Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 8^th, 2026 at 10:26pm:



Poor petal. I did not know you hung on my every word and that I should stay online until you responded.

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 3:11pm:


No, dear, I'm saying the ads said funded and authorised by the US government.

I'm saying JD Vance acknowledged the issue and promised to pay the money back.

And I'm saying exactly what your unsourced AI search says above: partisan or self-promotional ads may violate restrictions on using appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda.”

So, given the confession and your knowledge of the law, why would you need a court outcome to express your view?

We'll simplify the question for you, Lee.

Is this action right or wrong?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 8^th, 2026 at 11:40am:



The tendentious editing, nutso.  Even more malicious and tendentious than CNN.


Anyway.

Trump has been a necessary corrective to the insanity of pwoggy loons.  As is Hanson, Le Pen, AfD, Geert Wilders and all the rest.

You silly buggers come up with ever more outlandish bollocks, like blokes are real women, Hamas are freedom fighters, China is cuddly, Pakis are just like Scandis and all the rest of your 'pwogwessive' derangements.

The corrective was, is necessary.  Bitter?  Medicine usually is, nutso.

Frank wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 8:03pm:


The social body is in desperate need of purging, is it?

Cleansing, as DL said, the blood of America.

I must say, we've never heard of Pauline having any medical uses, but that's okay. We know what you mean.

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer, nein?

Now, if only you could convince your foreign compatriots to accept such a view without the use of lies and force.

At some point, dear chap, we'd love to see you try.

Feel it.

Quote:


Most of what Trump does is illegal - Doesn't seem to matter much.

They even cancelled criminal charges against him, not because he wasn't a criminal but because he was President.

Mokes no sense at all, why would they want to cover up for a criminal in the presidency ? I guess it makes sense for the leader of an idiocracy.

lee wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 8:57pm:


Quote:


Yes it seems that this probably is and should be illegal.

Quote:

It is a good position for you to take staying away from questions of morality. I doubt that he has much of a defence in that region on many topics.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 9^th, 2026 at 10:04pm:


he's a criminal

lee wrote on Oct 10^th, 2026 at 12:27pm:


What he's doing is illegal for a number of reasons, and seriously, it's not even up for debate.

Anti-Propaganda Rider: For more than 75 years, a recurring appropriations rider has banned the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States, particularly to promote a candidate or glorify an individual official.

The Hatch Act: This law restricts government employees and executive officials from using public office or government resources for partisan political activities.

The Anti-Deficiency Act: It is a violation of federal law for executive officials to spend public money that has not been specifically appropriated by Congress for that purpose.

Power of the Purse: Only Congress, not the president, holds the constitutional authority to appropriate funds, meaning shifting operational agency budgets (such as from the Department of Homeland Security) to produce political promotional spots is illegal.

So clearly, it's as illegal as it gets, end of story. That's your Dear Leader in a nutshell, the ends justify the means and he doesn't care if he breaks the law because he thinks the Supreme Court gave him blanket immunity, which isn't true.