PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on January 25, 2019, 03:13:59 PM
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088884073370652672
-
He did the right thing. Go Trump!
I'm a Trumpkin I guess. Trumpling?
-
He did the right thing. Go Trump!
I'm a Trumpkin I guess. Trumpling?
I can't stand the guy, but he keeps doing the right thing. So what does that make me?
But the Presidency should not be a popularity event. Someone has to make hard choices, and he is the first one I have seen do it in decades.
-
Yep. Now we’ll get to see the grim faced zombie Dems chewing the insides of their mouths whilst POTUS gives his speech in the distinguished chamber of Congress.
He has ended wars, prevented others (NK), employment up historical levels, and ... safety and security of our borders will be paramount and he will proceed with emergency means if Dems stonewall.
I’m good.
-
I can't stand the guy, but he keeps doing the right thing. So what does that make me?
But the Presidency should not be a popularity event. Someone has to make hard choices, and he is the first one I have seen do it in decades.
The best boss I ever had, nobody liked. Respected him, though. He got stuff done and didn’t tolerate incompetence. I still revere him.
-
The Media are a little bunch of wussy, overly sensitive, indoctrinated Journalism majors that are as Far Left as they come. I'd rather have a strong leader than someone who just wants to appease everyone.
-
Yep. Now we’ll get to see the grim faced zombie Dems chewing the insides of their mouths whilst POTUS gives his speech in the distinguished chamber of Congress.
Unfortunately, no.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-considering-agreeing-to-sign-three-week-spending-bill-as-early-as-friday-11548439078
Commenting on a high-profile moment of the shutdown drama, Mrs. Pelosi said she didn’t know when she would re-invite Mr. Trump to give his State of the Union speech, which Mr. Trump agreed to delay after a public squabble with the speaker. “The State of the Union is not planned now,” she said, adding that she would find a time with Mr. Trump once the government is open. She didn’t indicate whether she would welcome the president to the House chamber in the next three weeks or wait until after the border dispute is resolved.
-
Yes, he did the right thing. My opinion of him went up today. He showed that he can bend for the sake of the country, and change tactics to break a stalemate. Presiding over a divided government, if he couldn't do that, he was toast, and I honestly didn't think he had it in him.
Unfortunately he had backed himself so far into a corner that there is no way he can spin this into anything but a defeat, and the Dems are going to do their best to rub it in. Schumer today was as blatant as can be: "Hopefully now the President has learned his lesson..." and of course, that's a big part of what this was all about to begin with.
None of this bodes well for the near future...
-
Yes, he did the right thing. My opinion of him went up today. He showed that he can bend for the sake of the country, and change tactics to break a stalemate. Presiding over a divided government, if he couldn't do that, he was toast, and I honestly didn't think he had it in him.
Unfortunately he had backed himself so far into a corner that there is no way he can spin this into anything but a defeat, and the Dems are going to do their best to rub it in. Schumer today was as blatant as can be: "Hopefully now the President has learned his lesson..." and of course, that's a big part of what this was all about to begin with.
None of this bodes well for the near future...
Thanks to the RINOs in congress and the senate, the President has a difficult task.
The next 3 weeks will be interesting. I predict the dims will do......nothing. Oh, they will sit in on negotiations, they'll say the President is wrong, etc, etc. But in the end, they'll present another CR with no border wall funding.
The President will be left with declaring a national emergency and appropriating the funds. Some alt left AG will file an injunction, it will go to the ninth circus, then to the SC where it will be overturned.
But let's look a bit further than the wall. It will be built, no question. But later this year, the dims will be floating several pieces of legislation, such as repeal of the tax cuts, gun restriction laws, etc. They will need his signature, which won't happen. And they don't have a chance in hell of over riding his vetoes.
BTW, Nancy still doesn't want a State of the Union address. Absolutely petty. What the President should do is continue restricting military aircraft access for members of congress. Nancy needs to fly the airlines with the "peasants".
-
Weird that SOTU isn’t planned. I just got a Security TFR for the DC area for next week. Is something else going on?
-
Yes, he did the right thing. My opinion of him went up today. He showed that he can bend for the sake of the country, and change tactics to break a stalemate. Presiding over a divided government, if he couldn't do that, he was toast, and I honestly didn't think he had it in him.
Unfortunately he had backed himself so far into a corner that there is no way he can spin this into anything but a defeat, and the Dems are going to do their best to rub it in. Schumer today was as blatant as can be: "Hopefully now the President has learned his lesson..." and of course, that's a big part of what this was all about to begin with.
None of this bodes well for the near future...
Interesting that you didn’t say that the Dems backed themselves into a corner. The Dems were the intransigent ones. THEY refused to negotiate.
I think trump gave the Dems 3 weeks to grow up and act like adults. After 3 weeks, he will be taking them to the woodshed if they don’t want to offer a bill to find the wall.
-
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3304.0;attach=945;image)
-
Yep. Now we’ll get to see the grim faced zombie Dems chewing the insides of their mouths whilst POTUS gives his speech in the distinguished chamber of Congress.
He has ended wars, prevented others (NK), employment up historical levels, and ... safety and security of our borders will be paramount and he will proceed with emergency means if Dems stonewall.
I’m good.
What wars has he ended and how did he stop a war with North Korea? There was no peace treaty signed ending the Korean War and we weren't massing our forces on the 38th parallel, either.
-
Yes, he did the right thing. My opinion of him went up today. He showed that he can bend for the sake of the country, and change tactics to break a stalemate. Presiding over a divided government, if he couldn't do that, he was toast, and I honestly didn't think he had it in him.
Unfortunately he had backed himself so far into a corner that there is no way he can spin this into anything but a defeat, and the Dems are going to do their best to rub it in. Schumer today was as blatant as can be: "Hopefully now the President has learned his lesson..." and of course, that's a big part of what this was all about to begin with.
None of this bodes well for the near future...
I tend to agree with the bolded part. He caved and now has lost some negotiating power. What happens if there's not a bill on his desk by February 15 with the $5.7 billion in border wall funding that he wants? Does he shut the government down again? Declare a national emergency?
-
Thanks to the RINOs in congress and the senate, the President has a difficult task.
Trump is the one that's going to sign the bill, not Republicans in Congress.
The next 3 weeks will be interesting. I predict the dims will do......nothing. Oh, they will sit in on negotiations, they'll say the President is wrong, etc, etc. But in the end, they'll present another CR with no border wall funding.
Agreed and that's why I'm not sure what the president's next move is. He has less power to negotiate now. The Senate couldn't even pass either of the two bills on Thursday, so I'm not hopeful, as of right now, that anything will pass in the next three weeks.
The President will be left with declaring a national emergency and appropriating the funds. Some alt left AG will file an injunction, it will go to the ninth circus, then to the SC where it will be overturned.
It won't even take a supposed "alt left" (which I'm pretty sure isn't actually a thing, but that's another story) court to rule it invalid. There's a robust debate to be had about the legalities of declaring a national emergency, and I tend to fall on the side that it's legally questionable at best. I also wouldn't be so sure the Supreme Court would uphold it.
But let's look a bit further than the wall. It will be built, no question. But later this year, the dims will be floating several pieces of legislation, such as repeal of the tax cuts, gun restriction laws, etc. They will need his signature, which won't happen. And they don't have a chance in hell of over riding his vetoes.
Built by whom? With what money?
I don't expect this Congress to pass anything, and certainly not the House. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are far more interested in stopping Trump at every turn than they are about governing.
-
I tend to agree with the bolded part. He caved and now has lost some negotiating power. What happens if there's not a bill on his desk by February 15 with the $5.7 billion in border wall funding that he wants? Does he shut the government down again? Declare a national emergency?
Listen to yourself. You sound like a Democrat.
What if there isn't a bill? Then it is on Congress for not financing the government. The president doesn't decree that the government be shut down, it's required because there is no authority to spend money.
Now, if he were to shut down parts of the government that do have authority, just to keep things even, that would enrage the Democrats, but until they gave him a spending bill that he liked, they'd be SOL.
-
Listen to yourself. You sound like a Democrat.
What if there isn't a bill? Then it is on Congress for not financing the government. The president doesn't decree that the government be shut down, it's required because there is no authority to spend money.
Now, if he were to shut down parts of the government that do have authority, just to keep things even, that would enrage the Democrats, but until they gave him a spending bill that he liked, they'd be SOL.
How, exactly, do I sound like a Democrat? Because I asked what happens if there isn't a bill with his border wall funding? Or is it because I asked, "Does he shut the government down again?"
If it'll help you, I'll rephrase: If there's not a bill on his desk by February 15 with the $5.7 billion in border wall funding, will Trump refuse to sign any bill that doesn't have that funding, and allow appropriations to lapse, shutting down those corresponding parts of the federal government?
-
Putting blame on the president for shutting down the government. It isn't within his sphere of responsibility to allocate money. When there is no money, the government stops.
If it doesn't keep running, that is on Congress. It's always been on Congress to create bills. Unless the president vetos a bill, he has no power and therefore no responsibility for the funding of the government.
-
Putting blame on the president for shutting down the government. It isn't within his sphere of responsibility to allocate money. When there is no money, the government stops.
If it doesn't keep running, that is on Congress. It's always been on Congress to create bills. Unless the president vetos a bill, he has no power and therefore no responsibility for the funding of the government.
Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying? I even went back and clarified, so there was no misunderstanding, about the appropriation of money. We're actually saying the same thing, and in complete agreement, but saying it different ways. In either case, my question still hasn't been answered.
-
Your question IS the problem. “does he shut the government down again”. Seriously? IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT’S CALL. The government shutdown is automatic when there is no spending authority. Trump has no option to keep the government open.
He has no say one way or another, so to invoke him in ordering a shutdown is to put the onus on him for doing it. That is what Democrats think...that the president choose to do it because he ordered it.
So, yes. You sound like a Democrat. Stop using their language.
-
Your question IS the problem. “does he shut the government down again”. Seriously? IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT’S CALL. The government shutdown is automatic when there is no spending authority. Trump has no option to keep the government open.
He has no say one way or another, so to invoke him in ordering a shutdown is to put the onus on him for doing it. That is what Democrats think...that the president choose to do it because he ordered it.
So, yes. You sound like a Democrat. Stop using their language.
He can choose to sign the bill or not sign the bill. His decision will determine whether or not the government remains open or not (absent a Congressional override). It's ridiculous to say that he has no say one way or another.
-
A bill never made it to Trumps desk, to my knowledge. If one had and he just refused to sign it, would it not have become law after some period anyway?
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec7.html
-
Interesting that you didn’t say that the Dems backed themselves into a corner. The Dems were the intransigent ones. THEY refused to negotiate.
I don't disagree that the Dems were the truly intransigent party here, and most importantly the ones operating from entirely political motives. But Trump was the one who declared that he'd be "proud" to shut down the government over this. Major tactical error, IMO, and the dems (predictably) milked it for all it was worth.
As to Trump's next move, after nothing gets accomplished by Feb 15, I predict national emergency. Which will precipitate a legal battle that Trump will eventually win when it reaches the SC, but it will probably take months. Whether money appropriated by the emergency declaration actually gets used during that time, depends on whether the court that hears the case issues an injunction, which depends on which court hears the case. My crystal ball gets awfully foggy that far out.
-
If it doesn't keep running, that is on Congress. It's always been on Congress to create bills. Unless the president vetos a bill, he has no power and therefore no responsibility for the funding of the government.
Of course that's true. But it doesn't stop Congress and the MSM from blaming Trump. Regardless of the truth, he will be blamed and the sheep will bleat and follow along.
-
So far, Trump is the only one that has made any attempt to find a resolution. He is the one that "gave in a little" to temporarily reopen the government. He is the one that suggested a resolution to pay the Federal workers during the shutdown, which the Democrats voted down.
If after 3 weeks there is still no movement by the left, I think all but the brain dead, "block Trump at all costs" contingent will see that that it is the Dems that are more to blame than Trump.
Of course though, there are a lot of Brain Dead, Block Trumpers out there.
-
Trump is the one that's going to sign the bill, not Republicans in Congress.
In case you missed it, there was a bill before the senate with the president's proposal. Thanks to the RINO's, it didn't get passed. Add also that the RINO's voted for the dem bill.
Agreed and that's why I'm not sure what the president's next move is. He has less power to negotiate now. The Senate couldn't even pass either of the two bills on Thursday, so I'm not hopeful, as of right now, that anything will pass in the next three weeks.
He is left with the National Emergencies Act. Not the preferred way to handle this, but since we have a congress incapable of acting and unwilling to protect our country, the Act does under law give him that option. The President has made it clear he would prefer congress do their job and fix this.
It won't even take a supposed "alt left" (which I'm pretty sure isn't actually a thing, but that's another story) court to rule it invalid.
Alright Capt Pedantic.......
There's a robust debate to be had about the legalities of declaring a national emergency, and I tend to fall on the side that it's legally questionable at best. I also wouldn't be so sure the Supreme Court would uphold it.
So the SCOTUS will not uphold a law put in place by congress and executed by the President? Have you even read any of the National Emergencies Act? Better yet, show us in the Act where the President would be wrong using it.
The President is being very careful with this and is having his attorneys working on it because they know it will get hit with yet another frivolous injunction. Jay Seculow laid out the Act and all of the legal ramifications, and their planned defense of it. Also, most legal experts agree it's well within the law. The only ones I've seen that question it are, as usual, the democrats and the neocons, based on the idea they just don't like it.
I don't expect this Congress to pass anything, and certainly not the House. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are far more interested in stopping Trump at every turn than they are about governing.
And that has become crystal clear to the American people. The President, to his credit, has been the only adult in the room during negotiations. He has offered them everything they have been fighting for, and they won't take it. He has offered negotiations, and they send low level staff members. The dems have thrown their dreamers under the bus, once again.
Chuck and Nancy have given a preview of the next two years. They have shown the American public they have zero interest in governing.
-
I don't disagree that the Dems were the truly intransigent party here, and most importantly the ones operating from entirely political motives. But Trump was the one who declared that he'd be "proud" to shut down the government over this. Major tactical error, IMO, and the dems (predictably) milked it for all it was worth.
Paging bflynn. ;D
-
I realize the progressives and the MSM believe that people in the flyover country are just a bunch of illiterate hicks.........
But any reasonable thinking person knew what the President meant when he told Schumer he would be proud to shut down the government over the wall funding. The President was stating that in order to protect the country and Americans, if that's what it would take, he would do it. That statement was very clear.
Of course the MSM and mouth foaming alt left progressives will run with it. But rational people know what is really going on.
-
In case you missed it, there was a bill before the senate with the president's proposal. Thanks to the RINO's, it didn't get passed. Add also that the RINO's voted for the dem bill.
There was also a bill that would've passed before the shutdown even happened and then Trump decided at the last minute he wouldn't sign it, forcing the shut down.
He is left with the National Emergencies Act. Not the preferred way to handle this, but since we have a congress incapable of acting and unwilling to protect our country, the Act does under law give him that option. The President has made it clear he would prefer congress do their job and fix this.
So the SCOTUS will not uphold a law put in place by congress and executed by the President? Have you even read any of the National Emergencies Act? Better yet, show us in the Act where the President would be wrong using it.
The President is being very careful with this and is having his attorneys working on it because they know it will get hit with yet another frivolous injunction. Jay Seculow laid out the Act and all of the legal ramifications, and their planned defense of it. Also, most legal experts agree it's well within the law. The only ones I've seen that question it are, as usual, the democrats and the neocons, based on the idea they just don't like it.
I don't know if the Supreme Court would uphold it or not. I said I wouldn't be so sure that they would. There is a robust legal debate to be had about using the NEA for building a border wall. David French and Ben Shapiro both aren't so sure that he can. Andrew C. McCarthy thinks that he shouldn't but also thinks that he probably could. Those are three prominent conservatives, and lawyers, who have differing opinions.
Ben Shapiro also had a good point, from a political standpoint:
Now, here’s the real issue: arrogation of new authority to the executive branch violates the checks and balances of the Constitution; President Obama’s arrogant attempts to govern by pen and phone violated the Constitution, and Trump’s attempts to do the same would, too. To suggest, as Trump has, that if he doesn’t get his way, he’ll simply do what Obama did is to legitimize Obama’s activity.
-
As usual, Kurt nails it.
Excellent read.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/01/25/gee-i-guess-now-im-going-to-have-to-be-happy-with-only-90-of-the-stuff-i-wanted-trump-to-do-n2540292
-
There was also a bill that would've passed before the shutdown even happened and then Trump decided at the last minute he wouldn't sign it, forcing the shut down.
So, using your logic, the President should just sign any bill that crosses his desk? What happened to checks and balances?
I don't know if the Supreme Court would uphold it or not. I said I wouldn't be so sure that they would. There is a robust legal debate to be had about using the NEA for building a border wall. David French and Ben Shapiro both aren't so sure that he can. Andrew C. McCarthy thinks that he shouldn't but also thinks that he probably could. Those are three prominent conservatives, and lawyers, who have differing opinions.
I'm sorry, I'm not going along with Ben Shapiro and David French being "prominent conservatives", nor it isn't the first time they've come up with some half baked logic that appeals to their neocon followers.
Andrew McCarthy has credibility in that group, the other two cited, nope.
-
So, using your logic, the President should just sign any bill that crosses his desk? What happened to checks and balances?
Huh?
I don't know if the Supreme Court would uphold it or not. I said I wouldn't be so sure that they would. There is a robust legal debate to be had about using the NEA for building a border wall. David French and Ben Shapiro both aren't so sure that he can. Andrew C. McCarthy thinks that he shouldn't but also thinks that he probably could. Those are three prominent conservatives, and lawyers, who have differing opinions.
I'm sorry, I'm not going along with Ben Shapiro and David French being "prominent conservatives", nor it isn't the first time they've come up with some half baked logic that appeals to their neocon followers.
Andrew McCarthy has credibility in that group, the other two cited, nope.
I disagree. David French and Ben Shapiro are both prominent voices in the conservative movement, both are well respected, and both are well educated attorneys (both Harvard law school graduates, as well).
-
I disagree. David French and Ben Shapiro are both prominent voices in the conservative movement, both are well respected, and both are well educated attorneys (both Harvard law school graduates, as well).
No, they are prominent to the neocons and in the same field of George Will and Bill Kristol.
And I'm not surprised you see them in such a prominent position.
-
No, they are prominent to the neocons and in the same field of George Will and Bill Kristol.
And I'm not surprised you see them in such a prominent position.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree then.
-
Ben Shapiro is no neocon. Far from it.
-
Ben Shapiro is no neocon. Far from it.
I’ll disagree. He’s all in to self promotion, which is fine, but I don’t follow it.
He’s also made a fool of himself lately, first with falling for the NYT hit job on Rep King. Then he began attacking the Covington kids before having the facts.
I put him and French right in there with Will and Kristol.
-
I’ll disagree. He’s all in to self promotion, which is fine, but I don’t follow it.
He’s also made a fool of himself lately, first with falling for the NYT hit job on Rep King. Then he began attacking the Covington kids before having the facts.
I put him and French right in there with Will and Kristol.
Nope. Not even close on that. Will and Krystol are petulant anti-Trumpers suffering from chronic butthurt due to Trump’s continued existence.
Shapiro makes excellent pro-conservative, pro-freedom arguments that all other conservatives should emulate, but most are incapable or unwilling to do. He is not anti-Trump, and has been largely supportive.
David French was a military lawyer and has a good legal take on most things. He is also not an anti-Trumper, though he was for a while, as was I during the primaries.
Neither have the legal experience of Andrew McCarthy. Not even in the same neighborhood, despite the law schools that they went to.
-
Nope. Not even close on that. Will and Krystol are petulant anti-Trumpers suffering from chronic butthurt due to Trump’s continued existence.
Shapiro makes excellent pro-conservative, pro-freedom arguments that all other conservatives should emulate, but most are incapable or unwilling to do. He is not anti-Trump, and has been largely supportive.
David French was a military lawyer and has a good legal take on most things. He is also not an anti-Trumper, though he was for a while, as was I during the primaries.
Neither have the legal experience of Andrew McCarthy. Not even in the same neighborhood, despite the law schools that they went to.
I like Andrew McCarthy. As you noted, highly experienced and he’s balanced on the law.
Sorry, I could give a shit less about Shapiro. He has showed his ass one too many times. If you want to read or listen to him, go ahead.
And I’ve never been impressed by French. If we had guys like French and Shapiro running the show, we’d have a President Romney in the WH.
My opinion.
-
I like Andrew McCarthy. As you noted, highly experienced and he’s balanced on the law.
Sorry, I could give a shit less about Shapiro. He has showed his ass one too many times. If you want to read or listen to him, go ahead.
And I’ve never been impressed by French. If we had guys like French and Shapiro running the show, we’d have a President Romney in the WH.
My opinion.
Thanks for the permission.
-
Thanks for the permission.
You’re welcome.
-
and both are well educated attorneys (both Harvard law school graduates, as well).
So was Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney and Loretta Lynch.
-
What wars has he ended and how did he stop a war with North Korea? There was no peace treaty signed ending the Korean War and we weren't massing our forces on the 38th parallel, either.
Withdrew troops from Syria and working to do the same in Afghanistan. North and South Korea were at war with each other and Trump helped create dialogues and peaceful interactions between them. US/ NK relations improved, NK nuke testing stopped. How quickly people forget.
-
The very same communists (they call themselves democrats) that warned us all that President Trump would get us into a war are now running around screaming because he's ending one.
Liberalism is a playground for idiots, mental cases and egotistical assholes.
-
There was also a bill that would've passed before the shutdown even happened and then Trump decided at the last minute he wouldn't sign it, forcing the shut down.
I don't know if the Supreme Court would uphold it or not. I said I wouldn't be so sure that they would. There is a robust legal debate to be had about using the NEA for building a border wall. David French and Ben Shapiro both aren't so sure that he can. Andrew C. McCarthy thinks that he shouldn't but also thinks that he probably could. Those are three prominent conservatives, and lawyers, who have differing opinions.
Ben Shapiro also had a good point, from a political standpoint:
The President is not required to sign a bill for it to become law.
-
Withdrew troops from Syria and working to do the same in Afghanistan. North and South Korea were at war with each other and Trump helped create dialogues and peaceful interactions between them. US/ NK relations improved, NK nuke testing stopped. How quickly people forget.
We aren't out of Syria yet. North and South Korea have been in a perpetual state of war since 1953, Trump didn't stop anything. I'm all for giving credit where/when it's due, but he didn't stop anything in North Korea. And North Korea is still playing its games with its nuclear games because that's what they do.
-
The President is not required to sign a bill for it to become law.
Thanks for the civics lesson. I seem to have missed where there was a Congressional override.
-
We aren't out of Syria yet. North and South Korea have been in a perpetual state of war since 1953, Trump didn't stop anything. I'm all for giving credit where/when it's due, but he didn't stop anything in North Korea. And North Korea is still playing its games with its nuclear games because that's what they do.
North, and South Korea are meeting, talking, and negotiating for the first time since 1953. That's a good start, and Trump deserves the credit for that. Also, we are bringing troops out of Syria, and at least talking about bringing them out of Afghanistan.
-
We aren't out of Syria yet. North and South Korea have been in a perpetual state of war since 1953, Trump didn't stop anything.
And you think it is Trump's fault that the NORKS didn't immediately wake up to Trump's presence and suddenly become obedient? Yeah, you are a liberal Trump hater.
-
And you think it is Trump's fault that the NORKS didn't immediately wake up to Trump's presence and suddenly become obedient? Yeah, you are a liberal Trump hater.
I think that the North Koreans are going to do what they've always done. I'm glad that Trump has gotten both sides to talk, and that in and of itself is pretty significant, but it unfortunately hasn't yielded any positive forward movements yet in terms of nuclear disarmament or reunification. I hope that it does.
I'm neither anti-Trump nor liberal, but you know that. Nice try with the label, though.
-
I think that the North Koreans are going to do what they've always done. I'm glad that Trump has gotten both sides to talk, and that in and of itself is pretty significant, but it unfortunately hasn't yielded any positive forward movements yet in terms of nuclear disarmament or reunification. I hope that it does.
No positive forward movements in terms of nuclear disarmament and reunification? Really?
I guess those meetings between Kim and the South Korean President, where they openly discussed reunification and disarminate were just media shows.
I guess also the North removing all anti American propaganda from walls, billboards and their media is a farce as well. Oh, and add that the state media of North Korea is now reporting to the citizens what is going on between north and south, as well as the US.
I have to also assume by your post that the countless meetings and ongoing negotiations between the US state Dept and N Korea are “fake news”.
And the photos of the north and South working together to open the DMZ, just fake huh?
-
No positive forward movements in terms of nuclear disarmament and reunification? Really?
I guess those meetings between Kim and the South Korean President, where they openly discussed reunification and disarminate were just media shows.
I guess also the North removing all anti American propaganda from walls, billboards and their media is a farce as well. Oh, and add that the state media of North Korea is now reporting to the citizens what is going on between north and south, as well as the US.
I have to also assume by your post that the countless meetings and ongoing negotiations between the US state Dept and N Korea are “fake news”.
And the photos of the north and South working together to open the DMZ, just fake huh?
Baby steps. Look at it from Kim nutso's perspective. He was raised to HATE the U.S. but not only that, to view her as weak with weak temporary leaders he couldn't relate to. In the primate world, relationships between males who belong to enemy, or even just stranger, groups begins with mistrust and even hostility, with posturing and displays, and often with physical fights. This is how they size each other up and order themselves in the dominance hierarchy. One will either kill the other, or with time they may become friends. Trump was the first U.S. leader with whom Kim could follow this natural law and it made him perk up and take notice, and say, oh!!! An alpha male like me! Yikes I better play the game with him. So the trash talk about big red buttons and so on, which Trump came out on top. So for the first time Kim had to say, oh boy this guy is serious, I need to make friends with him (or at least explore the option) because if I don't he just might actually come after me. And besides, maybe we might possibly benefit from finally joining the world community.
But he has to de-program himself gradually. NK is just like a cult. Maybe, just maybe little Kimmie isn't the psychopath monster his father and grandfather were. Maybe it took a manly man like Trump to smack him out of his lifelong stupor. If so it will be a process. Why on earth would we expect instantaneous results? What's happened just in two years is amazing progress.
-
Baby steps. Look at it from Kim nutso's perspective. He was raised to HATE the U.S. but not only that, to view her as weak with weak temporary leaders he couldn't relate to. In the primate world, relationships between males who belong to enemy, or even just stranger, groups begins with mistrust and even hostility, with posturing and displays, and often with physical fights. This is how they size each other up and order themselves in the dominance hierarchy. One will either kill the other, or with time they may become friends. Trump was the first U.S. leader with whom Kim could follow this natural law and it made him perk up and take notice, and say, oh!!! An alpha male like me! Yikes I better play the game with him. So the trash talk about big red buttons and so on, which Trump came out on top. So for the first time Kim had to say, oh boy this guy is serious, I need to make friends with him (or at least explore the option) because if I don't he just might actually come after me. And besides, maybe we might possibly benefit from finally joining the world community.
But he has to de-program himself gradually. NK is just like a cult. Maybe, just maybe little Kimmie isn't the psychopath monster his father and grandfather were. Maybe it took a manly man like Trump to smack him out of his lifelong stupor. If so it will be a process. Why on earth would we expect instantaneous results? What's happened just in two years is amazing progress.
Exactly! 70 years of bullshit has to be unwound, and it won’t happen overnight.
But to be ignorant and post that “no positive forward movements have happened” is just flat out ignoring what’s going on.
Our past “conservative” presidents and presidential contenders (after Reagan) have only been interested in the needs and wants of the military industrial complex. And for those guys, peace is bad for business.
-
Hey, at least I don't see North Korea threatening the U.S. with nuclear war, nor shooting missiles over Japan anymore. Trump has made great strides in calming the entire situation down. That is extremely significant.
Levelwing, I don't think you are a liberal, or Trump hater, but give credit where credit is due. 90% or more of the media on Trump is negative, and I think that bleeds through to a lot of people.
-
Thanks for the civics lesson. I seem to have missed where there was a Congressional override.
No Congressional override needed if the President never signs it nor vetoes it.
-
Exactly! 70 years of bullshit has to be unwound, and it won’t happen overnight.
But to be ignorant and post that “no positive forward movements have happened” is just flat out ignoring what’s going on.
Our past “conservative” presidents and presidential contenders (after Reagan) have only been interested in the needs and wants of the military industrial complex. And for those guys, peace is bad for business.
Kind of the like the amount of time the Communists have had here to program students in high schools and colleges all over the country.
-
(https://i2.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/g19-1.jpg?w=584)
-
No Congressional override needed if the President never signs it nor vetoes it.
The last time a bill was passed by the 10 day rule was in 2016. Since 1975 there have been a total of 8 bills passed utilizing the 10 day rule. That's out of the over 17,000 bills signed into law by a president. What's your point?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#current_status[]=32&congress=__ALL__
-
The last time a bill was passed by the 10 day rule was in 2016. Since 1975 there have been a total of 8 bills passed utilizing the 10 day rule. That's out of the over 17,000 bills signed into law by a president. What's your point?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse#current_status[]=32&congress=__ALL__
What's your point?
Are you saying that Eppy was wrong? Or that it just doesn't happen very often?
-
What's your point?
Are you saying that Eppy was wrong? Or that it just doesn't happen very often?
No. I'm not sure why EppyGA is bringing up the various ways a bill can be signed into law.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg012819dAPR20190128084522.jpg)
-
He can choose to sign the bill or not sign the bill. His decision will determine whether or not the government remains open or not (absent a Congressional override). It's ridiculous to say that he has no say one way or another.
My original response was to this post. Notice it says he can chose to sign the bill or not and that his decision would determine whether the government remains open or not.
In essence that was untrue as he could choose to not sign it and it could become law 10 days later.