invented the term 'professionalism.'
To make a statement along the lines of that. I'd hazard a guess that they're *really* miffed.
Really we could just end the war with North Korea. We don't have to be technically at war with them anymore. Its doing significant damage to the US and it needs to stop. At the rate we are going North Korea will eventually win because the US will finally crap the bed.
How do we end the war with North Korea without North and South Korea's aggreement? To end a war all the warring parties have to agree on a peace treaty......or one side has to surrender, right? Whose going to surrender?
Does the US unilaterally withdraw and tell South Korea, sorry we are no longer going to abide by the defense treaty? What is the political consequences of the US unilaterally withdrawing from a defense treaty? Would the US unilaterally withdrawing actually result in North Korea changing its military posture in a posistive way, i.e. Stop developing and deploying nuclear weapons and no longer threaten the US or its allies?
How does North Korea eventually win? What is North Korea's end game?
You don't actually need a winner and loser, its not a race. Neither side needs to surrender either, there is not actual conflict going on. Peace treaty would probably not be too difficult without the US looming over North Korea. They will never draw down with the US maintaining the capacity to then freely invade.
The US and South Korea can create new treaties. Treaties are not permanent, they can change. Likely US withdrawing would effect the DPRK. The reason for their program is so they can brandish a weapon capable of holding the US off. Without the US, there isn't a reason for a nuclear program. South Korea doesn't have thr capacity to invade North Korea and North Korea realistically couldn't invade South Korea, but the US and South Korea can. So as long as they are teamed up and on the doorstep, North Korea must continue to build up military strenght until either war happens or the US loses interest.
North Korea wins at the rate we are going because the US has to maintain a military it can not afford. Eventually what we are doing will become completely unsustainable. Military Keynesianism has been the cause of the reduced maunfacturing and degradation of infrastructure in this country (as far as I have learned). This won't last forever.
Really we could just end the war with North Korea. We don't have to be technically at war with them anymore. Its doing significant damage to the US and it needs to stop. At the rate we are going North Korea will eventually win because the US will finally crap the bed.
How do we end the war with North Korea without North and South Korea's aggreement? To end a war all the warring parties have to agree on a peace treaty......or one side has to surrender, right? Whose going to surrender?
Does the US unilaterally withdraw and tell South Korea, sorry we are no longer going to abide by the defense treaty? What is the political consequences of the US unilaterally withdrawing from a defense treaty? Would the US unilaterally withdrawing actually result in North Korea changing its military posture in a posistive way, i.e. Stop developing and deploying nuclear weapons and no longer threaten the US or its allies?
How does North Korea eventually win? What is North Korea's end game?
You don't actually need a winner and loser, its not a race. Neither side needs to surrender either, there is not actual conflict going on. Peace treaty would probably not be too difficult without the US looming over North Korea. They will never draw down with the US maintaining the capacity to then freely invade.
The US and South Korea can create new treaties. Treaties are not permanent, they can change. Likely US withdrawing would effect the DPRK. The reason for their program is so they can brandish a weapon capable of holding the US off. Without the US, there isn't a reason for a nuclear program. South Korea doesn't have thr capacity to invade North Korea and North Korea realistically couldn't invade South Korea, but the US and South Korea can. So as long as they are teamed up and on the doorstep, North Korea must continue to build up military strenght until either war happens or the US loses interest.
North Korea wins at the rate we are going because the US has to maintain a military it can not afford. Eventually what we are doing will become completely unsustainable. Military Keynesianism has been the cause of the reduced maunfacturing and degradation of infrastructure in this country (as far as I have learned). This won't last forever.
NK will brandish their nuclear program whether the US is in SK or not because NK uses their nuke program and military threat to extort concessions to fund their country. NK is basically a 3rd world country that uses the threat of its nuclear program to get the US and SK to pay them off to stop the saber rattling. Paying off NK is cheaper and easier than going to war with a country full of brainwashed subjects ruled by a crazy person who can lob tons of conventional ordinance plus a nuke or two onto Seoul. If NK actually started a war they'd lose but SK doesn't want to suffer the hits they'd take in winning and they don't want to have to deal with assimilating NK into their country so we have the stalemate that's been going on for decades and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
.@POTUS to Merkel: "As far as wiretapping, I guess, this past administration - at least we have something in common perhaps." pic.twitter.com/GPUXE7UqH1
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 17, 2017
I have presidents I've liked, and presidents I've disliked, but I think this is the first one I am ashamed of - it's nearly a daily national embarrassment.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
Gordon Shumway wrote: IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
But then... they have to work so hard every year Gordy. Won't you think of our congress critters?!?!
Gordon Shumway wrote: IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
The problem with that is it opens up the possibility of GOP (or DNC, theoretically) dysfunction actually shutting down the country.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I see that Trump has decided to double down on his stupidity concerning the 'allegations' against GCHQ
Spicer's defence is that he's only repeating what Fox News said, because Spicer is only the POTUS media guy. It's not as though anything he says, repeats, or endorses has consequences beyond the White House
Here's a quick 101 for American Dakka members on the various branches of the British secret service:
The British government DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THEM.
They act as though MI5 and MI6, and GCHQ do not exist.
Hell, it was only about 20 years ago that our government even admitted that MI6 existed...
For GCHQ to issue a statement like this...I've never heard the like in my lifetime...somebody is seriously off
Nothing serious will come of this, it's 2017, not 1817, but Trump has only disgraced himself in the eyes of a close ally and further eroded credibility...
Every president, and I mean every president, WILL face a crisis or a situation in their administration.
A terror attack will happen or US sailors will get taken hostage by Iran, or North Korea will do something daft, or Russia will chance their luck somewhere etc etc
I dread to think how Trump will handle a real situation...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Gordon Shumway wrote: IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
But then... they have to work so hard every year Gordy. Won't you think of our congress critters?!?!
I am. And I am thinking of how to have term limits without having term limits. This might work.
Gordon Shumway wrote: IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
The problem with that is it opens up the possibility of GOP (or DNC, theoretically) dysfunction actually shutting down the country.
Exactly. If they really want to do it, fine. Do it. See a whole new batch next year. Bye bye assured reelection. The only madadory should be that they have to actually pass a budget.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/17 21:03:30
This Tuesday, an Oklahoma State Senator was charged with child prostitution after being caught in a hotel room with an underage boy.
Three felony charges were filed against Ralph Shortey by Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn. The charges include engaging in child prostitution, engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church, and transporting a minor for prostitution, according to KFOR.
This Tuesday, an Oklahoma State Senator was charged with child prostitution after being caught in a hotel room with an underage boy.
Three felony charges were filed against Ralph Shortey by Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn. The charges include engaging in child prostitution, engaging in prostitution within 1,000 feet of a church, and transporting a minor for prostitution, according to KFOR.
They should have put a sign on the hotel door, obviously.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
The US has agreed not to repeat claims the UK's communications intelligence agency wiretapped Donald Trump in the weeks after he won the US election.
GCHQ denied allegations made by the White House that it spied on Mr Trump as president-elect.
No 10 has been assured the allegations would not be repeated, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said.
He said it had been made clear to US authorities the claims were "ridiculous and should have been ignored".
White House: No apology to British government over spying claims
By Ben Westcott, Dan Merica and Jim Sciutto, CNN
Updated 3:46 PM ET, Fri March 17, 2017
Washington (CNN)White House press secretary Sean Spicer flatly denied Friday that the White House apologized to the British government after citing an uncorroborated Fox News report to allege that a UK intelligence agency spied on President Donald Trump at the behest of former President Barack Obama.
Earlier in the day, however, a senior administration official told CNN that Spicer and national security adviser H.R. McMaster offered what amounted to an apology to the British government for Spicer's comments on Thursday, when he cited a Fox News report that said British intelligence helped wiretap Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign.
"I don't think we regret anything," Spicer told reporters at a gaggle Friday afternoon. Asked by CNN's Jim Acosta if there was an apology by the administration to the British government over the matter, Spicer replied, "No, we were just passing on news reports."
Earlier Friday, a White House official told CNN that McMaster spoke with his British counterpart on Thursday about Spicer's comment.
The official described the conversation as "cordial" where McMaster described Spicer's comment as "unintentional."
McMaster also told his counterpart that "their concerns were understood and heard and it would be relayed to the White House."
The official said there were "at least two calls" from British officials on Thursday and that the British ambassador to the United States called Spicer to discuss the comment.
"Sean was pointing to the breadth of reporting, not endorsing any specific story," the official said.
White House officials later told CNN that it was British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch and Sir Mark Lyall Grant, national security adviser to Prime Minister Theresa May, who "expressed their concerns to Sean Spicer and Gen. McMaster" in two separate conversations on Thursday.
"Mr. Spicer and Gen. McMaster explained that Mr. Spicer was simply pointing to public reports, not endorsing any specific story," one official said.
Spicer spoke to Darroch face-to-face at a White House St. Patrick's Day event, according to a British government official, who described the meeting as "serious" in tone and said it was not cordial.
Cant have El Trumpo ever admitting he's wrong, even to piss off one of our oldest allies.
Normally I just lurk on the U.S. politics thread as international U.S. politics is my field and by the time I get my head out of my keyboard after reading the latest Trump adventures the thread has moved on. However I would like to comment that I thought Angela Merkel did a fantastic job trying to be amicable to someone that has been such an donkey-cave to her in public. With a bit of either bad/good luck Germany might soon have a chancellor who might not be as willing to keep up the amicable attitude, if Schulz's SPD wins.
Besides that I could go on and on for hours on all of Trump's and his administrations actions the last few weeks, but for my own time I will leave on the Dutch elections. As some/most of you might know Geert Wilders lost the election to our current prime minister Rutte (the fear of the populist tide in Europe). What is so funny to me is all the Americans on social media patting themselves on the back that Trump being elected president showed us that electing Wilders would be a bad choice. Its hilarious that they don't realize that 1. Wilders got more votes in previous elections than this one, he's not new or much of a threat because 2. with our system he might win in overall votes but find that all other parties expressly declared they wouldn't make a coalition with him (they tried once, it was a mess, Wilders quit on it cause they gave him nothing). And if the French presidential elections don't go to Le Pen its because of how the French vote, not the example of Donald. Come on you guys, give us Europeans some credit, we hated our blondies waaaaay before you did
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/18 00:16:10
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: . And if the French presidential elections don't go to Le Pen its because of how the French vote, not the example of Donald. Come on you guys, give us Europeans some credit, we hated our blondies waaaaay before you did
If Le Pen wins...
Jeez I'm trying to follow up on this and yet I can't. I just barfed a little in my mouth...
If Le Pen wins, I'll call it quit for the great dream of Western Civilization.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
Ouze wrote: I have presidents I've liked, and presidents I've disliked, but I think this is the first one I am ashamed of - it's nearly a daily national embarrassment.
Disciple of Fate wrote: . And if the French presidential elections don't go to Le Pen its because of how the French vote, not the example of Donald. Come on you guys, give us Europeans some credit, we hated our blondies waaaaay before you did
If Le Pen wins...
Jeez I'm trying to follow up on this and yet I can't. I just barfed a little in my mouth...
If Le Pen wins, I'll call it quit for the great dream of Western Civilization.
If it makes you feel any better, past experiences with Le Pen's front national make it seem unlikely she will actually win. As the French pres elections have two rounds and those that don't vote for Le Pen in the first round will unlikely be doing so in round two. Basically garentuing the other three parties besides the FN to push their surviving candidate together (which has been done against the FN before). Although socialist support seems to have collapsed due to Hollande and that of the republicains due to Fillon's scandals, I expect the voters to rally behind the third option of Macron. Perhaps a suprising winner, but the electorate will find him more palatable than Le Pen. The two party U.S. system is polarized enough and created a level of apathy that means there are few voters left to sway. With only one round one the national level this enables a suprise win, but luckily for France the second round makes rallying against Le Pen easier.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Frankly at this point I don't think Le Pen would be worse than Donald. Also, UN praises Iran's 'exemplary' refugee efforts. When you are vastly outclassed by a freaking Islamist regime on moral grounds then it's time to really question your life decisions. Do you think that Iran will accept US refugee when Donald is finished ruining the country?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's give credit where credit is due though. Still have the moral high ground on Saudi Arabia, right? So it's not all that bad!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/18 02:31:34
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
From the outside looking in... not sure she'd win the 2nd round. (cool election mechanic).
Also, UN praises Iran's 'exemplary' refugee efforts.
When you are vastly outclassed by a freaking Islamist regime on moral grounds then it's time to really question your life decisions.
Do you think that Iran will accept US refugee when Donald is finished ruining the country?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's give credit where credit is due though. Still have the moral high ground on Saudi Arabia, right? So it's not all that bad!
Sure thing man... we can't wait for the next time we have moral grounds.
d-usa wrote: There have been studies after studies that have found that hungry children, as well as children who are preoccupied with thinking about how they are going to eat until they return to school the next morning, are unable to pay as much attention in class and suffer academically from the effect of food insecurity.
The frightening thing about this is that there are actually people out there that need such studies before they accept what is painfully obvious to normal intelligent people.
Yes, smoking is bad for your health. Yes, the easy availability of firearms is a big factor in the number of gun-related crimes. Yes, you DO need to pay taxes in order for your country to function.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
3000
4000 
off
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000