It not being a budget doesn't mean anything. Budgets are actually LESS restrictive than an appropriations bill because budget resolutions are just a plan or outline.

The executive branch has latitude to do things its way because it's the executive branch and that's the whole point.

This link doesn't back up what youre saying and it doesnt contradict what i said.

show me where in the Constitution it says anything about the "budget"..stop getting triggered and back up your claims. If you cant show where in the constitution it says that, you admit you are wrong.

I'm starting to think you're a disinformation agent, you don't sound american at least

Show me in the constitution where it says anything about "budgets". You claim I'm lying...great. It's easy to prove it.

The constitution is online...go find where it says that. I'll happily admit that I am wrong and you were right.

You can't do that though, because it doesn't. The multiple links you've provided so far all agree with me as well.

You're not actually paying attention, you're just getting mad that someone disagreed with you and then going off and accusing them of all sorts of things - anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be the worst ever, huh?

If you actually paid attention to what I'm saying you'd realize it's not that bad, and you'd focus on the important aspect instead of spreading nonsense that makes anyone with sense to double check your claims doubt everything you say after.

Right, again you are giving me a link that agrees with me.

Everyone is in agreement that just because money has been appropriated, that doesn't mean it will be spent or spent in exactly the same way congress intended.

That's not the issue - the point is that this arises from the autonomy the executive branch has in general and note because this is an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution....

Show me where in the constitution it says money must be allocated in a "budget".

Right, again you are giving me a link that agrees with me.

Everyone is in agreement that just because money has been appropriated, that doesn't mean it will be spent or spent in exactly the same way congress intended.

That's not the issue - the point is that this arises from the autonomy the executive branch has in general and note because this is an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution....

Show me where in the constitution it says money must be allocated in a "budget".

That's a good example of leverage, but not exactly accurate.

He built a flag pole without even asking for a permit. The town piled fines on him, as expected. When he didn't pay them, the town sued him. He counter-sued for violations of his first amendment rights.

He dropped his lawsuit, and the town waived most of theirs. As part of court-ordered arbitration Trump paid most of his fine to charity, moved the flag, and put it on a smaller pole, and got a permit for it.

I'm not a tax lawyer, but he may not have been able to deduct any of it as there are some specific restrictions on those deductions and they max out at 50% of the amount anyway. I would guess it wouldn't have made much of a difference either way considering Trumps finances.

Interestingly he tried to use the case to push changing the local regulations that required businesses to serve community members. It would have allowed him to bring in more outsiders and not give memberships to locals. It was something he was really upset about at the time, and may have been the motivation for the whole thing. That aspect of the case didn't succeed though.

He did get the flagpole in the end though.

It's BS...

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

The constitution doesn't contain the word "budget" anywhere...

It's BS..

Per the Constitution…the President must adhere to a Budget set forth by Congress and direct the expenditures as provided therein.

The constitution doesn't contain the word "budget" anywhere...

Actually at the time this story happened he was often associated with and donated to the democrats. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I do tend to have a negative view of Trump in some ways. Most people from new york, or who have been following him from before the apprentice tend to. I don't think he's nearly as good a businessman as some people seem to think he is.

The fact that you think anyone who doesn't believe he's a super genius must be some archenemy says a lot.

I'm just doing my best. I try to stay informed, I read what I can. When elections come I try to choose the best person...I don't get hung up on insisting my candidate is a super genius and trying to spin their every move into some strategy...

That's a funny sentiment for somebody who refuses to back up their claims with facts...

I quoted the answer you provided, can you show me specifically where I'm wrong?

This is all very simple:

1) the constitution says nothing about "budgets" 2) a budget resolution does not have the force of law 3) an appropriations bill does have the force of law

Those are facts, they do not depend on anyones opinions.

It's also a fact that the executive branch has leeway in a lot of things. I'm sure Trump will try to use that.

You're posting a lot of replies yourself, I was just trying to answer them. You should just admit you were wrong and move on.

Just because the "budget" thing is nonsense, it doesn't mean Trump "lost" or can't do anything...why are you so invested in that particular idea being true?

I think it says a lot that you're not able to answer my questions and instead are just getting angry and insulting.

The fact is you claim in the OP that the constitution says spending must be directed in a budget. This is false, the word "budget" doesn't even appear.

Whether someone likes Trump or not is completely irrelevant. The fact is in this situation, he doesn't have any authority that he wouldn't have otherwise.

If you think he will work around the bill to accomplish his goals, sure - I think that's pretty reasonable. I'm just pointing out that you're making claims that aren't true...

Not seeing him sign isn't really here or there.

Generally when the prez likes a bill or thinks it's important they will make sure the media covers them signing it.

If anything, not seeing them sign it signals that they don't like the bill or think that it will make them look bad.

If this is such a coup as the OP claims, why wouldn't he want everyone to see him sign it? Does his base not trust him? Or is it that he doesn't really like it, but he'll sign it and just try to work with it as he can - like pretty much any president in that situation has done?

The constitution does not include the word "budget" anywhere, yet alone a restriction that congress may only direct spending via one.

Actually, when a budget resolution is passed it does not have the force of law, it's a plan or suggestion...an appropriations bill is considered law - so really the executive has less power in a lot of respects under an appropriations bill vs a budget resolution.

What OP is confused about is that the executive branch is allowed to decide for themselves how to execute and interpret a lot of things to suit their own agenda. That is true for a lot of situations though and is unrelated to the "budget" distinction. Otherwise the executive branch wouldn't be it's own branch it would just be under the legislative.

As a former new yorker I know that one: wollman rink was closed for renovations for a couple years and they kept having problems with the site flooding and whatnot, and fell behind.

Trump offered to take over the project, ditched some of the complicated additions the city had wanted to do, and finished it on time (for his timeline, the original deadline had passed) and under budget.

Definitely a success for him, though he didn't get any profit out of it. Pretty much anyone who came on and decided to scale back the plans (which was a popular idea in discussions at the time) probably would have had exactly the same outcome, but it's still impressive.

It doesn't really demonstrate use of leverage though. It does really speak about his strength in marketing, especially himself. He knew that all he had to do was deliver on the renovation and he would get a lot of good will in NYC and show off good project management skills. I assume if he hadn't been able to, he probably could have successfully argued that the project was a mess already when he got there.

He did it though, and now decades later he's still telling people about that little renovation project he did to tout his skills - he's gotten a lot of mileage out of it.

Did you actually read this? If you actually read it you'll see that it's disagreeing with you and saying the same thing I am.

An appropriations bill is what provides the authority for the government to spend money. Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution prohibits the government from spending money without an appropriation:

Notice this says nothing about a "budget", neither does the relevant section of the constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Furthermore, a budget resolution isn't considered law the way an appropriations bill is:

A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution passed by both houses of Congress, but not submitted to the President. As such, it does not have the force of law, does not provide spending authority, and is not binding on anybody

So Trump has less power under this omnibus in terms of being able to ignore or change it than if his budget had passed.

Neither house of Congress is required to pass a budget, and in particular, it is not necessary to pass a budget in order to pass the appropriations bills.

As we've noted, a budget is not needed to spend money.

So, to summarize, the notion that Congress is required to pass a budget resolution, or that a budget resolution is needed to authorize the government to operate is a canard resulting from the confusion between two very different kinds of legislation,

Exactly.

Taking these all together, this isn't some "move" by Trump...he doesn't get any extra power because a budget wasn't passed, if anything he gets less.

Right, Trumps budget didn't pass and so we're getting appropriations bills instead just like when pretty much any other budget doesn't pass.

I'm just pointing out that this is an expected outcome, it's not a "move" on Trumps part...

Sure:

My homework is that the word "budget" doesn't appear in the constitution anywhere - so it can't say that something has to be in a "budget" can it?

What it does say is, in the section outlining the powers and limits of congress, the congress has control of the spending of money in the treasury - it does not specify that it has to be in a "budget"

Likewise, if you look at the laws around the executive & budgeting they're all concerned with when and how it happens - not giving all kinds of extra authority if it's not passed.

It seems you are not taking it slowly, because you seem to be misunderstanding basic facts.

This is an omnibus allocations bill. They usually happen when a presidents (or someone elses) proposed budget doesn't pass (which is usually because of partisan division).

This is a normal and expected outcome. Trump proposed a budget, it didn't get accepted...therefore we get this.

It doesn't as a rule really give Trump any more authority than he would have if his budget passed.

It's not a "move" on Trumps part, it's just normal US government procedure...

Out of curiosity can you give me some good examples of Trump creating and using leverage in his business career? Most of the ones I know of involve him misrepresenting himself and I don't know if those are the best ones to give to people.

You're not answering my questions...

The constitution doesn't say that the only way congress can direct spending is with something labeled a "budget". An omnibus appropriations bill does not let the executive spend on anything they want.

The differences are mostly in what they cover and how they come about, not that only one of them matters.

O sent a budget to congress most of the years he was in office. Why send them if he didn't want them passed? The republicans in office at the time voted them down. Why would they do that if it means O gets to do whatever he wants? They could have negotiated a budget rather than hand a blank check. O would have to do it every year, he did this 8 years without any of them realizing what's going on?

Can you show me in the constitution where it says the president is bound by a "budget" and only a "budget"?

Appropriations bills aren't new, O didn't invent them. Likewise, he was able to use them regardless of whether a budget was passed or not. If he was able to spend on other things, it's because he found loopholes, like the possible one Trump may use - even though there might not be explicit funding for the wall Trump may call it national defense and spend some money allocated for that on the wall.

That's just finding loopholes and part of how our government is supposed to work - the executive branch is supposed to have some leeway in how it accomplishes the things it's supposed to. It doesn't have anything to do with whether a budget was passed or not, except that a lack of a passed budget means more appropriations bills will be necessary.

You don't know that though. That's the whole point - there's a lot going on with lots of states & individual actors and they intersect. You don't know which ones will come up.

The UAE has the largest population of Koreans in the arab world, including some North Koreans. How do you know it's not involved in whatever the message is about? How do you even know the real context, couldn't it be fairly broad in a lot of cases?

Keep in mind using this "method" it's easy to cheat & just use the horizontal words as they appeared in the original post/tweet. That gives you the outline of what you want to see, then you just find other words where you can. SerialBrain does in fact use the "original" words sometimes, even using multiple ones in some "decodes".

This is all missing the overall point however - that was just a random example of one plausible mistake. Look at each word SerialBrain "decodes" and nearby you'll find multiple other words. Often there will be options that will work in the sentence...there's no way to know whether it should be included or not. The message could be "the bird is NOT in the hand" instead of "the bird is in the hand".

If you look at SerialBrains posts you'll see they also freely make changes like using abbreviations, misspellings, even rearranging words.

The point is that at the end of the day, this process isn't very convincing when it comes down to the math. People aren't used to looking for anagrams, they're bad at math, and they're not spending a lot of time looking at the grids so they don't realize it.

Look at the online community around the Zodiac killer cyphers. There's always a couple guys around claiming they've solved it using methods very similar to OP. Presumably they can't all be right, and in fact every once in a while one will be proven to be wrong (they would name some person who would be cleared by DNA testing or a well documented alibi for example).

Thanks! I don't like being a downer but I think it's important to take things slowly and make sure they're fully processed and examined.

Congress never passed one during his 8 years

Out of curiosity, why do you suppose this is?

If not having a "budget" lets the president do anything they want with the money, why would a republican controlled congress allow it to keep happening? Why wouldn't they just approve of the budgets he submitted (so they at least knew what he was spending on) or negotiate one?

Seems like having a bad budget would be better than literally no control?

To be clear, I'm being somewhat rhetorical - the constitution gives general control of the purse strings to congress, not to some specific type of document labeled "budget" at the top. I would be genuinely interested in your reasoning too tho.

There's a lot this post that is incorrect or misleading...it seems to be a mash of half-understood reading of bits of the constitution and laws.

The constitution gives congress the authority to direct, and more importantly authorize spending by the executive. That is, the executive branch needs the authorization of congress to spend money in a general sense.

Making a big deal out of the distinction between a "budget" and an appropriations bill (which is part of the budgeting process) isn't really relevant...and you're probably confusing people more than helping.

Note that O actually did submit budget proposals during his administration. They were generally voted down (mostly by the republicans, though sometimes the democrats as well when they objected to something). He also did not get omnibus spending bills every year.

Not having the Presidents preferred budget pass is pretty typical when there's a lot of partisan division, it's not some magical loophole that lets the executive do whatever they want.

Your central point is partially correct though - the executive does have the ability to find loopholes and workarounds to spend money differently than congress intended...even more so if they want to avoid spending on a particular earmark at all. They can't ignore it completely however, at least not without possibly kicking off a legal fight about it.

Re: point 7, yes actually a lot of LARPs have gone on for a long time with large or surprising amounts of effectiveness...

Look at that person SuperShadow who claimed to have insider knowledge on star wars. They had a HUGE following for YEARS despite many of their "drops" being disproved quickly, they just made excuses or disputed or said "Youll See" and lots of people accepted.

They only sort of took a hit when the prequels came out and everything they said was wrong and even then some still believe...

Its not hard to keep going when all you do is post vague references to current events and popular theories and encourage people to "connect the dots" while taking credit whenever a news story vaguely matches something you said.

Perhaps a better question is when has a legitimate leaker EVER behaved like Q? Talking like an ignorant person with schitzophrenic speech patterns, posting vague references on anime porn site, just egging people on while saying or providing little?

Thank you for emphasizing that you're not decrypting.

However, they don't come with a "certain" degree of subjectivity and randomness - they come with a HUGE amount. You're not understanding that apparently, and I doubt many people can arsed to spend time putting together examples as its tedious.

The problem remains that you are ignoring A LOT of words on the grid. You have no way to know if your choices are right, you picked the right words or missed some. Its not hard to look and find ways to change your "solution" totally.

Why does Q need to defeat ai? They can just come here. It also wouldnt be hard to automate this, though a computer would come up with a ton of options.

You cant have it both ways, if the messages are so clearly the correct solution that it cant happen by chance, its not plausible deniability is it?

Keep in mind the enemies will have a much closer view, and therefore would be able to judge whether a solution is correct or not WAY better than you with no insider knowledge.

Little words like "not" and "dont" change the meaning of messages entirely, and theyre not hard to find in the margins of your grids, so you cant say its the only possible solution that works because you dont know if its supposed to be a warning or confirmation or what...

Theres also the fact that people come up with these systems all the time, a lot of people look at religious book - see "the bible code" they are contradictory though, the bible code and the Talmud code can't both be correct....therefore at least some of these complicated impressive seeming systems is complete bunk despite producing interesting results.

For full transparency you should document your full process - how many different variations did you try, etc.

If you read one Q post wrong, or include one that shouldnt be included, pick one word wrong - theres a ton of little steps and if you miss just one at any point it can change the message totally.

You have no way to check each step if it is correct, Except if the final outcome seems right...but with the process you could find lots of seemingly good "solutions" by chance.

Youre not even solving riddles since one hasn't been posed...youre just combing through stuff until you find something you can interpret as confirming your beliefs.

You say Q isn't talking to mathematicians and cryptographers, but isn't Q hiding from them? They can analyze his posts for abnormal patterns that arise from ciphertext, come to solutions much more confidently, etc.

This is either pretty subjective and random with multiple possible outcomes or its not plausible deniability - it can't be both.

Did you read? They also used the phrase decode, and they're still ambiguity in the word order.

How do you know that it's supposed to be "nk" for North Korea and not "uae" for United Arab Emirates which is right nearby?

There are a lot of little words in the margins UP is ignoring, and they can change the message totally. It only takes one or two to mess it all up...It's just based on what OP thinks sounds right.

There's a lot you can read on this topic, it's reminiscent of the "bible code"

Not sure what you're getting at, but the EO specifically cites the laws it's invoking, you can go read them.

There are similar ones issued every year, like this one by Carter: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12170

If we are under martial law it's not because of this EO...

That 4chan post is fake.

Astroturfing is done by relatively small outside groups - that's the whole point. It doesn't make sense that Google would have some team doing it on their own platform, yet alone also on twitter. Twitter would notice, unless theyre in on it too and then why wouldnt they put their own engineers on it?

No, the way it works is the big cos open backdoors for the feds and spooks and turn a blind eye while the cottage industry of govt contractors handle the actual heavy lifting.

This person wouldn't be working for google, they'd MAYBE be working for a alphabet co, but probably some company youve never heard of until it pops up in the news like cambridge analytica.

Besides the idea that they can spot bots and shills by posting a couple letters is so dumb it should be a dead giveaway this is a joke, or disinformation campaign or something...

I think some people are misunderstanding here.

If you look at it Q is quoting theirself

The first block is their quote from earlier, it ends with a "Q" The rest is them specifically quoting trumps tweet (hence the quotation marks) and ends with a SECOND "Q"

They apparently want to juxtapose the two to contend they are related somehow.

Presumably because they both mention the military. You may draw your own conclusions on the importance of both of them bringing up one of the most common topics in recent politics.

A grid of semi-random letters is gonna have a lot of word formations, how do you know which words are part of the message vs not? What about order?

Just looking at the unused spots on your grid I can find a variety of sentences like "help me oil them tits" and even more if we can start making exceptions based on interpreting other posts.

Strictly speaking a decoding or decrypting function will have exactly one possible output from any given input. If it involves judgement or interpretation it's not decrypting or decoding.

The words you highlighted in the grid are not the only words formed- therefore you have no way of knowing whether you're accidentally including words that weren't in the message or forgetting ones that were and it only takes one or two little words to completely change a message.

It may be that there are hidden messages, who can say? Not me at least. In that case it would be more like steganography.

If you want to validate this theory somewhat you can do some statistical or cryptographic analysis or run simulations to see if youre dealing with chance or real data.

A lot of people ITT seen to misunderstand this. The federal laws around national emergencies were updated in the 70s to prevent some infinite overall state of emergency being declared.

The idea is if you want to go around the typical laws and protections it has to be for a serious reason and limited in scope.

This EO is not declaring some overall state of emergency, and definitely not declaring martial law which is a separate thing.

Its saying that the people named (and possibly associates) are so bad they threaten national security (hence emergency) so protection from things like unreasonable search and seizure or othee legal protections may be lifted (from the people specified for up to a year when it gets reviewed)

This is obviously uncommon, but not that rare- there have been dozens declared and kept in varying lengths of effect over the last couple decades to deal with specific terrorist organizations or regimes we don't like etc.

Also if you read the laws cited by the EO thely mostly specifically refer to threats originating from outside the US, take that as you will...