Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is Trump's out.
Open the government and declare a state of Emergency...at which time the Courts will ask on what basis this emergency has been declared and he'll get his peepee smacked.
Then he can sulk in the corner and tell his adoring minions that the mean courts took it all away
It would be even better if it were the Ninth Circuit that smacked him down
/-----/ " he'll get his peepee smacked'This is Trump's out.
Open the government and declare a state of Emergency...at which time the Courts will ask on what basis this emergency has been declared and he'll get his peepee smacked.
Then he can sulk in the corner and tell his adoring minions that the mean courts took it all away
It would be even better if it were the Ninth Circuit that smacked him down
Did you miss the fact that the Dem House passed a bill to open the government and it is identical to the Senate bill passed in December by unanimous vote (that Turtle McConnell now refuses to vote on)?Then why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?That doesn't answer the question of how is it a national emergency when the numbers are improving year after year to the point we're at the lowest in nearly half a century. If it's now a national emergency, why wasn't it a national emergency a year ago when the numbers were higher? Or the year before that when they were even higher?
Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
Well.....why put it to the floor if the president won't sign it? Reid did that a lot so there is no surpriseDid you miss the fact that the Dem House passed a bill to open the government and it is identical to the Senate bill passed in December by unanimous vote (that Turtle McConnell now refuses to vote on)?Then why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
Did you miss the fact that the Dem House passed a bill to open the government and it is identical to the Senate bill passed in December by unanimous vote (that Turtle McConnell now refuses to vote on)?Then why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
So you’re ok with trump being derelict of duty for 2 years now. Good to know.TRUMP has his agenda and schedule Faun .
We have gone 200 years without a wallThen why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?That doesn't answer the question of how is it a national emergency when the numbers are improving year after year to the point we're at the lowest in nearly half a century. If it's now a national emergency, why wasn't it a national emergency a year ago when the numbers were higher? Or the year before that when they were even higher?
Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
We have gone 200 years without a wallThen why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
Where is the crisis NOW?
Oh No! Brown people are coming to make our beds and cut our lawns
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
December 5, 2017
JOHN BURNETT
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
....Border officers apprehended 310,531 people for being in the country illegally in fiscal 2017, a 25% Decrease from the year before.
Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico PLUNGED to the Lowest level since 1971, as Fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday......
`
since so few are getting thru now; there should be just enuff illegals to staff all of Trump's resorts!!!
Umm, I’m questioning his timing since it exposes this is not an actual national emergency. He’s only using that guise as a tool to pay for his wall after Mexico refused to pay for it and then the U.S. refused to pay for it.Then why didn’t trump declare it a national emergency 2 years ago when he became president? Why not a year ago when he discovered the U.S. was not going to pay for it?That still avoids the questions I actually asked. Lemme try again... If it’s a national emergency now, why wasn’t it a year ago when the influx was greater than it is now? And if it was a national emergency then, then why didn’t trump declare it as one then when he couldn’t get funding for his wall?That doesn't answer the question of how is it a national emergency when the numbers are improving year after year to the point we're at the lowest in nearly half a century. If it's now a national emergency, why wasn't it a national emergency a year ago when the numbers were higher? Or the year before that when they were even higher?
Anyone that's worked with 3rd or 4th gen Hispanics in Cali can tell you that THEY are appalled by the "level" of illegals that are coming in NOW versus 20 or 30 yrs ago... Largely because of the shift from folks coming focused on trades and skills and starting businesses -- to say 150,000 ORPHANED kids in a couple years that Uncle Sam let in and largely ignored. Or the rise of gang and drug afflicted people that just want safety and don't really even care about America.
Earlier waves converted "condemable" parts of my Cali town to thriving neighborhoods with soaring property values. Built businesses that the whole community used. When I left, roving bands of preteens were walking over the hood of Bimmer and humping in the book stacks at our Nationally recognized library.. Had no safety for my kids.. IT CHANGED.. And even the assimilated Hispanics could know this..
Numbers are lower largely BECAUSE of barriers going up and smarter enforcement. And what we're seeing are NOT economic refugees who snuck in. Caravans are largely the REFUGEES from failing narco states that just want to survive and are gladly RELEASED because they are the communist/socialist opposition to these corrupt dictators. Hernandez down in Honduras just STOLE an election last Nov. Both his brother and sister are in US CUSTODY for narco trafficking, money laundering in the US.. He's MORE than happy to see the caravans leave because his jails are filling with the commie/socialist activists that oppose his dictatorship...
Bad choice to make. Narco-dictator or commie narco opposition.. We don't WIN either way.. That's WHY all the Honduras/El Salvador flags in the recent caravans. These are folks who don't love America, they are just the political "defeated" fleeing a failing state...
IT WAS a crisis one, two, SIX years ago.. The amount fluctuates, the "quality" of the immigrants fluctuate. But the fact is -- we waste TOO MUCH human and equipment, time and money playing "Marco Polo" with a thousand or more border crashers a day. And we MISS about 40% of them or succeed in chasing them back over the border...
NONE of those Democratic "technology fixes" has the ability to CHASE, CAPTURE, PROCESS or care for ill border crashers.... That's how ridiculous your team sounds in this debate. Really comes off as naive and clueless..
You are so entirely lost over this why didn't he -- that you're not even PONDERING how ridiculous this whole toddler screaming match is... Your side offers NOTHING but whines. Whines about technology that doesn't apprehend or process or CHASE anyone.. Whines about immorality of border control -- be it sick children or walls. And this juvenile horseshit about "no crisis"...
Since you're ducking all that to question the TIMING OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO --- lemme ask you a couple questions.. If you ignore it -- we're pretty much done...
There's no crisis with airliners full of people arriving at JFK from overseas either. What is the method of "herding" the passengers directly to Customs and Passport??? Is that method IMMORAL and do you want to tear it down?
Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
/----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
Nope. I saw where a diamond high speed saw cut through a rejected prototype. Then Democrats lied about it.------------------------------------------- Still not low enough , when none are arrested we won't need the WALL but thankfully the WALL will have already been built and in place and will just be being maintained Faun .
Did you see where a hacksaw defeated Trumps latest steel wall design.
Trump delivering the commencement address at Wagner College in Staten Island in 2004
“If there’s a concrete wall in front of you, go through it, go over it, go around it,” Trump told graduates. “But get to the other side of that wall.”
It's too late. They already drank the Kool Aid.Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
December 5, 2017
JOHN BURNETT
Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low
....Border officers apprehended 310,531 people for being in the country illegally in fiscal 2017, a 25% Decrease from the year before.
Arrests of people trying to cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico PLUNGED to the Lowest level since 1971, as Fewer people attempted the trek, the Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday......
`
My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots./----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.
This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.
/---/ Nice deflection. Originates in the House, not the Senate.My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots./----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Senate doesn't ORIGINATE funding bills.. The House does.
Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.
This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.
I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”
... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”
You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.
LOLOLOLOLOL/---/ Nice deflection.My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots./----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Bullshit. They absolutely could initiate a bill but as noted...one was "originated" in the House that mirrored a bill they had passed unanimously (veto proof) that the Turtle has refused to bring up for a vote.
Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.
This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.
I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”
... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”
You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.
View attachment 239703
/----/ You stuck on stupid again? I said Originates in the House, not the Senate.LOLOLOLOLOL/---/ Nice deflection.My goodness, you rightwing freaks are fucking idiots./----/ You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong?Umm, with your level of understanding, you should read the Constitution rather than advising others to do so. The Constitution allows for either chamber to initiate funding bills. It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.Read the damn Constitution moron... What bill is THIS? There have been 2 dozen VERSIONS passed and failed.
Give me a bill number.. We'll go look it up together.. NOBODY intelligent talks about bills and votes without Bill numbers because the CongressCritters play all kind of games never intended to pass with bills. And no -- I don't Schumer or Pelosi word for it...
The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills.
The Origination Clause stemmed from a British parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their first reading (and any other initial readings) in the House of Commons before being sent to the House of Lords. This practice was intended to ensure that the power of the purse is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the British practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills.
This clause was part of the Great Compromise between small and large states. The large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the Origination Clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, compensating the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.
I say, ”It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House.”
... to which you idiotically respond with, ”You're wrong again. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong - wrong - wrong? The Origination Clause, sometimes called the Revenue Clause, is Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause says that all bills for raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives...”
You literally just said I was “wrong, wrong, wrong,” ... but then repeated exactly what I said.
View attachment 239703
I rightard who said I was wrong, but then agreed with me, calls me pointing out he's a rightard for doing so, a "deflection."
Imbecile.... like I said, "It’s bills for raising revenue which shall originate in the House."
... and you said I was, "wrong, wrong, wrong," for saying that.
So am I wrong? Or are you an idiot for saying I was wrong? Which is it.
