trump Prohibited from Receiving Any Bailout Money

[JusticeHammer]

Holy fucking Trump hate.

So how much money did the democrats write for themselves and their special interest? After all, the bill could not be passed without making sure that democrats get maximum benefits for themselves. Never let crisis go to waste.

Exactly, do as I say not as I do demscum.

 

[JusticeHammer]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

They were wise to prevent a corruption prone prez from taking even more taxpayer money than he already has.

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

Why do you think this is good? Do you have reasons beyond orange man bad mentality?

Legit Trump’s properties might really need help but the conflict of interest is so troublesome I don’t know what the answer is.

I guess that’s why presidents try to minimize conflicts of interest, well, in the past they have.

LefTard Logic:
“Helping an American businessman who employs thousands and pumps ton of cash back into the economy = BAD”

“Funneling taxpayer cash to illegal wetbacks who contribute nothing and take a shit-ton...pillage, maime, rape and murder our people, destroy our education and healthcare systems, and ruin our communities, cities and states =GOOD”

You dumbmotherfuckers have zero credibility. Please STFU

Demscum are too stupid to know they are stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

The bill itself is unconstitutional.
But im not sure what a bill of retainer has to do with it?

What is a bill of attainder and what does the Constitution say about it?

Definition: Bill of Attainder. Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

I thought it had to do with declaring someone or group guilty and it results in lack of civil rights.

I just posted the definition.

I understand. But that doesmt address my point. Using your general definition, it can be applied to basically anything.
Attainder means forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence for treason or felony.
Oxford defines bill of attainder as an item of legislation that inflicts attainer without judicial process.

It can be applied to any bill that names a specific person or business for punishment.

 

[JusticeHammer]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

As the demscum make sure they get some. Hypothetical demscum pukes all of them.

 

[bripat9643]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

He's right. You're wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

It's naming a specific person or business for punishment. That's a bill of attainder. It has nothing to do with any "classes." Trump isn't a class.

 

[bripat9643]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

The Constitution says he doesn't have to, dumbass.

I'm not surprised that you approve of these Nazi tactics.

 

[two_iron]

Dim 'logic': No let's fire the thousands of workers employed at Trump properties to prove how much we hate the man that is superior to us in every fucking way imaginable.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

This is a good law.

On that note, does anyone know how some career politicians are worth $50M+, or is that all just fake news?

Lectures, book deals and investments...

 

[bripat9643]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

It singles out Trump, period.

 

[OKTexas]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

 

[Unkotare]

A clean bill is just to individuals first
Which is the way they should do it.
Carnival Princess, etc don't need bail outs.

People don’t work for that company?

Isnt that company incorporated in panama?

Does that mean everyone working for them is automatically a citizen of Panama?

How many americans do they employ? 15? Lol

Link?

I asked you a question.

I asked you several first.

 

[Unkotare]

A clean bill is just to individuals first
Which is the way they should do it.
Carnival Princess, etc don't need bail outs.

People don’t work for that company?

Isnt that company incorporated in panama?

Does that mean everyone working for them is automatically a citizen of Panama?

How many americans do they employ? 15? Lol

Link?

I just read that they dont like to employ americans because most of them end up quoting after investing a long training period into yhem because they work 15 hours a day, 7 days a week for months at a time for about 3 bucks an hour and some only get tip money. And their food sucks and living quarters are horrid.

Link? Proof?

 

[colfax_m]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

Doubt it. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit first.

Who is going to do that?

 

[OKTexas]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

Doubt it. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit first.

Who is going to do that?

Doubt all you want, you can bet someone will. I hope Don Jr. is the first. That would put you commiecrats in a tailspin.

.

 

[TNHarley]

The bill itself is unconstitutional.
But im not sure what a bill of retainer has to do with it?

What is a bill of attainder and what does the Constitution say about it?

Definition: Bill of Attainder. Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

I thought it had to do with declaring someone or group guilty and it results in lack of civil rights.

I just posted the definition.

I understand. But that doesmt address my point. Using your general definition, it can be applied to basically anything.
Attainder means forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence for treason or felony.
Oxford defines bill of attainder as an item of legislation that inflicts attainer without judicial process.

It can be applied to any bill that names a specific person or business for punishment.

I just dont think you are applying it right

 

[colfax_m]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

Doubt it. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit first.

Who is going to do that?

Doubt all you want, you can bet someone will. I hope Don Jr. is the first. That would put you commiecrats in a tailspin.

.

Thats a good point. I might see a family member being able to sufficiently say the bill should not apply to them. After all, it’s not their fault that their family is an elected official. I agree with that specific point.

Of course, that just reminds me very much of Hunter Biden, ironically.

 

[bripat9643]

The bill itself is unconstitutional.
But im not sure what a bill of retainer has to do with it?

What is a bill of attainder and what does the Constitution say about it?

Definition: Bill of Attainder. Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

I thought it had to do with declaring someone or group guilty and it results in lack of civil rights.

I just posted the definition.

I understand. But that doesmt address my point. Using your general definition, it can be applied to basically anything.
Attainder means forfeiture of land and civil rights suffered as a consequence of a sentence for treason or felony.
Oxford defines bill of attainder as an item of legislation that inflicts attainer without judicial process.

It can be applied to any bill that names a specific person or business for punishment.

I just dont think you are applying it right

Of course I am applying it right. It doesn't pertain only to treason. The term "felony" doesn't even make sense in this context. Any bill that singles out a person or business for punishment is a bill of attainder. It's unconstitutional. What you're saying is that if Congress passed a bill that said you will be executed, it doesn't constitute a bill of attainder. That's absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

Doubt it. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit first.

Who is going to do that?

Doubt all you want, you can bet someone will. I hope Don Jr. is the first. That would put you commiecrats in a tailspin.

.

Thats a good point. I might see a family member being able to sufficiently say the bill should not apply to them. After all, it’s not their fault that their family is an elected official. I agree with that specific point.

Of course, that just reminds me very much of Hunter Biden, ironically.

The legislation doesn't name elected officials. It names Trump. If it named "the President," it would still be a bill of attainder.

 

[busybee01]

This is good. I'm glad democrats in the senate are making sure that trump won't get a penny of that slush fund.

Senate coronavirus bill prohibits Trump's hotels from receiving bailouts

The measure was added in the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans.

www.aol.com

Trump businesses barred from getting coronavirus stimulus money, Schumer says

So equal treatment under the law doesn't apply to people you don't like? The Constitution has a term for that, it's called a "bill of attainder", and it prohibits them.

.

He is welcome to resign his position in order to receive his bailout.

No need for that, that's what the courts are for. You should try reading the Constitution for a change.

.

I have. Bill of attainder is not relevant to this bill. The restriction is not directed at a person, but an office. Therefore that does not apply.

Wrong answer, it singles out a particular class of people (federal politicians and their families) for unequal treatment under the law. That's a clear violation of the Constitution.

.

Having an occupation does not make one a class of people. There are already laws regarding how politicians and government workers are allowed to participate in government programs. This is no different. This is applying conditions to employment and no one is obligated to accept their employment given those conditions.

We'll see what the courts say about it.

.

Doubt it. Someone is going to have to file a lawsuit first.

Who is going to do that?

Doubt all you want, you can bet someone will. I hope Don Jr. is the first. That would put you commiecrats in a tailspin.

.

The person that does it has to have standing. That means only Trump or a member of the Trump family can do it. If they do then brings up the whole issue of whether Trump is using his office to enrich himself.