• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a president withold aid to states for political reasons?

Should a president withold aid to states for political reasons?

  • Total voters
    78
Kreton said:
What in the world are you talking about?
Click to expand...

My bad just trying to make a point fact is a fact this happened fact no matter what political spin you put on it this happened remains fact.
Example Dec 7th, 1941 Japan attacked pearl Harbor and Hawaii , now some say Rosevelt knew this was going to happen , some say according to Japan it was not supposed to be a surprise attack , However Dec 7th 1941 the Japanese did attack Hawaii, and Pealharbor without provication. fact:peace
 
Harshaw said:
Political reasons are political reasons.



A dishonest thread is a dishonest thread.
Click to expand...

I can not see anything dishonest about this thread.

For political reasons ? What's next are politicians to withhold funds because they are not the right political party , maybe wrong ethnic background , maybe not rich enough, maybe not powerful enough, are these to become political reasonsas well???:peace
 
presluc said:
I can not see anything dishonest about this thread.
Click to expand...

I believe you.

For political reasons ? What's next are politicians to withhold funds because they are not the right political party , maybe wrong ethnic background , maybe not rich enough, maybe not powerful enough, are these to become political reasonsas well???:peace
Click to expand...

You tell me. You were the one trying to justify it because you liked the reason.
 
presluc said:
My bad just trying to make a point fact is a fact this happened fact no matter what political spin you put on it this happened remains fact.
Example Dec 7th, 1941 Japan attacked pearl Harbor and Hawaii , now some say Rosevelt knew this was going to happen , some say according to Japan it was not supposed to be a surprise attack , However Dec 7th 1941 the Japanese did attack Hawaii, and Pealharbor without provication. fact:peace
Click to expand...

You think pearl harbor happened because a sitting US president withheld disaster aid from a state for political reasons? You are not making any sense. I still have no idea what you are talking about. That statement has no bearing what so ever on this conversation.

The first "fact" you state is not a fact as you haven't provided a single instance of it ever happened. When has a US president (prior to Trump) withheld disaster aid funds from a US state for political reasons? I am not aware of any time it has happened.

Also your 2nd "fact" you list in your statement of the Japanese attacking without provocation is at best your opinion if not a flat out lie. There was provocation. Whether or not the provocation warranted a response of that level is certainly up to one's opinion but the provocation certainly happened.

You are certainly loose with the word fact. The word does not mean what you seem to think it does.
 
Kreton said:
You think pearl harbor happened because a sitting US president withheld disaster aid from a state for political reasons? You are not making any sense. I still have no idea what you are talking about. That statement has no bearing what so ever on this conversation.

The first "fact" you state is not a fact as you haven't provided a single instance of it ever happened. When has a US president (prior to Trump) withheld disaster aid funds from a US state for political reasons? I am not aware of any time it has happened.

Also your 2nd "fact" you list in your statement of the Japanese attacking without provocation is at best your opinion if not a flat out lie. There was provocation. Whether or not the provocation warranted a response of that level is certainly up to one's opinion but the provocation certainly happened.

You are certainly loose with the word fact. The word does not mean what you seem to think it does.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see you are into details .
Fact the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th 1941 this is fact it can not be changed.
Now I could go into detail about it being surprise attack by saying if America knew it was going to happen why were the battleships sit up in a ilne in Pearl Harbor ?
Why were the planes at Clark field still on the ground?
As I said it used to be you stated a fact it was fact , today you state fact and wait to explain after all the spin and debate it is still fact.
This is just one of many scenarios ,like the Depression the FDR new deal and many more.:peace
 
Harshaw said:
I believe you.



You tell me. You were the one trying to justify it because you liked the reason.
Click to expand...

Wrong , I have never tried to "justify" any President withholding funs for political reasons. survival reasons is not political reasons .
The differance is easy .
During WW2 there were rations given and money witheld from oet projects so more money for weapons and supplies for soldiers fighting the war.
To withhold funds for fighting wildfires simply because the state if too far left is a bit diffrent.:peace
 
presluc said:
Wrong , I have never tried to "justify" any President withholding funs for political reasons. survival reasons is not political reasons .
The differance is easy .
During WW2 there were rations given and money witheld from oet projects so more money for weapons and supplies for soldiers fighting the war.
To withhold funds for fighting wildfires simply because the state if too far left is a bit diffrent.:peace
Click to expand...

Someday, you may write something which somehow relates to something I've said. Not today, but someday. "Pet projects." "Rations." WTF?
 
presluc said:
Ok, I see you are into details .
Fact the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th 1941 this is fact it can not be changed.
Now I could go into detail about it being surprise attack by saying if America knew it was going to happen why were the battleships sit up in a ilne in Pearl Harbor ?
Why were the planes at Clark field still on the ground?
As I said it used to be you stated a fact it was fact , today you state fact and wait to explain after all the spin and debate it is still fact.
This is just one of many scenarios ,like the Depression the FDR new deal and many more.:peace
Click to expand...

You don't know the definition of words. I won't debate that way. Good day.
 
Harshaw said:
Someday, you may write something which somehow relates to something I've said. Not today, but someday. "Pet projects." "Rations." WTF?
Click to expand...

Well. you can check the records in WW2 there was rations and rubber drives and paper drives and savings bond fundraiser for the american military and a G.I. BILL when they got home. What has the American government done for those coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq? cut funds?? WTF???:peace
 
Kreton said:
We are incredibly divided as a nation. There are countless examples and instances that can be pointed to but we have reached a point where the president is threatening to pull aid during a national disaster for no reason other than California is right wing enough.

Pretty straight forward question.

Should a president withhold aid to states for political reasons?
Click to expand...

Not a straightforward question. There are plenty of political reasons why this would be wise and good policy, and plenty of scenarios where it might not. Trump's interaction with Ukraine falls into the latter category but (for example) if Trump were to tell the South Pacific Islands that we would be withholding aid to any who broke ties with Taiwan (because helping to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression is U.S. policy), that would fall into the former.
 
presluc said:
Well. you can check the records in WW2 there was rations and rubber drives and paper drives and savings bond fundraiser for the american military and a G.I. BILL when they got home. What has the American government done for those coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq? cut funds?? WTF???:peace
Click to expand...

The Post-9/11 GI Bill is actually better than the Montgomery GI Bill which it replaced for the vast majority of veterans, and for those of us who were in the middle, we were allowed to chose whether to transfer over or not.
 
Kreton said:
You don't know the definition of words. I won't debate that way. Good day.
Click to expand...

Well, pardon me , I was just laying the ground work to get across a point about facts a word seldom used without spin or ridicule today.

I bring you back to the OP, the question was asked Should a president withhold aid for political reasons?
My answer NO
Question ;
Did President Trump withhold aid for political reasons ?
That's a yes or no answer no spin , no excuses just yes or no.
Now if he did that's a FACT , if he didn't that's a FACT.
Forget about what Obama or any other President did or didn't do this is here this is now.
Answer the question.
I know the definition of the word FACT do you??
As far as not debating when the word FACT is used , perhaps you have a point.
TA TA:peace
 
cpwill said:
Not a straightforward question. There are plenty of political reasons why this would be wise and good policy, and plenty of scenarios where it might not. Trump's interaction with Ukraine falls into the latter category but (for example) if Trump were to tell the South Pacific Islands that we would be withholding aid to any who broke ties with Taiwan (because helping to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression is U.S. policy), that would fall into the former.
Click to expand...

None of what you posted after the 2nd sentence has any relevance.

If there are plenty of reasons why politically please by all means give an example of a couple.
 
Kreton said:
None of what you posted after the 2nd sentence has any relevance.

If there are plenty of reasons why politically please by all means give an example of a couple.
Click to expand...
I like how you ask in the second section for that which you dismissed in the first.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
presluc said:
Well. you can check the records in WW2 there was rations and rubber drives and paper drives and savings bond fundraiser for the american military and a G.I. BILL when they got home. What has the American government done for those coming home from Afghanistan and Iraq? cut funds?? WTF???:peace
Click to expand...

Apparently today isn't that day, either.
 
Harshaw said:
Did you protest when the Obama Admin threatened federal funding to state schools over transgender bathrooms?

If not, I have to assume your own answer to your poll is "yes." (I have to assume it, because you have not registered an answer yourself.)
Click to expand...

This is a good question and is similar to issues faced by Presidents during the Civil Rights era. In a case like this, if a state uses the 10th amendment to thwart or avoid federal constitutional principles or legal directives in an act of defiance against valid federal power, I can see a President using the power of the purse to force them to obey. However, as the ACA ruling in regards to the Medicaid expansion decided, coercion by the federal government has its limits.
 
Vadinho said:
This is a good question and is similar to issues faced by Presidents during the Civil Rights era. In a case like this, if a state uses the 10th amendment to thwart or avoid federal constitutional principles or legal directives in an act of defiance against valid federal power, I can see a President using the power of the purse to force them to obey. However, as the ACA ruling in regards to the Medicaid expansion decided, coercion by the federal government has its limits.
Click to expand...

It has happened many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom