I didn’t realize you were one of the people who would be voting on it.
I didn’t realize that only those voting on it would be allowed to have an opinion.
We are exactly like you! Just win baby. No different and you know it.
1 Like
You are correct. But you should refrain from calling him “sport” that seems to be unnecessarily disrespectful.
But my money is definitely on the President. When he puts his mind to something, he usually gets it. He will probably get his funding before Mueller wraps up his “investigation”
1 Like
You should refrain from telling other posters to refrain from things. Wingnuts are so sensitive. Seems like all the guns in the world can’t give enough comfort.
Yep, We’re sensitive and you’re rude. So I guess that makes us even.
But thanks so much for the reminder! I haven’t been to the range in an eternity. If I’m going to carry my pistol every where I go, I should at least make sure my skills are as sharp as a they can be. Don’t you agree?
Anonymous message boards aren’t for the thin-skinned.
I remember Shumer saying he offered to fully fund the wall in exchange for DACA. What fine print makes you think they weren’t serious?
The wall funding would be subject to renewal of bits and pieces with each new budget. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the money would dry up almost instantly with a new DEM controlled congress, yet DACA would remain the law of the land.
Trump was looking for some kind of a trust fund to ensure the money couldn’t be touched by future congresses. DEMs were not about to let that happen.
1 Like
I don’t think that Congress can protect funding like that. Couldn’t the Dems take away the funding in future Congress’s anyway?
A trust fund was being proposed to keep the funding safe, with specific language to prevent future any future congress from messing with it.
One thing notable in this thread is the globalists’ and leftists’ incessant transferance, where they express their hate for things they “perceive” to be in others that are actually unconfessed flaws in their own personalities.
Congress can not create any fund that a future congress can’t undo… That’s not how appropriations work or law works… Do a little research on legislative entrenchment… How is your social security “trust fund” balance these days?
I know. It is the realm of wussies. Anonymous, unprovoked insults hurled while hiding behind the safety of a screen name is quite unmanly.
There is no better demonstration of his lack of knowledge of how the federal government works then this idea…
Donald doesn’t know that.
See! You get it. Good boy.
You are missing the point. It is one thing to undo something that has been put in place. That would be much harder to do.
On the other hand, making the $25 Billion available in pieces that have to be funded with each budget cycle is much easier to shutdown.
With the 60 vote rule, 60 votes would be required to undo a $25 Billion trust fund. Unlikely that would happen. On the other hand, a 60 vote requirement to fund the next portion of that $25 billion…………
Well we all know what that looks like.
I’m not missing the point at all… legislative entrenchment is unconstitutional… congress must authorize all appropriations… there are host of laws that prohibit the scheme you are trying to defend…
The Antideficiency Act and the Misappropriation Act to name a few…
