Post by: Number7 on November 28, 2018, 06:58:07 PM
I HATE virtue signaling, hyper-hypocrite liberals. And this one is a pussy in every possible way.
The cancellation of the committee’s Thursday business meeting comes as Senate Republicans are in a standoff with outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has vowed to oppose all court picks until he gets a vote on legislation protecting special counsel Robert Mueller.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/28/flakes-revenge-senate-cancels-votes-on-21-federal-judges-after-jeff-flake-blocks-committee/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/28/flakes-revenge-senate-cancels-votes-on-21-federal-judges-after-jeff-flake-blocks-committee/
Post by: nddons on November 28, 2018, 07:01:35 PM
When he was small HE was that brat kid who slapped back at his mom who tried to shush him in a movie theater.
Post by: Lucifer on November 28, 2018, 07:02:55 PM
Post by: invflatspin on November 28, 2018, 07:30:22 PM
Post by: Little Joe on November 29, 2018, 06:00:57 AM
The most appropriately named politician ever.I still think that distinction belongs to Anthony Weiner.
Flake is a very strong contender though.
Post by: Anthony on November 29, 2018, 07:50:24 AM
I still think that distinction belongs to Anthony Weiner.
Flake is a very strong contender though.
NEVER trust anyone named Anthoy. Don't ask me how I know.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 29, 2018, 08:28:38 AM
Mueller. What a worthless hill to make a stand on for Flake. No one in the Trump admin, or the congress, or senate has made one move against Mueller. It's all a bunch of noise and smoke.Trump has repeatedly tweeted about Mueller and his “witch hunt.” I’ve read articles that say Trump will go down in flames because the collusion will be proven. Seriously, that’s what’s liberals are reading every day, and it keeps their hatred of Trump stoked.
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 09:01:23 AM
Trump has repeatedly tweeted about Mueller and his “witch hunt.” I’ve read articles that say Trump will go down in flames because the collusion will be proven. Seriously, that’s what’s liberals are reading every day, and it keeps their hatred of Trump stoked.
There is no law against collusion, period. Collusion is just a progressive wet dream.
And the current deal, where supposedly Roger Stone and Corsi had inside information that wikileaks would release the Podesta emails. So? What's the crime here? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh, wait, those emails got published by wikileaks! Aha! Got 'em now!......Oh wait, no crime there either. Seems our MSM forgot the various times when they published wikileaks info for their benefit. And also seems to overlook there are court precedence cases already about leaked info and publishing.
But wait!! There's Manafort!!!! Yep, here we have the evidence of......um...nothing. He got nailed for tax evasion and loan fraud....a decade before becoming involved in the Trump campaign.
Hey! How about the payoff's to the women!! Ah ha!!, there we go!! Oh, wait, no crime in paying someone to go away, or even having them sign a NDA.
But! but! Don Jr had that Trump Tower meeting with the Russian plant!! Ah ha! Got them now!!! Uh, ok, hmmm, seems there's no law against campaign opposition research either.
Post by: nddons on November 29, 2018, 09:13:22 AM
NEVER trust anyone named Anthoy. Don't ask me how I know.Isn’t Anthony’s mom the woman who told us that Wednesday is Prince Spaghetti Day?
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-nostalgia/wednesday-is-prince-spaghetti-day/
Asechrest is probably too young to remember that.
Post by: nddons on November 29, 2018, 09:16:08 AM
There is no law against collusion, period. Collusion is just a progressive wet dream.Allen Dershowitz has said as much. Yet the term “collusion” is ubiquitous with the MSM’s hope that they will see Trump frog-walked out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
And the current deal, where supposedly Roger Stone and Corsi had inside information that wikileaks would release the Podesta emails. So? What's the crime here? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh, wait, those emails got published by wikileaks! Aha! Got 'em now!......Oh wait, no crime there either. Seems our MSM forgot the various times when they published wikileaks info for their benefit. And also seems to overlook there are court precedence cases already about leaked info and publishing.
But wait!! There's Manafort!!!! Yep, here we have the evidence of......um...nothing. He got nailed for tax evasion and loan fraud....a decade before becoming involved in the Trump campaign.
Hey! How about the payoff's to the women!! Ah ha!!, there we go!! Oh, wait, no crime in paying someone to go away, or even having them sign a NDA.
But! but! Don Jr had that Trump Tower meeting with the Russian plant!! Ah ha! Got them now!!! Uh, ok, hmmm, seems there's no law against campaign opposition research either.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 29, 2018, 09:22:01 AM
Anti-Flake action at about 2:08.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN4QVGl5EHk#
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 09:24:26 AM
Allen Dershowitz has said as much. Yet the term “collusion” is ubiquitous with the MSM’s hope that they will see Trump frog-walked out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Yea, but Adam Schitt is going to subpoena Trump's tax returns because he believes there was money laundering going on with the Russians!
Oh, never mind that there is not one shred of evidence to even suggest such a thing occurred, and never mind there is no law that compels a presidential candidate to hand over his tax returns.
Alt Left progressives such as Schitt believes justice is making unfounded allegations, declaring the accused "guilty as charged" then making them try to prove their innocence. Funny, the communist also used this same logic.
Post by: nddons on November 29, 2018, 09:36:48 AM
Yea, but Adam Schitt is going to subpoena Trump's tax returns because he believes there was money laundering going on with the Russians!Adam Schiff apparently has never seen the tax return of a high net worth individual. If he did, he would understand that he could examine a return for 100 years and he’ll never see an entry on Schedule C that says “Putin, Vladimir-money laundering income”. What a fucking idiot. HNW individuals usually have multiple business interests, different ownership interests, and other complexities that would make your typical idiot IRS auditor wet themselves.
Oh, never mind that there is not one shred of evidence to even suggest such a thing occurred, and never mind there is no law that compels a presidential candidate to hand over his tax returns.
Alt Left progressives such as Schitt believes justice is making unfounded allegations, declaring the accused "guilty as charged" then making them try to prove their innocence. Funny, the communist also used this same logic.
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 09:46:59 AM
Adam Schiff apparently has never seen the tax return of a high net worth individual. If he did, he would understand that he could examine a return for 100 years and he’ll never see an entry on Schedule C that says “Putin, Vladimir-money laundering income”. What a fucking idiot. HNW individuals usually have multiple business interests, different ownership interests, and other complexities that would make your typical idiot IRS auditor wet themselves.
Agreed. IIRC Trump has over 500 business interest.
But the average American does not know this. So it will make a great narrative when they select parts of a return then proclaim the President "has broke the law!!!" Trump knew this going into the election, he was smart enough to know idiots on CNN and MSNBC would bring their "pundits" in and try to tell everyone what they believe was illegal and nefarious. He, rightly so, deprived them of that.
Adam Schitt is engaging in banana republic legal tactics. Who's to say that Schitt is a secret member of NAMBLA, and he has hidden several hard drives full of pics of him with underage boys? I mean, let him prove that he's innocent, right?
Post by: bflynn on November 29, 2018, 09:49:18 AM
Awright! Go Mike Lee!
Anti-Flake action at about 2:08.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UN4QVGl5EHk#
If Flakey wants to retire as a traitor to his party, that's his business. He won't get what he wants, so all he can do is be a blockage for a couple of weeks. The January Senate will confirm and there's always the option for the President to use recess appointments when the Senate breaks for Christmas.
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 09:51:25 AM
Watch for him to get a big $$$ offer to join one of the networks.
Post by: Steingar on November 29, 2018, 10:03:33 AM
I think the smart move would have been to clam up, let Mueller spin his wheels and let the thing play out. IF he did nothing wrong, which I suspect is the case. Ken Starr wouldn't have gotten a damn thing on Clinton had it not been for Lewinsky, for example.
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 10:15:11 AM
Personally, I doubt strongly that Trump did anything illegal, and even if he did they'll never get an impeachment past the Senate. Still, all of his tweets and public pronouncements can't be doing him any good. Hell, his hints at pardoning Manafort could open him up to a circumstantial charge of obstruction justice. Why make trouble he doesn't need?
May I suggest you go read the constitution and what powers are granted a President with regards to pardons?
The suggestion that granting Manafort a pardon is "obstruction of justice" is down right laughable.
If we are going to start reinterpreting the powers granted in Article II, Section 2, then lets go after BHO for giving pardons to known terrorist. We can make an argument of treason and giving aid and comfort to the enemy on that one.
.
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.
Speaking of which, kinda odd how the Clinton Foundation has lost 90%+ of it's contributions since Felonious doesn't have government connections anymore.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 29, 2018, 10:32:52 AM
Personally, I doubt strongly that Trump did anything illegal, and even if he did they'll never get an impeachment past the Senate. Still, all of his tweets and public pronouncements can't be doing him any good. Hell, his hints at pardoning Manafort could open him up to a circumstantial charge of obstruction justice. Why make trouble he doesn't need?Michael, do you understand trolling? Trump certainly does. ;)
I think the smart move would have been to clam up, let Mueller spin his wheels and let the thing play out. IF he did nothing wrong, which I suspect is the case. Ken Starr wouldn't have gotten a damn thing on Clinton had it not been for Lewinsky, for example.
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.
Post by: asechrest on November 29, 2018, 12:07:59 PM
Isn’t Anthony’s mom the woman who told us that Wednesday is Prince Spaghetti Day?
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-nostalgia/wednesday-is-prince-spaghetti-day/
Asechrest is probably too young to remember that.
'60s? I remember them well. Those were my formative years - the negative 20s.
Post by: Number7 on November 29, 2018, 12:53:42 PM
'60s? I remember them well. Those were my formative years - the negative 20s.
The early 60's featured Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford singing the Brylcream song:
"Brylcream: A little dab will do you.
For The Man Who Cares A Lot About His Hair!!!"
If you think Cher sings poorly, you should have heard Whitey and Mickey.
Post by: invflatspin on November 29, 2018, 01:43:43 PM
Post by: Ron22 on November 29, 2018, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: Steingar
Personally, I doubt strongly that Trump did anything illegal, and even if he did they'll never get an impeachment past the Senate.I would guess 99% of the people here agree with this.
Quote
Still, all of his tweets and public pronouncements can't be doing him any good.I would guess maybe 50% would agree with this
Quote
Hell, his hints at pardoning Manafort could open him up to a circumstantial charge of obstruction justice. Why make trouble he doesn't need?Read the bold part, a lot would agree with that too.
Quote
I think the smart move would have been to clam up, let Mueller spin his wheels and let the thing play out. IF he did nothing wrong, which I suspect is the case.Again he is backing our guy.
So what do we do here? Most people just start bashing Steingar on a personal level.
Post by: Ron22 on November 29, 2018, 04:10:07 PM
Speaking of which, kinda odd how the Clinton Foundation has lost 90%+ of it's contributions since Felonious doesn't have government connections anymore.When was the last time a president did NOT leave office with a net worth less then when they started?
Quote
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.No one in congress would ever go there.(well maybe a few would) If they did I am sure it would open a can of worms no ones looked at. When did any elected official leave office with a net worth less then when they started?
Post by: invflatspin on November 29, 2018, 04:18:00 PM
When was the last time a president did NOT leave office with a net worth less then when they started?
No one in congress would ever go there.(well maybe a few would) If they did I am sure it would open a can of worms no ones looked at. When did any elected official leave office with a net worth less then when they started?
Um. Hillary did not 'leave office'. She never held the office of president.
Seriously, you can't see that the Clinton Global Initiative was a slush fund pay for play? (or access, as is more accurate)
Just,,, wow. The rest of the planet figured out on Nov 9th 2016, about 2am.
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 04:28:41 PM
When was the last time a president did NOT leave office with a net worth less then when they started?
Read what I wrote. As of this year, the Clinton Foundation is down roughly 90% of it's contributions. Bubba left office 2001. Felonious left office (SOS) in 2013. After her staggering defeat in 2016 donations began dwindling.
Why? Doesn't her donors want to contribute for all her and Bubba's worthy causes? Or perhaps, more likely, those contributions were made in hopes of a return on investment, something someone in a high office could make sure to happen.
If it quacks like a duck...............
Post by: Lucifer on November 29, 2018, 04:33:43 PM
Here is why we can not have discussions here
We have discussions here daily. Are you mistaking this site for PoA?
I would guess 99% of the people here agree with this.
I would guess maybe 50% would agree with this
Read the bold part, a lot would agree with that too.
Again he is backing our guy.
So what do we do here? Most people just start bashing Steingar on a personal level.
OK, what did I write in my reply to the perfesser that was "bashing" as you put it?
I simply questioned his post, and corrected him using the actual constitution, not the perceived one of the left. Making an absurd statement that a President could face impeachment for exercising his powers under the constitution is well, absurd.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 29, 2018, 06:05:32 PM
Isn’t Anthony’s mom the woman who told us that Wednesday is Prince Spaghetti Day?
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-nostalgia/wednesday-is-prince-spaghetti-day/
Asechrest is probably too young to remember that.
Post by: Number7 on November 29, 2018, 06:29:37 PM
Just mention something truly terrible a clinton, or obama did and watch how short a time before one pops up with the old, "Oh,Yeah? Well, I BET your guy did it too..."
For the record, nothing you progressive apologists can bring up about our President, can be seriously compared to the things the clonton crime syndicate did on a daily basis, which is why you apologists are doing everything oin your power to pretend both sides are equally guilty.
Oh.
And we are going to discuss whatever the Hell we want with, or without you hall monitors. If that offends you, POA is open for business as long as you promise to never mention anything that triggers the progressive pussies in charge.
Post by: bflynn on November 29, 2018, 06:52:40 PM
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.
It would have been smart for him to shut up.
Be careful that you are not redefining emoluments just so you can hate on the president. An emoulment is not merely money, it is owed by virtue of holding a title or a position in a government. The president does not personally hold any positions which makes him entitled to payments.
As a counter example to what I hear from the left on this topic, George Washington ran the largest whiskey distillery in the US. He conducted international business but nobody would call that an emolument.
I am doubtful about that dog hunting and of it having any way to move forward to take a bite on the president.
Of course, I am also of the opinion that the best thing the Democrats could do for Republicans is to hate on Trump so hard that everyone recognizes that he becomes unelectable. Especially if they try to remove him from office in the next year. Incumbent President Pence will wipe the floor with anyone the Democrats can put forth.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 29, 2018, 07:08:49 PM
It would have been smart for him to shut up.Unofficially, I’ve heard that my moonbat governor, Jay Inslee, has spent around $3 million in State funds conducting his pre-campaign to be the Dems’ nominee in 2020. This is the jerkwad who unilaterally decided to issue drivers licenses to illegals and automatically register them to vote at the same time.
Be careful that you are not redefining emoluments just so you can hate on the president. An emoulment is not merely money, it is owed by virtue of holding a title or a position in a government. The president does not personally hold any positions which makes him entitled to payments.
As a counter example to what I hear from the left on this topic, George Washington ran the largest whiskey distillery in the US. He conducted international business but nobody would call that an emolument.
I am doubtful about that dog hunting and of it having any way to move forward to take a bite on the president.
Of course, I am also of the opinion that the best thing the Democrats could do for Republicans is to hate on Trump so hard that everyone recognizes that he becomes unelectable. Especially if they try to remove him from office in the next year. Incumbent President Pence will wipe the floor with anyone the Democrats can put forth.
Post by: Ron22 on November 29, 2018, 07:40:56 PM
Um. Hillary did not 'leave office'. She never held the office of president.
Seriously, you can't see that the Clinton Global Initiative was a slush fund pay for play? (or access, as is more accurate)
Just,,, wow. The rest of the planet figured out on Nov 9th 2016, about 2am.
What I was trying to say is I think way to many politicians are guilty of this crap. I think the Clintons perfected it.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: Ron22 on November 29, 2018, 07:43:05 PM
OK, what did I write in my reply to the perfesser that was "bashing" as you put it?
I do no think you bashed him. I was preferring the people that went to the personal jabs.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: Ron22 on November 29, 2018, 08:02:16 PM
The democrat double standard is ALWAYS at work.For the record I am not a progressive or Democratic. I was trying to say a lot of politicians are corrupt, this is why they would not investigate Trump for that.
Just mention something truly terrible a clinton, or obama did and watch how short a time before one pops up with the old, "Oh,Yeah? Well, I BET your guy did it too..."
For the record, nothing you progressive apologists can bring up about our President, can be seriously compared to the things the clonton crime syndicate did on a daily basis, which is why you apologists are doing everything oin your power to pretend both sides are equally guilty.
One of the great parts ofTrump is he is not a politician. That and he is doing what he actually said he would when he ran.
Quote
And we are going to discuss whatever the Hell we want with, or without you hall monitors. If that offends you, POA is open for business as long as you promise to never mention anything that triggers the progressive pussies in charge.What is the fascination with POA.
Sorry if I think a good discussion involves both sides.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 29, 2018, 08:11:48 PM
This is how the left does it.
Post by: bflynn on November 29, 2018, 08:30:07 PM
What the statement really points out is the hypocrisy of the leftist media, who lies on a daily, perhaps hourly basis.
Post by: Little Joe on November 30, 2018, 04:37:58 AM
To be clear, “Obama did it and the media didn’t scream” is not a defense.
Protecting the border against those who try to forcibly cross it does not need defending.
What the statement really points out is the hypocrisy of the leftist media, who lies on a daily, perhaps hourly basis.Yo are correct on all three counts.
It's not a defense of the act. But it is a legitimate complaint against those that get outraged when Trump does it but were not enraged when Obama did it.
Post by: Number7 on November 30, 2018, 05:02:54 AM
For the record I am not a progressive or Democratic. I was trying to say a lot of politicians are corrupt, this is why they would not investigate Trump for that.
One of the great parts ofTrump is he is not a politician. That and he is doing what he actually said he would when he ran.
What is the fascination with POA.
Sorry if I think a good discussion involves both sides.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Sorry if you think you should be the discussion hall monitor.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 30, 2018, 06:31:37 AM
This is not an argument, it’s not a discussion, it’s playground stuff that gets us nowhere. “Your Dad’s a jerk!” “Well your Dad’s an asshole!” Immature and destructive stuff. I try very hard not to engage in it, sorely tempting though it is.
That said, pointing out media and politician hypocrisy is perfectly valid, but today gains no traction with lefties. For example, even Cesar Chavez, a liberal hero, was adamantly and even violently against illegal immigration, as has been every president for the last 30 or so years, and even HRC who as a senator voted for strengthening the wall and tightening the laws. Fact.
Post by: Lucifer on November 30, 2018, 06:39:47 AM
Post by: invflatspin on November 30, 2018, 11:46:36 AM
Personally, I think the real damage is when the Democrats start poking around his finances. Can you say Emoluments? That dog can hunt, and he has teeth, too.
There has never been a successful emoluments prosecution at the federal level concerning the US Constitutional prohibition. Never. Maybe Trump will be the first, but knowing what I know about all the financial dealings, it is a pandora's box if the Dems take it to conclusion. The foreign emoluments is only applicable to congress. If the Dem congress wants to go there, Katy bar the door, because the minute another Dem is in office, SCOTUS will see to it that they are anally raped every day until the office holder gives up.
So, go ahead, make my day.
Post by: bflynn on November 30, 2018, 05:42:10 PM
They are so caught up with hate that they aren't thinking clearly. There is a definitive difference between conducting business and receiving gifts. Actually, if Dems really want to push this hard, we should contrast the Trump Organization against the Clinton Foundation and see which one the Emoluments clause hits hardest.
Post by: invflatspin on November 30, 2018, 06:48:22 PM
5 Elements of Fraud
a false representation of fact. an element of fraud.
knowledge of the falsity by party making false representation. an element of fraud.
intent to deceive the party by making false representation. an element of fraud.
reasonable reliance by the innocent party. an element of fraud.
actual loss suffered by the innocent party.
Having said that, given the extensive use made of Trump properties by people doing business with this admin, it would be interesting to see how it all falls out. I will guess(but pretty sure) that an emolument must have actual cash value, and must be directly affecting the person(s) which gain financially. If those are the elements, then we would need to see a cash/equivalent payment made directly to Trump, or a fiduciary which is under the control of Trump. As he has given fiduciary completely to his family while in office, this is an impossible bar to reach. Even with liberal judges allowing civil lawsuits to proceed. They will reach a list of standards for a civil award that will be impossible to meet. Again, sadly, if it stays within a liberal court there is the possibility that it could go to trial, and a preponderance is enough for 7 votes to find for the plaintiff, all due to partisan dislike of this prez. Then - it would be appealed, and eventually overturned, but by then the civil damage is done. Ingenious, if a bit underhanded.
Post by: azure on December 02, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
Of course, I am also of the opinion that the best thing the Democrats could do for Republicans is to hate on Trump so hard that everyone recognizes that he becomes unelectable. Especially if they try to remove him from office in the next year. Incumbent President Pence will wipe the floor with anyone the Democrats can put forth.
Agreed. The smartest thing the Democrats can do right now is nothing at all, patiently wait out the Mueller investigation, unless some smoking gun emerges (which I also believe is very unlikely to happen). Though it's not 100% clear due to the inherent margin of error in all polls, IF they are correct (and the results of the midterms tend to support this), Trump has already lost much of the independent support he had in '16. By going so aggressively after Trump, all the Democrats can do is inspire more #WalkAways. And they should NOT want a President Pence, even for a year. That would give a much less mercurial conservative time to rack up a record in the Oval Office on which to run, and I suspect he would beat anyone the Dems nominate in '20.
Post by: invflatspin on December 02, 2018, 01:43:45 PM
I had about 14 people to choose from if I wanted a slimy politician. I did NOT choose them. I chose the guy who putatively knows how to built stuff. Like a big-ass wall.
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2018, 02:32:56 PM
Post by: Little Joe on December 02, 2018, 02:55:59 PM
Trump started losing my support when he decided not to build the wall. That is - the wall he said he was going to do. I'll even pony up and pay for it. We hired a builder to build, not politic. If we wanted a pol, we would have picked someone else. Now that we have a Dem congress we will never, ever get a budget with money for the wall. Trump said he would never ever sign another spending bill without funds for his wall. Then - 5 months later he DID sign another spending bill with no money for the wall.How exactly would you have had him build the wall without Congressional support? I doubt he would have been allowed to do it even if he paid for it himself.
I had about 14 people to choose from if I wanted a slimy politician. I did NOT choose them. I chose the guy who putatively knows how to built stuff. Like a big-ass wall.
But I'll admit, I my support was getting a little shaky with the way he is handling the trade issues. I thought he was being a little too tough and demanding. But today's temporary ceasefire with the Chinese, along with their promise to buy a lot more American farm products has me smiling again.
Post by: invflatspin on December 02, 2018, 03:24:09 PM
How exactly would you have had him build the wall without Congressional support? I doubt he would have been allowed to do it even if he paid for it himself.
But I'll admit, I my support was getting a little shaky with the way he is handling the trade issues. I thought he was being a little too tough and demanding. But today's temporary ceasefire with the Chinese, along with their promise to buy a lot more American farm products has me smiling again.
Don't sign a funding bill without wall money in it - exactly. Alternately, divert money from all the shit going on in Afghanistan to the US/Mexico border - exactly. Charge an intl tariff on all money exiting the US via money service companies for the wall, and start building - exactly.
Our govt spends $7 MILLION per MINUTE. It's a matter of priorities. Trump gave very, very vocal priority to the wall in 2016. By late 2017, and into this year -- Wall?? Wall? Whatchutalkinboutwillis..... Plus, now the Dreamers are 'Great, great group of people!' according to a Trump tweet. Hmmmm, no longer are they illegal aliens, now they're Great People.
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2018, 03:46:56 PM
Don't sign a funding bill without wall money in it - exactly. Alternately, divert money from all the shit going on in Afghanistan to the US/Mexico border - exactly. Charge an intl tariff on all money exiting the US via money service companies for the wall, and start building - exactly.
Our govt spends $7 MILLION per MINUTE. It's a matter of priorities. Trump gave very, very vocal priority to the wall in 2016. By late 2017, and into this year -- Wall?? Wall? Whatchutalkinboutwillis..... Plus, now the Dreamers are 'Great, great group of people!' according to a Trump tweet. Hmmmm, no longer are they illegal aliens, now they're Great People.
Ok, so the answer is you really are clueless to how appropriations work.
Lots of bravado with little to no substance.
Next.....
Post by: Little Joe on December 02, 2018, 04:02:20 PM
Ok, so the answer is you really are clueless to how appropriations work.I started to "like" your post, but then I realized that I am also somewhat ignorant as to how the appropriations process works. One thing I do know is that it is not simple and cut and dried. I also know that BHO was able to get away with a lot of shit because the media and the Congress were too "pussified" to object. But I don't know just how much discretion the President actually has.
Lots of bravado with little to no substance.
Next.....
Post by: invflatspin on December 02, 2018, 04:05:40 PM
One thing I do know is that it is not simple and cut and dried. I also know that BHO was able to get away with a lot of shit because the media and the Congress were too "pussified" to object. But I don't know just how much discretion the President actually has.
Pen and phone. Now in the hands of Trump. He told us he had 'one job as your president. Build the wall'. I don't care if it took a real govt shutdown. Trump said he would build it. He said he would not sign a spending bill without wall funds. He signed TWO.
LIAR.
Fail.
Post by: Rush on December 02, 2018, 04:08:34 PM
Pen and phone. Now in the hands of Trump. He told us he had 'one job as your president. Build the wall'. I don't care if it took a real govt shutdown. Trump said he would build it. He said he would not sign a spending bill without wall funds. He signed TWO.
LIAR.
Fail.
I fear you will be right. I had been hoping it would happen but I'm getting concerned and if he doesn't do it he will definitely lose in 2020.
It would be terrible if his biggest legacy is "Read my lips, I will build the wall." And then like Bush...
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2018, 04:26:43 PM
I fear you will be right. I had been hoping it would happen but I'm getting concerned and if he doesn't do it he will definitely lose in 2020.
It would be terrible if his biggest legacy is "Read my lips, I will build the wall." And then like Bush...
Biff is showing his ignorance, yet once again.
The current President prefers to operate within the confines of the constitution. The previous President ignored the constitution, and people like Paul Ryan were complicit to allow it to happen.
Trump has both Democrats and republicans opposing him. Remember, it was both Ryan and McConnell that kept the wall funding out of the budget. They had the votes, but refused to send it through.
If the President diverted funds the screaming and lawsuits would fly. Guarantee that multiple suits would be filed in the 9th and every other liberal court.
When you look at the things that the President has accomplished, even in the face of tough opposition it’s fairly remarkable.
The msm will hang the wall around Trump’s neck in 2020, and it’s by design by both the R’s and D’s are preventing it. They block it, the MSM hypes it and small minded people think it’s Trump’s fault.
Post by: asechrest on December 02, 2018, 04:47:17 PM
What prevents Trump from vetoing any appropriations bill that does not include Wall funding?
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2018, 05:48:08 PM
What prevents Trump from vetoing any appropriations bill that does not include Wall funding?
He can.
Politically it's a no win situation. People bellyache about the President, but they forget it's the 435 members of congress who, for the most part are career politicians. And it's those career politicians that controls appropriations and spending.
George Wallace once said "There's not a dimes worth of difference between the republicans and democrats."
Post by: Lucifer on December 02, 2018, 05:49:55 PM
LIAR.
From you, that is hilarious.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 02, 2018, 06:04:03 PM
He did renig on his promise. He usually tweets his reasoning, and did so both times, if I recall correctly. Threats to important programs, military, etc. etc.
Still, he reniged on his statements not to sign unless the wall was funded.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 02, 2018, 06:07:30 PM
What prevents Trump from vetoing any appropriations bill that does not include Wall funding?At this point, it would shut down the government. I do think he is approaching the point where he may not care.
Post by: nddons on December 03, 2018, 11:00:24 AM
Their petulance and dislike of Trump will be a self-inflicted wound if they fail to pay for the wall. They will loose BIG in 2020.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 03, 2018, 04:19:56 PM
Post by: Little Joe on December 03, 2018, 04:44:40 PM
Pen and phone. Now in the hands of Trump. He told us he had 'one job as your president. Build the wall'. I don't care if it took a real govt shutdown. Trump said he would build it. He said he would not sign a spending bill without wall funds. He signed TWO.That thinking is why Republicans are doomed. If you can't have it all, then give up and hand the other side compete victory.
LIAR.
Fail.