Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[ThisIsMe]

Nope, just a realist. I'm not a puppet like you on the left that believe everything they say.

* Why do they make illegals comfortable in Democrat areas, even to the point of issuing them drivers licenses?
* Why would they want illegals to vote in local elections?
* Why did they stop Kate's Law (a common sense law) that would have imprisoned felons who returned after deportation?
* Why would they fight so hard to keep their Sanctuary cities, and even started Sanctuary states after Trump got elected?
* Why did DumBama sue Arizona for creating their own immigration standards?

One answer for all of those questions. Figure it out.

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Ray is your typical rightwing idiot and liar.

You left out racist, gun owner and possibly cop

Oh my. You're one of those "all cops are racist" crowd aren't you?

This is what is wrong with left wing media, they selectively report on things to drive the agenda, and get their listeners all riled up.

So, time for some truth. There are good police and there are bad, but the overwhelming majority are good people who put their lives on the line each day for complete strangers. They are duty bound and to say all police are racist does a great disservice to the people who put on the uniform each day to protect people, even such as yourself, who obviously have a great disdain for them.

Seems like the good cops would eventually police their own, instead of closing ranks and protecting the bad ones, especially since the bad ones make them all look bad.

Where have you seen police protecting bad cops? Not cops that YOU feel are bad, but ones that have been proven to be not fit for duty? Most of the police departments I've heard of will remove officers if their superiors feel they are not upholding certain standard.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

You are so quick to make sweeping statements. You should consider reality instead of just repeating right wing straw man crap.

So, you are saying that there is not about 1800 attempted crossings per day?

U'm saying the number of crossings has steadily declined for decades, and we are currently at the lowest point since the early 70s. Also, the majority immediately turn themselves in to apply for sanctuary.

Yep, and then they wait for their court date and ignore it when it finally comes, thus making them an illegal.

Majority of undocumented immigrants show up for court
View attachment 246409

Poleftifact?

 

[BULLDOG]

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

You are so quick to make sweeping statements. You should consider reality instead of just repeating right wing straw man crap.

So, you are saying that there is not about 1800 attempted crossings per day?

U'm saying the number of crossings has steadily declined for decades, and we are currently at the lowest point since the early 70s. Also, the majority immediately turn themselves in to apply for sanctuary.

Yes, it may be at an all time low, but again, do you feel that since its low, then 400,000 to 500,000 per year is acceptable?

I feel that a consistently falling number over decades is not an emergency.

 

[BULLDOG]

Dude I’m curious if you’re a cop. From the pic you posted I’m guessing you might be. Read somewhere that white supremacist groups had actively tried to place members in local law enforcement. You appear to be exhibit A that the assertion is true.

Ray is your typical rightwing idiot and liar.

You left out racist, gun owner and possibly cop

Oh my. You're one of those "all cops are racist" crowd aren't you?

This is what is wrong with left wing media, they selectively report on things to drive the agenda, and get their listeners all riled up.

So, time for some truth. There are good police and there are bad, but the overwhelming majority are good people who put their lives on the line each day for complete strangers. They are duty bound and to say all police are racist does a great disservice to the people who put on the uniform each day to protect people, even such as yourself, who obviously have a great disdain for them.

Seems like the good cops would eventually police their own, instead of closing ranks and protecting the bad ones, especially since the bad ones make them all look bad.

Where have you seen police protecting bad cops? Not cops that YOU feel are bad, but ones that have been proven to be not fit for duty? Most of the police departments I've heard of will remove officers if their superiors feel they are not upholding certain standard.

That is an absurd question. Do a little research into the subject before you go much further. Not my job to catch you up.

 

[Sactowndog]

Sure than I assume you would agree Trump’s using an executive order to seize the power of the purse from the legislature violating article 1 of the Constitution would also be invalid.

You want to have it both ways but precedent doesn’t work that way. A point made by more than 1 thoughtful Republican: Susan Collins, Thom Thilis, Tom Sullivan.

The person missing the yes or no question is you not me....

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

I have news for you. Most of the opioid crises started with Pharmacuetical companies.

We had opioids in this country as long as I've been alive. Only the last few decades did it become a crisis. When people get hooked and are no longer able to obtain the drugs legally, they use illegal drugs instead.

They is are a large grey market of opioids that started with pharmacuetical companies.

 

[Sactowndog]

My Party? I’m not registered Democrat. You know the comment about assuming....

I've never seen you before, so all I can go by is what I read. If it walks like a duck.....quacks like a duck......

Then apparently Republican Senators like Collins and Thillis must be Democrat’s also because my points are the same as theirs.

Perhaps you should get your news from something other than Hannity talk radio.

Ever hear the term RINO?

Sure, Racists In Northern Ohio? Did you work in a GM plant prior to driving a truck?

WTF would you ask something as stupid as that?

Because you would fit right in?

 

[Oldstyle]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

Ah yes...one more reason not to elect a Democrat President! Thanks, Nancy!

 

[Sactowndog]

Dems Look To Declare National Emergency Over Climate Change, Not A ‘Fake Crisis’

Well, that would certainly make more sense than Trump's phony crisis at the border.

No, because the crisis at the border is real.....not made up.

Ray, they think they park and play at the border. They’re too stupid to know they infiltrated our country up to Canada

“They” infiltrated our country. Just curious when did your ancestors get here?

Legally they followed the law

Well if they were here as part of the revolution they absolutely did not. Most of you MF’ers would be royalists. Our forefathers pretty much said to King George.

 

[Sactowndog]

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.

Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.

So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?

That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws

We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.

I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.

That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.

Would you be so supportive if we imposed and additional 10% tax on the income of all registered Democrats, with the intent of, if you are so supportive of open borders, you can pay extra to cover the cost of all illegal immigration so Republican voters dont have to pay?

What part of driving illegal immigration down from 400,000 sounds like open borders. Do you cons have two brain cells to rub together.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is not overriding the Constitution. Trump will get that money from a department that's already been funded by the US Congress and passed by the Senate.

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

I have news for you. Most of the opioid crises started with Pharmacuetical companies.

We had opioids in this country as long as I've been alive. Only the last few decades did it become a crisis. When people get hooked and are no longer able to obtain the drugs legally, they use illegal drugs instead.

They is are a large grey market of opioids that started with pharmacuetical companies.

No, drug companies simply do one thing, and that is produce a product; a product many of us have used in our lifetime. However in the past if you got accidentally hooked, you were virtually out of luck because the only place you could get the drug was from your doctor. If somebody had a problem with addiction, it was addressed by their physician and staff.

Today it's different. If you get hooked, just go out into the street and ask anybody to continue your addiction, and the race is on. Today, opioid products are as available as pot was when I was younger.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How many does it take before we should take notice? We have between 1100 and 1800 crossings each day. Because it's down from previous years, does that mean it's ok to stop trying to secure the border?

Are you suggesting that there is a certain point that illegal crossings is acceptable?

Just for curiosity sake, why is it that you personally are not supportive of securing the border? I have come to the conclusion that, most on the left actually don't care about the illegal border issue one way or the other, but because of their ideology, they feel the simply have to be att odds with the other side, and I'm sure a lot of repubs do it too. So, im curious, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep the borders fairly porous?

Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.

Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.

So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?

That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws

We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.

I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.

That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.

Would you be so supportive if we imposed and additional 10% tax on the income of all registered Democrats, with the intent of, if you are so supportive of open borders, you can pay extra to cover the cost of all illegal immigration so Republican voters dont have to pay?

What part of driving illegal immigration down from 400,000 sounds like open borders. Do you cons have two brain cells to rub together.

400,000 is today's numbers, it was more in the past.

 

[basquebromance]

Wayne LaPierre is too bombastic. he comes off as a crazy old white guy who doesn't care about our kids. Dana Loesch should be the spokesman for the NRA, my friends

 

[danielpalos]

Again, if there is no crisis, why do we20 plus million illegals here? Of course you leftists can’t answer, there is none

lol. the Real crisis is our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce Clause And we are losing money on border policy. Only Lousy capitalists do that. It is a capital crisis.

 

[basquebromance]

i'm wearing a March For Our Lives shirt right now. it feels good to be part of something. with Hogg and the kids.

its a turn on to be part of something, my friends!

 

[basquebromance]

movements are born from hope, but they are built brick by brick. the anti-gun movement has finally seen their rewards!

 

[Sactowndog]

Money is allotted for specific uses. You can't spend it for something it wasn't approved for. That would be misappropriation of funds.

Under normal circumstances, that would be correct. However in a declaration of emergency, they can shift money around. For instance Homeland Security or perhaps the Military Budget. It's very easy to see how a border wall could fit into either of those categories. Nearly a half million illegals apprehended last year, Lord knows how many that were not, over 70,000 Americans dead because of narcotic use; most of it coming from the southern border. The murders, the rapes, the theft. Human trafficking, undercutting American wages, there is just nothing good about them coming here. Oh yes, our peaches are cheaper.

I have news for you. Most of the opioid crises started with Pharmacuetical companies.

We had opioids in this country as long as I've been alive. Only the last few decades did it become a crisis. When people get hooked and are no longer able to obtain the drugs legally, they use illegal drugs instead.

They is are a large grey market of opioids that started with pharmacuetical companies.

No, drug companies simply do one thing, and that is produce a product; a product many of us have used in our lifetime. However in the past if you got accidentally hooked, you were virtually out of luck because the only place you could get the drug was from your doctor. If somebody had a problem with addiction, it was addressed by their physician and staff.

Today it's different. If you get hooked, just go out into the street and ask anybody to continue your addiction, and the race is on. Today, opioid products are as available as pot was when I was younger.

No like other businesses, drug companies try to maximize revenue and profits from their products. But in their case, a real question exists if they went over the line in doing so...

60 Minutes' 3-part opioid investigation

I get this data doesn’t fit your “narrative” but you might want to take some time and watch it anyway.

 

[Sactowndog]

Yes because at some point the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Most rational educated people agree the borders should be made more secure. Those same people recognize 14th century technology (a wall) is unlikely to be successful in the 21st century. But even with improved technology some inventive and determined people will still get through.

Guess what those people are the kind of people who built this country. The American Spirit lives most strongly in them. It’s the American ethos (or used to be) to say F the government I’m doing what’s ethically needed. Even if I break laws. It’s why the second amendment exists. If they make it through and manage to avoid detection for 10 years, make them citizens. They have earned it in the true American sense.

So that's the message we want to send to the rest of the world, come here, break our laws, and if you get away with it long enough, we'll make you a citizen?

That has pretty much been our mode of operation for the past 200 years.
Boston Tea Party.... breaking laws
Runaway slaves..... breaking laws
Oklahoma Sooners..... breaking laws
Interracial marriage.... breaking laws
Feet Wet..... breaking laws

We have long been the home of people that say F You to the government and brave long odds to make a better life for ourselves.

I see no reason to stop now. That doesn’t mean we make it easy but it also doesn’t mean we spend every nickle to stop the last 10,000.

That is a reasonable and educated response. Sadly reasonable and educated left the Republican Party years ago.

Would you be so supportive if we imposed and additional 10% tax on the income of all registered Democrats, with the intent of, if you are so supportive of open borders, you can pay extra to cover the cost of all illegal immigration so Republican voters dont have to pay?

What part of driving illegal immigration down from 400,000 sounds like open borders. Do you cons have two brain cells to rub together.

400,000 is today's numbers, it was more in the past.

Your correct and Obama started the process to drive it down but that doesn’t fit your right wing narrative either does it.

 

[froggy]

More gun violence today. Speaker Pelosi is correct. Gun violence is a real national emergency - not like Trump's manufactured fake crisis at the border.

What did the guns do?

It jumped in someone's hand drug them out somewhere and shot up the place

 

[jc456]

More gun violence today. Speaker Pelosi is correct. Gun violence is a real national emergency - not like Trump's manufactured fake crisis at the border.

What did the guns do?

It jumped in someone's hand drug them out somewhere and shot up the place

Ahhh

 

[basquebromance]

is there anything more pathetic than a politician who BOWS DOWN to the big money of the NRA out of fear that they may lose the next election while children are being killed by the NRA's guns on the streets!