• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21,309 Excellent

About overtaxed

  • Rank


  • Location
    Churchville, Md.
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. So you expect the president to go to puerto rico and take charge of their department of heath? I guess he should start driving trucks out of the port and get on a lineman's truck while he is there also. I get you can't stand the president. I have stated on here many times that I thought he had no chance of getting elected. I do think on the disaster relief, with two major disasters back to back and now the wildfires. He has done well. He has allocated, what by now have to be strained resources to all areas.
  2. The article states that the puerto rico department of health determines who goes to the ship. The puerto rico governer concurs. How is that the presidents problem?
  3. From your link The USS Comfort is waiting. But Puerto Rico's Department of Health has to decide which patients can get care aboard the ship. And referrals have been minimal. CNN's Leyla Santiago asked Ricardo Rosselló, governor of Puerto Rico, why so many are in need of help and yet a ship with operating rooms and intensive care units sits nearly empty. "The disconnect or the apparent disconnect was in the communications flow," Rosselló said. This must be what the president was talking about when he mentioned the puerto ricans need to step it up.
  4. I vote in Maryland, so I didn't vote for president. Nobody worth voting for but this states electoral votes went for Clinton. Let me restate my question as it seems to have been missed. A thread last week accused trump of sabotaging aca because he would not give a waiver to a state so they could bypass some of the aca rules to keep rates low. Now this week trump is accused of sabotaging aca because he stopped subsidies. Seems to be a damned if you do and damned if you don't deal. If the aca is working, why would a state need a waiver? I am a believer in universal care, never going to happen as the health insurance companies not leaving the money train.
  5. Yes, legal immigrants!
  6. The sun article says the shotgun wasn't loaded. How long before a relative starts crying the cops should have known the gun wasn't loaded?
  7. Well, well. Last week there was a thread on here about how trump not giving a state a obamacare waiver was going to force the exchange to raise rates about 70% and sabotage obamacare. Which made no sense as the state wanted to skirt the obamacare rules. So is the problem trump or the obamacare exchange?
  8. Maybe, I guess you missed the quote from the constitution. That was in the link I posted. At the federal level, Article Two of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.
  9. Okay, I looked it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which Congress has impeached and convicted officials partly for prior crimes.[1] The actual trial on such charges, and subsequent removal of an official upon conviction, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. So, it seems that while you can be impeached for "alleged" crimes. Unless you have committed the crime or crimes. It is merely an exercise in futility. Which the congress is very good at. I think that covers the basics.
  10. Our tax dollars at work.
  11. Doesn't he have to commit a crime, with actual evidence first?
  12. It would be nice if there was more than one sentence in the article. Something seems to be missing. The guy had no family that thought things were strange at his work?
  13. I clicked on your link and I never saw so much stuff come up. Kept asking for my password. Not sure what is going on with that.
  14. With the new policing rules. Would the police even be allowed to ask the upstanding individual if they properly rented the bike? Just because the lock was messed up and the gps was messed up, would be no reason to stop and ask.