Phoenix Mayor Gallego: Mask policy won’t be enforced at Trump event
The White House says he's going to highlight the Great Wall of Trump.
Trump: irrelevant at best, dangerously malevolent and stupid at worst.
Showing posts with label the Great Wall of Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Great Wall of Trump. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2020
The stupidity is more blatant each time
The virus in AZ is out of control.
Phoenix Mayor Gallego: Mask policy won’t be enforced at Trump event
The White House says he's going to highlight the Great Wall of Trump.
Phoenix Mayor Gallego: Mask policy won’t be enforced at Trump event
The White House says he's going to highlight the Great Wall of Trump.
Sunday, April 7, 2019
Der Fuhrer to Secretary Nielsen: Fuck the wall. We're building ovens.
DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen resigns after clashes with Trump on immigration
He has told us many times he does not want to give anybody an asylum or immigration hearing, and he refuses to hire more immigration judges.
He wants to hire more men with machine guns and simply force people back across the border.
And he really wants to find cabinet members who will just get on with it, absolutely illegal though it would be, and in utter defiance of his own constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
After all, the country is full, there's no room for any more.
The straw that broke the orangutang's back.
[R]enewed child separation policy led to collision with Nielsen
President Donald Trump has for months urged his administration to reinstate large-scale separation of migrant families crossing the border, according to three U.S. officials with knowledge of meetings at the White House.
Trump's outgoing Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, resisted — setting her at odds with the president.
According to two of the sources, Nielsen told Trump that federal court orders prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from reinstating the policy, and that he would be reversing his own executive order from June that ended family separations.
He could give a shit about courts and what's legal. He has made it clear he thinks the laws are a joke and the courts are a joke.
Three U.S. officials said that Kevin McAleenan, the Customs and Border Patrol who is expected to take over as acting DHS secretary, has not ruled out family separation as an option.
. . . .
A senior administration official said they believe Trump is convinced that family separation has been the most effective policy at deterring large numbers of asylum-seekers.
The woman who put kids in cages was not and is not radical enough for this lawless asshole.
Did he forget to promise a pardon for her and any others implicated in outright lawbreaking on his command, or did she not want that sort of cover to be a criminal on behalf of a criminal president?
Think of this as a rolling Saturday Night Massacre, Trump style.
He has told us many times he does not want to give anybody an asylum or immigration hearing, and he refuses to hire more immigration judges.
He wants to hire more men with machine guns and simply force people back across the border.
And he really wants to find cabinet members who will just get on with it, absolutely illegal though it would be, and in utter defiance of his own constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
After all, the country is full, there's no room for any more.
The straw that broke the orangutang's back.
[R]enewed child separation policy led to collision with Nielsen
President Donald Trump has for months urged his administration to reinstate large-scale separation of migrant families crossing the border, according to three U.S. officials with knowledge of meetings at the White House.
Trump's outgoing Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, resisted — setting her at odds with the president.
According to two of the sources, Nielsen told Trump that federal court orders prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from reinstating the policy, and that he would be reversing his own executive order from June that ended family separations.
He could give a shit about courts and what's legal. He has made it clear he thinks the laws are a joke and the courts are a joke.
Three U.S. officials said that Kevin McAleenan, the Customs and Border Patrol who is expected to take over as acting DHS secretary, has not ruled out family separation as an option.
. . . .
A senior administration official said they believe Trump is convinced that family separation has been the most effective policy at deterring large numbers of asylum-seekers.
The woman who put kids in cages was not and is not radical enough for this lawless asshole.
Did he forget to promise a pardon for her and any others implicated in outright lawbreaking on his command, or did she not want that sort of cover to be a criminal on behalf of a criminal president?
Think of this as a rolling Saturday Night Massacre, Trump style.
Pelosi and Schumer almost get it.
The others are too busy condemning her for the extent to which she did cooperate with the Imperial Wizard in the White House.
Update.
It's coming out Miller and Bolton were behind it and more heads will roll.
There are stories saying sources say Miller could be the next Secretary, or anyway acting Secretary.
And that the point is he will do what others will not.
Is it actually part of the plan between him and the Duce that Trump will pardon him and anyone else implicated, as well as himself on the way out the door?
So with that on his resume how does he get confirmed?
Or will he just be another permanently temporary acting Secretary in Bozo's cabinet?
Update.
Even now (4:29 pm EDT 04082019) the talking heads on MSNBC are too committed to attacking her for what she did to appreciate what she did not do, and just how dangerous her leaving actually is.
Update.
It's coming out Miller and Bolton were behind it and more heads will roll.
There are stories saying sources say Miller could be the next Secretary, or anyway acting Secretary.
And that the point is he will do what others will not.
Is it actually part of the plan between him and the Duce that Trump will pardon him and anyone else implicated, as well as himself on the way out the door?
So with that on his resume how does he get confirmed?
Or will he just be another permanently temporary acting Secretary in Bozo's cabinet?
Update.
Even now (4:29 pm EDT 04082019) the talking heads on MSNBC are too committed to attacking her for what she did to appreciate what she did not do, and just how dangerous her leaving actually is.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
We've had it backwards, all along
He didn't do his giant shutdown last December to get wall money.
He's not going to shut down the Mexican border in order to force congress into an immigration deal.
He just likes to beat the shit out of the country and the government.
And his fan base loves the spectacle.
It's like watching professional wrestling.
The wall money and immigration deal are pretexts.
Trump: I Will ‘100 Percent’ Close Border if Congress Doesn’t Agree to Deal
And that's why the deal he's talking about is just hot air.
There is nothing on the table, no specific package of proposals he has made.
He's not going to shut down the Mexican border in order to force congress into an immigration deal.
He just likes to beat the shit out of the country and the government.
And his fan base loves the spectacle.
It's like watching professional wrestling.
The wall money and immigration deal are pretexts.
Trump: I Will ‘100 Percent’ Close Border if Congress Doesn’t Agree to Deal
And that's why the deal he's talking about is just hot air.
There is nothing on the table, no specific package of proposals he has made.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Enough stalling. He's in.
Beto O’Rourke Enters the 2020 Presidential Campaign
MSNBC says he has rejected all labels and sometimes calls himself a centrist.
Not clear to me where he is on the AOC/Bernie agenda, but he says he favors the Green New Deal.
MSNBC also says the folks already lined up with Bernie absolutely hate Beto, and some have rather amusingly denounced him as a candidate of white privilege.
So say supporters of the rich old white guy who says he's a socialist.
The Turks at TYT say his voting record in his three terms was more conservative than 70% of the other Dems.
And he has bailed on Medicare for All.
And so probably not actually the guy to carry the AOC/Bernie agenda across the finish line.
Sure, better than any Republican and way better than Trump.
But the best in the field of a baker's dozen?
Beto O’Rourke, the 46-year-old former Texas congressman whose near-miss Senate run last year propelled him to Democratic stardom, announced on Thursday that he was running for president, betting that voters will prize his message of national unity and generational change in a 2020 primary teeming with committed progressives.
His decision jolts an early election season already stuffed with contenders, adding to the mix a relentless campaigner with a small-dollar fund-raising army, the performative instincts of a former punk rocker and a pro-immigrant vision to counteract President Trump’s.
. . . .
Early polls have shown Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders on top. Mr. O’Rourke, three decades their junior, hopes to supply an unsubtle contrast, particularly given Mr. Sanders’s success with the kinds of young voters who flocked to Mr. O’Rourke in Texas.
Where Beto O’Rourke Stands on the Issues
As President Trump’s proposed border wall has become one of the biggest issues in American politics, Mr. O’Rourke has made immigration the centerpiece of his speeches.
In addition to supporting the Dream Act and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, he has called for the closing of private immigrant detention centers, denounced the “militarization” of immigration enforcement and spoken out against the wall.
. . . .
The Republican-controlled Congress did not pass any gun control legislation then, but Mr. O’Rourke continues to support similar policies, including universal background checks, magazine size limits and restrictions on some semiautomatic weapons.
He also opposes concealed carry reciprocity, which would make concealed carry permits granted in any state valid nationwide, forcing states with strict licensing requirements to recognize permits from states with looser standards.
. . . .
In 2017, during his time in the House, he said unequivocally, “A single-payer ‘Medicare for all’ program is the best way to ensure all Americans get the health care they need.”
But during his Senate campaign, he carefully avoided those words, calling instead for “universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all.”
He does support expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and has urged Texas to do so.
Other points in his 2018 platform included allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers and creating incentives for insurers to participate in the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.
. . . .
He called for closing private and for-profit prisons, decriminalizing marijuana and expunging the records of people previously convicted of possessing it, eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, and reforming the bail system so people charged with misdemeanors would not be incarcerated because of their inability to pay.
He also emphasized rehabilitation for offenders released from prison, including the restoration of voting rights. Currently, those rights vary drastically by state.
Like many of the Democratic candidates, Mr. O’Rourke has criticized Mr. Trump’s trade policies, including the imposition of tariffs, which have hurt some farmers and blue-collar workers.
In his Senate campaign, he emphasized the needs of farmers, calling for a stronger crop insurance program and federal investments in rural infrastructure, including high-speed internet, roads and schools.
He has also drawn connections between agricultural policy and immigration policy, noting that immigrants — many of them undocumented — make up a large share of farm laborers. On that basis, he has cast immigration reform as an economic issue as well as a social one.
MSNBC says he has rejected all labels and sometimes calls himself a centrist.
Not clear to me where he is on the AOC/Bernie agenda, but he says he favors the Green New Deal.
MSNBC also says the folks already lined up with Bernie absolutely hate Beto, and some have rather amusingly denounced him as a candidate of white privilege.
So say supporters of the rich old white guy who says he's a socialist.
The Turks at TYT say his voting record in his three terms was more conservative than 70% of the other Dems.
And he has bailed on Medicare for All.
And so probably not actually the guy to carry the AOC/Bernie agenda across the finish line.
Sure, better than any Republican and way better than Trump.
But the best in the field of a baker's dozen?
Beto O’Rourke, the 46-year-old former Texas congressman whose near-miss Senate run last year propelled him to Democratic stardom, announced on Thursday that he was running for president, betting that voters will prize his message of national unity and generational change in a 2020 primary teeming with committed progressives.
His decision jolts an early election season already stuffed with contenders, adding to the mix a relentless campaigner with a small-dollar fund-raising army, the performative instincts of a former punk rocker and a pro-immigrant vision to counteract President Trump’s.
. . . .
Early polls have shown Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders on top. Mr. O’Rourke, three decades their junior, hopes to supply an unsubtle contrast, particularly given Mr. Sanders’s success with the kinds of young voters who flocked to Mr. O’Rourke in Texas.
Where Beto O’Rourke Stands on the Issues
As President Trump’s proposed border wall has become one of the biggest issues in American politics, Mr. O’Rourke has made immigration the centerpiece of his speeches.
In addition to supporting the Dream Act and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, he has called for the closing of private immigrant detention centers, denounced the “militarization” of immigration enforcement and spoken out against the wall.
. . . .
The Republican-controlled Congress did not pass any gun control legislation then, but Mr. O’Rourke continues to support similar policies, including universal background checks, magazine size limits and restrictions on some semiautomatic weapons.
He also opposes concealed carry reciprocity, which would make concealed carry permits granted in any state valid nationwide, forcing states with strict licensing requirements to recognize permits from states with looser standards.
. . . .
In 2017, during his time in the House, he said unequivocally, “A single-payer ‘Medicare for all’ program is the best way to ensure all Americans get the health care they need.”
But during his Senate campaign, he carefully avoided those words, calling instead for “universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all.”
He does support expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and has urged Texas to do so.
Other points in his 2018 platform included allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers and creating incentives for insurers to participate in the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.
. . . .
He called for closing private and for-profit prisons, decriminalizing marijuana and expunging the records of people previously convicted of possessing it, eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crimes, and reforming the bail system so people charged with misdemeanors would not be incarcerated because of their inability to pay.
He also emphasized rehabilitation for offenders released from prison, including the restoration of voting rights. Currently, those rights vary drastically by state.
Like many of the Democratic candidates, Mr. O’Rourke has criticized Mr. Trump’s trade policies, including the imposition of tariffs, which have hurt some farmers and blue-collar workers.
In his Senate campaign, he emphasized the needs of farmers, calling for a stronger crop insurance program and federal investments in rural infrastructure, including high-speed internet, roads and schools.
He has also drawn connections between agricultural policy and immigration policy, noting that immigrants — many of them undocumented — make up a large share of farm laborers. On that basis, he has cast immigration reform as an economic issue as well as a social one.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Trump's plan is to usurp the power of the purse
Trump to declare national emergency as Senate passes border security spending deal
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Trump declares a national emergency, he is "doing an end run around Congress" and Democrats will consider legal action to stop him.
McConnell says he nevertheless will support the president in doing that, and speculation has been that Trump insisted on that in return for his accepting the deal.
Nancy Pelosi suggested some future Democrat might declare some sort of gun violence emergency, though how that would be at all comparable I do not know.
Trump thinks declaring illegal immigration a national emergency enables him to use money appropriated for other purposes to build a wall he claims is the only effective way to stem the tide, though it doesn't and doing that is blatantly unconstitutional.
So some Democrat declares gun violence is a national emergency and then does what?
Newsies are speculating that it's more likely the supposed future Democratic president would declare a climate change emergency and then freely legislate carbon limits, gas price hikes, expanded subsidies for electric cars, and so on to deal with it.
Trump and the Republicans were right, by the way, to complain that Obama's creation of DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the power to make law, done when the congress refused to legislate DACA for him.
And this, but the way, is really "how democracies die".
Actual office holding political parties decide their agendas are much more important than the integrity of their political institutions, and so they bring out the wrecking balls.
And at least some of their popular supporters agree with them.
Oh, and if you think we can or should count on the courts to defend the constitution against agenda driven subversion when the court shares the agenda you should consider how courts have dealt with the Duce's efforts to discontinue DACA on the entirely legitimate ground that it was unconstitutional for Obama to put the program in place after the congress had refused to do it.
Far too many office holders consider the constitution less important their their party's agenda.
I am not saying agenda driven interpretation of the constitution or the law is always pernicious.
It is in place when there really is damn all other basis to decide among plausible but importantly different competing interpretations that best serve different or opposing agendas.
But this is just not that.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Trump declares a national emergency, he is "doing an end run around Congress" and Democrats will consider legal action to stop him.
McConnell says he nevertheless will support the president in doing that, and speculation has been that Trump insisted on that in return for his accepting the deal.
Nancy Pelosi suggested some future Democrat might declare some sort of gun violence emergency, though how that would be at all comparable I do not know.
Trump thinks declaring illegal immigration a national emergency enables him to use money appropriated for other purposes to build a wall he claims is the only effective way to stem the tide, though it doesn't and doing that is blatantly unconstitutional.
So some Democrat declares gun violence is a national emergency and then does what?
Newsies are speculating that it's more likely the supposed future Democratic president would declare a climate change emergency and then freely legislate carbon limits, gas price hikes, expanded subsidies for electric cars, and so on to deal with it.
Trump and the Republicans were right, by the way, to complain that Obama's creation of DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the power to make law, done when the congress refused to legislate DACA for him.
And this, but the way, is really "how democracies die".
Actual office holding political parties decide their agendas are much more important than the integrity of their political institutions, and so they bring out the wrecking balls.
And at least some of their popular supporters agree with them.
Oh, and if you think we can or should count on the courts to defend the constitution against agenda driven subversion when the court shares the agenda you should consider how courts have dealt with the Duce's efforts to discontinue DACA on the entirely legitimate ground that it was unconstitutional for Obama to put the program in place after the congress had refused to do it.
Far too many office holders consider the constitution less important their their party's agenda.
I am not saying agenda driven interpretation of the constitution or the law is always pernicious.
It is in place when there really is damn all other basis to decide among plausible but importantly different competing interpretations that best serve different or opposing agendas.
But this is just not that.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
When does the Duce tell his believers that the wall is finished?
They seem to believe his ludicrous claims that it's being built and he just needs to finish it.
So?
Hell, he could tell them Mexico did pay for it, after all.
So?
Hell, he could tell them Mexico did pay for it, after all.
Let's be clear. He has no constitutional options.
Anybody who says otherwise is just sharing in his own lying bullshit.
Trump 'not happy' with deal, weighing options for building wall
Only Congress has the power to appropriate any money to be spent on any thing.
Reporting him and his lackeys telling the lie he can repurpose money the Congress has provided expressly for other things is one thing.
But it is quite another for the reporter to share in the lie.
Here's a thought.
If the Duce is determined to spend $ 5.7 B on something, it should be something worthwhile.
So, maybe on subsidies for Obamacare coverage?
On Medicaid expansion?
On a raise for Social Security or to close that donut hole in Medicare drug coverage?
Just a few thoughts.
Update:
MSNBC is right now calling it wall money and explaining the White House is planning to repurpose other money appropriated for other purposes through a series of "executive actions".
And that it utter hoseshit.
Any such thing is unconstitutional.
He can't just spend money out of his ass.
And Mitch McConnell is saying he would be OK with that?
Right.
That's exactly how much these Republicans give a shit about the constitution and constitutional government.
Trump 'not happy' with deal, weighing options for building wall
Only Congress has the power to appropriate any money to be spent on any thing.
Reporting him and his lackeys telling the lie he can repurpose money the Congress has provided expressly for other things is one thing.
But it is quite another for the reporter to share in the lie.
Here's a thought.
If the Duce is determined to spend $ 5.7 B on something, it should be something worthwhile.
So, maybe on subsidies for Obamacare coverage?
On Medicaid expansion?
On a raise for Social Security or to close that donut hole in Medicare drug coverage?
Just a few thoughts.
Update:
MSNBC is right now calling it wall money and explaining the White House is planning to repurpose other money appropriated for other purposes through a series of "executive actions".
And that it utter hoseshit.
Any such thing is unconstitutional.
He can't just spend money out of his ass.
And Mitch McConnell is saying he would be OK with that?
Right.
That's exactly how much these Republicans give a shit about the constitution and constitutional government.
$ 1.4 B for fencing is not $ 5.7 B for a wall
No matter how some media try to save the Duce's and the Republicans' faces.
Budget deal allows far less money than Trump wanted for wall
The story below this absurd headline says the money is for conventional fencing.
Not a penny for wall.
The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December.
The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
It's not just AP.
Others, too, are calling it "wall money" in their lying headlines, and fencing money in the stories themselves.
But not everybody is playing around with fig-leaves.
Trump Likely to Accept Defeat on Wall Funding – and Claim He’ll Get His Money Elsewhere
After a brief moment when it looked like negotiations were breaking down as the deadline for avoiding a second government shutdown approached, a deal seems to be falling into place.
And by any normal measure, it represents a humiliating defeat for Donald J. Trump, as the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observes:
Budget deal allows far less money than Trump wanted for wall
The story below this absurd headline says the money is for conventional fencing.
Not a penny for wall.
The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December.
The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
It's not just AP.
Others, too, are calling it "wall money" in their lying headlines, and fencing money in the stories themselves.
But not everybody is playing around with fig-leaves.
Trump Likely to Accept Defeat on Wall Funding – and Claim He’ll Get His Money Elsewhere
After a brief moment when it looked like negotiations were breaking down as the deadline for avoiding a second government shutdown approached, a deal seems to be falling into place.
And by any normal measure, it represents a humiliating defeat for Donald J. Trump, as the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake observes:
The deal as laid out does include some border fencing — $1.375 billion worth, or 55 miles.
That’s well shy of the $5.7 billion and 200 miles in wall funding he demanded that led to the shutdown, but it’s not nothing.
Trump could argue that he got something out of the 35-day government closure.
But only if you ignore two very important things.
One is that this compromise includes a concession to Democrats, too: a reduction in the number of detention beds …
But the bigger issue is this:
The amount of funding is actually shy of the original deal Republicans and Democrats reached last year that Trump rejected.
At that time, the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security included $1.6 billion for 65 miles of fencing, both slightly more than the current tentative deal.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Is that what he meant?
Fund the Wall or We Kill the Economy: GOP Debt Ceiling Extortion Returns
The GOP invented the debt ceiling to enable yet another way to take America and its government hostage.
This is the Republican Party.
To save the country from these evil bastards we need to get rid of the debt ceiling as well as make shutdowns impossible.
The GOP invented the debt ceiling to enable yet another way to take America and its government hostage.
This is the Republican Party.
To save the country from these evil bastards we need to get rid of the debt ceiling as well as make shutdowns impossible.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Trump planning to declare a national emergency
And that, he thinks, will enable him to spend money the congress did not appropriate on a project it did not authorize.
At least he says so. Today.
Trump: I ‘set the table beautifully’ for next border wall fight with Democrats
Donald Trump claimed in an interview broadcast on Sunday to have “set the table beautifully” for the next stage of his confrontation with congressional Democrats which caused the longest government shutdown in US history.
Trump indicated that to secure funding for a wall on the border with Mexico, he will declare a national emergency on 15 February, the deadline for funding talks initiated after the 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history.
The constitution ascribes these powers of the purse exclusively to the congress.
Powers can be redistributed among branches of the government only by constitutional amendment, and not by law.
And not, in particular, by laws granting emergency powers to the president.
Article 1
Section 7, 1
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Section 8, 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Section 8, 2
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States
Section 9, 7
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.
At least he says so. Today.
Trump: I ‘set the table beautifully’ for next border wall fight with Democrats
Donald Trump claimed in an interview broadcast on Sunday to have “set the table beautifully” for the next stage of his confrontation with congressional Democrats which caused the longest government shutdown in US history.
Trump indicated that to secure funding for a wall on the border with Mexico, he will declare a national emergency on 15 February, the deadline for funding talks initiated after the 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history.
The constitution ascribes these powers of the purse exclusively to the congress.
Powers can be redistributed among branches of the government only by constitutional amendment, and not by law.
And not, in particular, by laws granting emergency powers to the president.
Article 1
Section 7, 1
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Section 8, 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Section 8, 2
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States
Section 9, 7
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.
Friday, February 1, 2019
Trump on TV says he's already spending money and building over a hundred miles of wall
He's using "cash on hand" and has not declared a national emergency.
He says there are already many miles of wall in California and that before he put them up "these places were hell holes".
And he whines that the open border Democrats will probably try to stop him in the Ninth Circuit Court.
And he's just droning on and on with his endless desultory bullshit about whatever comes into his wildly disorderly head.
This one needs a lot of fact checking.
Example, no wall has been built since his election or in fact before, though there are barriers against people and other barriers against vehicles.
Maybe this is how he gets his victory.
He just tells everybody he's building the wall and using cash on hand.
His faithful will believe him.
He says there are already many miles of wall in California and that before he put them up "these places were hell holes".
And he whines that the open border Democrats will probably try to stop him in the Ninth Circuit Court.
And he's just droning on and on with his endless desultory bullshit about whatever comes into his wildly disorderly head.
This one needs a lot of fact checking.
Example, no wall has been built since his election or in fact before, though there are barriers against people and other barriers against vehicles.
Maybe this is how he gets his victory.
He just tells everybody he's building the wall and using cash on hand.
His faithful will believe him.
No wall money. At all. Ever.
Pelosi rules out money for border wall, Trump says no deal without it
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she will “of course” allow a floor vote on any bipartisan border security proposal crafted by congressional negotiators, but she drew a red line, insisting "there's not going to be any wall money in the legislation."
Pelosi's declaration from Capitol Hill reverberated down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, prompting President Donald Trump to shoot back at Pelosi's insistence that Congress will not fund the border wall.
“If there's no wall, it doesn't work," Trump told reporters at an Oval Office photo-op.
"She's just playing games."
Trump openly contemplated removing the border wall near Tijuana to show Californians like Pelosi how integral a barrier is to controlling the flow of immigrants into the United States.
"If you take down that wall you’ll have so many people coming into our country that Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall," Trump predicted.
"She’ll be begging for a wall. She will say 'Please, please, Mr. President, give us a wall.'"
Pelosi said that congressional negotiators should be free to reach a "consensus of their own devices" -- but expressed confidence that Democrats won't allow the talks to produce an agreement that provides any funding to construct physical barriers along the border.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she will “of course” allow a floor vote on any bipartisan border security proposal crafted by congressional negotiators, but she drew a red line, insisting "there's not going to be any wall money in the legislation."
Pelosi's declaration from Capitol Hill reverberated down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, prompting President Donald Trump to shoot back at Pelosi's insistence that Congress will not fund the border wall.
“If there's no wall, it doesn't work," Trump told reporters at an Oval Office photo-op.
"She's just playing games."
Trump openly contemplated removing the border wall near Tijuana to show Californians like Pelosi how integral a barrier is to controlling the flow of immigrants into the United States.
"If you take down that wall you’ll have so many people coming into our country that Nancy Pelosi will be begging for a wall," Trump predicted.
"She’ll be begging for a wall. She will say 'Please, please, Mr. President, give us a wall.'"
Pelosi said that congressional negotiators should be free to reach a "consensus of their own devices" -- but expressed confidence that Democrats won't allow the talks to produce an agreement that provides any funding to construct physical barriers along the border.
Monday, January 28, 2019
But there is NOTHING he could do to get money for his wall
Do newsies just not get it?
Like Trump, they see and hear what they want to see and hear?
Shutdown debacle leaves Trump with stark choices
But whether the President is simply defiant or in denial or is yet to process the lessons of the 35-day impasse that ended with his capitulation on Friday, he's facing wrenching political choices.
Going forward, he would have to adopt a fundamental change of approach if he is to wring money for his border wall from Congress and revive a presidency badly damaged by his loss to Democrats in the first clash of the new era of divided government.
Bollocks.
Like Trump, they see and hear what they want to see and hear?
Shutdown debacle leaves Trump with stark choices
But whether the President is simply defiant or in denial or is yet to process the lessons of the 35-day impasse that ended with his capitulation on Friday, he's facing wrenching political choices.
Going forward, he would have to adopt a fundamental change of approach if he is to wring money for his border wall from Congress and revive a presidency badly damaged by his loss to Democrats in the first clash of the new era of divided government.
Bollocks.
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Roy Blunt: Nope?
GOP Senator Roy Blunt says use of national emergency to build the wall sets a bad precedent
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said if President Donald Trump invoked his emergency powers to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border it would be a “bad precedent.”
Blunt said, “I happen to agree with the president on barriers at the border and on border security as an important first step, but there might be a future president that I don’t agree with that thinks something else is an emergency.
"I think it’s a bad precedent. I hope the president doesn’t have to go there.
"If we’ll do our job, he won’t even have to consider going there three weeks from now.”
But that bit at the end makes it sound like he's willing to go there to get the wall money, all the same.
Just like the Duce.
Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney is still telling us on TV that Trump will "defend the nation" and "secure the border" with or without the congress.
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said if President Donald Trump invoked his emergency powers to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border it would be a “bad precedent.”
Blunt said, “I happen to agree with the president on barriers at the border and on border security as an important first step, but there might be a future president that I don’t agree with that thinks something else is an emergency.
"I think it’s a bad precedent. I hope the president doesn’t have to go there.
"If we’ll do our job, he won’t even have to consider going there three weeks from now.”
But that bit at the end makes it sound like he's willing to go there to get the wall money, all the same.
Just like the Duce.
Meanwhile, Mick Mulvaney is still telling us on TV that Trump will "defend the nation" and "secure the border" with or without the congress.
"Little Marco" would fight it? How?
Maybe partly this is just his entirely justified dislike of the Duce.
But maybe it's also concern that stupid judges might let Trump get away with it, thus eroding the separation of powers and the ability of the congress to check the presidency and making the presidency a more authoritarian-friendly institution.
Marco Rubio: Declaring National Emergency for Border Wall Is a 'Terrible Idea'
Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday that President Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall would be a “terrible idea.”
“It's just not a good precedent to set in terms of action. It doesn't mean that I don't want border security. I do. I just think that's the wrong way to achieve it,” Rubio said on Meet the Press.
Rubio: "I will fight Trump"
TODD: You have said you are opposed to the national emergency option.
In three weeks, I know you have no appetite on either side of the aisle for another shutdown.
So if that’s the only way to keep the government funded, he goes national emergency, how defiant are you on this option?
Will you fight the president on this or not?
RUBIO: I don’t think it’s a good I think it will be a terrible idea.
I hope he doesn’t do it.
TODD: But would you fight him on it?
RUBIO: Sure.
Because I think it’s important.
Look I don’t think we will have to fight.
I’m not sure they will do that. I know it’s an option they looked at.
But now you are at the mercy of a district court and ultimately an appellate court.
It may not withstand if you look at some of the other rulings we have seen.
The other is the precedent it would set. It’s not a good precedent to set.
It doesn’t mean I don’t want border security.
I do.
I think that’s the wrong way to achieve it.
It doesn’t provide certainty.
You could wind up in a theatric victory at the front and not get it done.
The best way to do it is to have a law that funds border security so we know it’s going to happen.
But maybe it's also concern that stupid judges might let Trump get away with it, thus eroding the separation of powers and the ability of the congress to check the presidency and making the presidency a more authoritarian-friendly institution.
Marco Rubio: Declaring National Emergency for Border Wall Is a 'Terrible Idea'
Republican Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said Sunday that President Trump declaring a national emergency to build a border wall would be a “terrible idea.”
“It's just not a good precedent to set in terms of action. It doesn't mean that I don't want border security. I do. I just think that's the wrong way to achieve it,” Rubio said on Meet the Press.
Rubio: "I will fight Trump"
TODD: You have said you are opposed to the national emergency option.
In three weeks, I know you have no appetite on either side of the aisle for another shutdown.
So if that’s the only way to keep the government funded, he goes national emergency, how defiant are you on this option?
Will you fight the president on this or not?
RUBIO: I don’t think it’s a good I think it will be a terrible idea.
I hope he doesn’t do it.
TODD: But would you fight him on it?
RUBIO: Sure.
Because I think it’s important.
Look I don’t think we will have to fight.
I’m not sure they will do that. I know it’s an option they looked at.
But now you are at the mercy of a district court and ultimately an appellate court.
It may not withstand if you look at some of the other rulings we have seen.
The other is the precedent it would set. It’s not a good precedent to set.
It doesn’t mean I don’t want border security.
I do.
I think that’s the wrong way to achieve it.
It doesn’t provide certainty.
You could wind up in a theatric victory at the front and not get it done.
The best way to do it is to have a law that funds border security so we know it’s going to happen.
How Trump went down
Inside the White House
Will Trump just stop doing the job when he finally realizes he's not getting any wall money any time over the next two years?
Will he become a ghost haunting the White House?
Pictures on Friday of delayed aircraft at LaGuardia Airport in his hometown — the same tarmac Trump's black, red and gold Boeing 757 is usually staged — sealed what had been a days-long realization that the shutdown must end, according to officials.
The previous evening, Trump heard from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a phone call that Republicans could no longer hold the line in support of his border wall demands.
Trump, who was briefed by aides of looming law enforcement and airport problems, later phoned McConnell back to tell him he was ready to end the stalemate.
. . . .
Trump remains hopeful that some moderate Democrats will join him in supporting funding for a border wall after the funding measure expires in mid-February.
Administration officials say he would be willing to accept less than the $5.7 billion he has insisted upon in an attempt to strike an accord.
Acknowledging a new political reality with Pelosi in charge, one adviser said the only way forward for Trump is "compromise," with little room for the no-holds-barred approach favored by advisers like Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner.
"Today is not a cave but a grave for Stephen Miller policies," the adviser said, acknowledging it's not clear at all that Trump is ready to make that kind of course correction.
. . . .
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and other senior aides have tried to gauge which issues Trump wants to take up after the border fight is done— be it drug pricing, trade, infrastructure, or something else.
But they've made little progress.
Trump does expect to meet next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but even those plans have taken second billing to the border standoff.
That's a bad omen for some conservatives and policy-minded officials, many of whom say they believe Trump doesn't appreciate how finite his presidency really is.
For Trump, the border wall -- which began as a rhetorical device at his campaign rallies — has become something much larger, an extension of himself so personal that he can't let it go.
Will Trump just stop doing the job when he finally realizes he's not getting any wall money any time over the next two years?
Will he become a ghost haunting the White House?
Pictures on Friday of delayed aircraft at LaGuardia Airport in his hometown — the same tarmac Trump's black, red and gold Boeing 757 is usually staged — sealed what had been a days-long realization that the shutdown must end, according to officials.
The previous evening, Trump heard from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a phone call that Republicans could no longer hold the line in support of his border wall demands.
Trump, who was briefed by aides of looming law enforcement and airport problems, later phoned McConnell back to tell him he was ready to end the stalemate.
. . . .
Trump remains hopeful that some moderate Democrats will join him in supporting funding for a border wall after the funding measure expires in mid-February.
Administration officials say he would be willing to accept less than the $5.7 billion he has insisted upon in an attempt to strike an accord.
Acknowledging a new political reality with Pelosi in charge, one adviser said the only way forward for Trump is "compromise," with little room for the no-holds-barred approach favored by advisers like Stephen Miller, the immigration hardliner.
"Today is not a cave but a grave for Stephen Miller policies," the adviser said, acknowledging it's not clear at all that Trump is ready to make that kind of course correction.
. . . .
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and other senior aides have tried to gauge which issues Trump wants to take up after the border fight is done— be it drug pricing, trade, infrastructure, or something else.
But they've made little progress.
Trump does expect to meet next month with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but even those plans have taken second billing to the border standoff.
That's a bad omen for some conservatives and policy-minded officials, many of whom say they believe Trump doesn't appreciate how finite his presidency really is.
For Trump, the border wall -- which began as a rhetorical device at his campaign rallies — has become something much larger, an extension of himself so personal that he can't let it go.
Bozo going mad
Trump Invents 14 Million Additional Illegal Aliens
The money numbers are equally insane.
When he realizes he's flat out not getting his wall, and that everybody in the world has seen him fail, will his head fly clean off?
Border Patrol Sought Info on Trump’s Claims About Women Being Bound and Gagged
Who at the BP is so stupid he hasn't yet realized the Duce is just making shit up all the time?
The money numbers are equally insane.
When he realizes he's flat out not getting his wall, and that everybody in the world has seen him fail, will his head fly clean off?
Border Patrol Sought Info on Trump’s Claims About Women Being Bound and Gagged
Who at the BP is so stupid he hasn't yet realized the Duce is just making shit up all the time?
Saturday, January 26, 2019
The Duce is setting himself up for further humiliation
Trump tries to bounce back after horrible day damages presidency
This morning he tweeted the same lying nonsense.
The only lie about the wall he does not hourly repeat is that Mexico will pay for it.
21 days goes very quickly.
Negotiations with Democrats will start immediately.
Will not be easy to make a deal, both parties very dug in.
The case for National Security has been greatly enhanced by what has been happening at the Border & through dialogue.
We will build the Wall!
And this.
"If he gives in now, that's the end of 2019 in terms of him being an effective President," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, said on Fox News earlier this month.
"That's probably the end of his presidency."
Graham is known for hyperbole.
But his comment encapsulates the challenge that the President now has in battling to regain his authority.
His safest move, I think, if he remains unwilling to appear to totally give up on his wall, is to declare a national emergency and hope the flood of new conservative judges appointed on his watch will surprise the nation with the news that he can do whatever he wants in the name of an emergency he is entirely free to invent.
Another shutdown would not work out any better for him than this one, and might provoke the Republicans to rebel.
Even being told to pound sand with his emergency by the courts would do him and the GOP less harm than another shutdown.
Always assuming Nancy and Chuck are never going to give him more than that one dollar for the wall.
Thing is, a significant majority of Americans think the wall is bollocks, already.
If he keeps trying to build it he just keeps annoying all those folks.
Who will be even more annoyed if he actually does build it - all of it or even part of it.
This morning he tweeted the same lying nonsense.
The only lie about the wall he does not hourly repeat is that Mexico will pay for it.
21 days goes very quickly.
Negotiations with Democrats will start immediately.
Will not be easy to make a deal, both parties very dug in.
The case for National Security has been greatly enhanced by what has been happening at the Border & through dialogue.
We will build the Wall!
And this.
"If he gives in now, that's the end of 2019 in terms of him being an effective President," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, said on Fox News earlier this month.
"That's probably the end of his presidency."
Graham is known for hyperbole.
But his comment encapsulates the challenge that the President now has in battling to regain his authority.
His safest move, I think, if he remains unwilling to appear to totally give up on his wall, is to declare a national emergency and hope the flood of new conservative judges appointed on his watch will surprise the nation with the news that he can do whatever he wants in the name of an emergency he is entirely free to invent.
Another shutdown would not work out any better for him than this one, and might provoke the Republicans to rebel.
Even being told to pound sand with his emergency by the courts would do him and the GOP less harm than another shutdown.
Always assuming Nancy and Chuck are never going to give him more than that one dollar for the wall.
Thing is, a significant majority of Americans think the wall is bollocks, already.
If he keeps trying to build it he just keeps annoying all those folks.
Who will be even more annoyed if he actually does build it - all of it or even part of it.
What is the wall?
During the campaign, Trump was touting a 2,000 mile long, thirty feet high, concrete wall along the Mexican border, inspired by the Great Wall of China and some wall or other the Israelis have put up.
And probably, secretly, in his head, by the Berlin Wall.
Democrats generally and some Republicans, especially those from border regions, have opposed Trump's two thousand mile wall.
Trump has backed off to a wall about half that length, and recent modifications to his plan have concerned the materials of which the wall is to be made.
It is not entirely clear whether his proposal, now, is merely to replace and add a bit of length to the less than 700 miles of existing fencing, but in any case BBC, in a story dated 21 January 2019, says no design has been approved and no construction has taken place.
Considering that by far most illegals are people who arrive legally and then overstay their visas, while a good part of the people coming across from Mexico are legitimate asylum seekers, the wall seems a waste of good money on a wrong-headed cause.
But the Trump rabble like it, mostly out of white Nativism, it seems.
Before Mr Trump took office, there were 654 miles (just over 1,000km) of barrier along the southern border - made up of 354 miles of barriers to stop pedestrians and 300 miles of anti-vehicle fencing.
In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mr Trump promised to build a wall along the border's entire 2,000-mile length.
He later clarified that it would only cover half of that - with nature, such as mountains and rivers, helping to take care of the rest.
. . . .
The 650 miles of fencing built under President George W Bush cost an estimated $7bn, and it could not be described as fulfilling Mr Trump's promises of a "tall, powerful, beautiful" barrier.
However, Mr Trump is now asking for $5.7bn in addition to the $1.7bn already allocated for new and replacement barriers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously estimated a wall spanning half the border would cost up to $25bn, but it has now said it is still looking at options to determine the price tag.
US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) says that, on average, it costs approximately $6.5m per mile to construct a new border wall or replace existing legacy fence.
Oh, and this.
It was an eye-catching claim from the White House press secretary.
"Last year alone there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that CBP picked up that came across our southern border," Sarah Sanders told Fox and Friends on Friday.
That is not true. Even her colleague, Kellyanne Conway, later called it "an unfortunate misstatement".
So where did that figure come from?
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017.
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border, and the vast majority are stopped at airports.
"The debate is over a land border wall. To include airport statistics is irrelevant and misleading," says Todd Bensman from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favours lower immigration.
Bensman, a former counter-terrorism intelligence manager who worked at the Texas border, analysed data from a "reliable intelligence community source" and concluded that more than 100 migrants on terror watchlists were apprehended at the southern border between 2012-17.
Data from NBC News seems to support his assertion. It learnt that in the first half of 2018 six immigrants on the terror watchlist were stopped at the southern border
No-one who has crossed the US southern border illegally from 1975 to the end of 2017 has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil, according to David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.
Seven so-called "special interest aliens" were convicted of planning an attack on US soil, during that time, says the libertarian think tank's report.
But that category includes any visitor from a country deemed by the US intelligence community as a risk. In the past it has been a list of 50 countries.
And probably, secretly, in his head, by the Berlin Wall.
Democrats generally and some Republicans, especially those from border regions, have opposed Trump's two thousand mile wall.
Trump has backed off to a wall about half that length, and recent modifications to his plan have concerned the materials of which the wall is to be made.
It is not entirely clear whether his proposal, now, is merely to replace and add a bit of length to the less than 700 miles of existing fencing, but in any case BBC, in a story dated 21 January 2019, says no design has been approved and no construction has taken place.
Considering that by far most illegals are people who arrive legally and then overstay their visas, while a good part of the people coming across from Mexico are legitimate asylum seekers, the wall seems a waste of good money on a wrong-headed cause.
But the Trump rabble like it, mostly out of white Nativism, it seems.
Before Mr Trump took office, there were 654 miles (just over 1,000km) of barrier along the southern border - made up of 354 miles of barriers to stop pedestrians and 300 miles of anti-vehicle fencing.
In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Mr Trump promised to build a wall along the border's entire 2,000-mile length.
He later clarified that it would only cover half of that - with nature, such as mountains and rivers, helping to take care of the rest.
. . . .
The 650 miles of fencing built under President George W Bush cost an estimated $7bn, and it could not be described as fulfilling Mr Trump's promises of a "tall, powerful, beautiful" barrier.
However, Mr Trump is now asking for $5.7bn in addition to the $1.7bn already allocated for new and replacement barriers.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously estimated a wall spanning half the border would cost up to $25bn, but it has now said it is still looking at options to determine the price tag.
US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) says that, on average, it costs approximately $6.5m per mile to construct a new border wall or replace existing legacy fence.
Oh, and this.
It was an eye-catching claim from the White House press secretary.
"Last year alone there were nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists that CBP picked up that came across our southern border," Sarah Sanders told Fox and Friends on Friday.
That is not true. Even her colleague, Kellyanne Conway, later called it "an unfortunate misstatement".
So where did that figure come from?
A White House briefing report on immigration says 3,755 known or suspected terrorists were prevented from entering the US in the fiscal year 2017.
But that includes terror suspects who have been stopped at any US border, and the vast majority are stopped at airports.
"The debate is over a land border wall. To include airport statistics is irrelevant and misleading," says Todd Bensman from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank which favours lower immigration.
Bensman, a former counter-terrorism intelligence manager who worked at the Texas border, analysed data from a "reliable intelligence community source" and concluded that more than 100 migrants on terror watchlists were apprehended at the southern border between 2012-17.
Data from NBC News seems to support his assertion. It learnt that in the first half of 2018 six immigrants on the terror watchlist were stopped at the southern border
No-one who has crossed the US southern border illegally from 1975 to the end of 2017 has been responsible for a terror attack on US soil, according to David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.
Seven so-called "special interest aliens" were convicted of planning an attack on US soil, during that time, says the libertarian think tank's report.
But that category includes any visitor from a country deemed by the US intelligence community as a risk. In the past it has been a list of 50 countries.
Friday, January 25, 2019
For the next two years, the most interesting and consequential political leader in DC will be Nancy Pelosi
The key feature of republican rule is not that the power of the government is limited vis-Ã -vis civil society, as libertarians and other partisans of bare-knuckle capitalism and the power of corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production would have it.
That is to say, limited vis-Ã -vis corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production.
It is that the power of individual officials of the government is limited.
No one is "the Decider", C student GW notwithstanding.
Dispersal of power among multitudes of officials is the key to preservation of republican liberties.
Tyranny is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Totalitarianism is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Monarchy in any form is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
The power to make laws in our republic is dispersed among 535 congresspeople in two separate houses.
The highest authority to interpret the laws and the constitution is dispersed among the several justices of the Supreme Court.
Only the powers to see that the laws are faithfully executed and of ultimate command of the armed forces are put into the hands of one person.
And yet Nancy Pelosi was able to teach Bozo, the president of the United States and so the most powerful individual official in the American republic, what dispersal of power, what checks and balances, means.
A lesson he managed somehow not to learn with the failure of repeal of Obamacare in the senate by one vote.
Asked after Trump's speech today whether now at last she and the Democrats would give the Duce some wall money, Nancy said no.
‘Have I not been clear about the wall?’ Pelosi signals Trump still won’t get what he wants
Democrats say they will not agree to provide funding for the wall, period.
If they were willing to entertain that, they would’ve done so before the government shutdown in December or in the more than a month since as roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.
“Have I not been clear on the wall?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday when one asked if Democrats would continue to object to wall funding in the upcoming negotiations.
“I’ve been very clear.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer was more direct: “Democrats are against the wall.”
Trump agreed to reopen government “without preconditions,” the New York Democrat noted, as he proudly pointed out that the agreement endorses the position Democrats have held throughout the shutdown.
“Our unity is our power,” Pelosi said.
“And that is what maybe the president underestimated.”
That is to say, limited vis-Ã -vis corporations, the rich, and the owners of the means of production.
It is that the power of individual officials of the government is limited.
No one is "the Decider", C student GW notwithstanding.
Dispersal of power among multitudes of officials is the key to preservation of republican liberties.
Tyranny is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Totalitarianism is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
Monarchy in any form is impossible so long as the republic is intact.
The power to make laws in our republic is dispersed among 535 congresspeople in two separate houses.
The highest authority to interpret the laws and the constitution is dispersed among the several justices of the Supreme Court.
Only the powers to see that the laws are faithfully executed and of ultimate command of the armed forces are put into the hands of one person.
And yet Nancy Pelosi was able to teach Bozo, the president of the United States and so the most powerful individual official in the American republic, what dispersal of power, what checks and balances, means.
A lesson he managed somehow not to learn with the failure of repeal of Obamacare in the senate by one vote.
Asked after Trump's speech today whether now at last she and the Democrats would give the Duce some wall money, Nancy said no.
‘Have I not been clear about the wall?’ Pelosi signals Trump still won’t get what he wants
Democrats say they will not agree to provide funding for the wall, period.
If they were willing to entertain that, they would’ve done so before the government shutdown in December or in the more than a month since as roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.
“Have I not been clear on the wall?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday when one asked if Democrats would continue to object to wall funding in the upcoming negotiations.
“I’ve been very clear.”
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer was more direct: “Democrats are against the wall.”
Trump agreed to reopen government “without preconditions,” the New York Democrat noted, as he proudly pointed out that the agreement endorses the position Democrats have held throughout the shutdown.
“Our unity is our power,” Pelosi said.
“And that is what maybe the president underestimated.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)