- Nov 10, 2019
- 47,538
- 30,147
- 2,490
- Moderator
- #21
They have been begging for money ever since I can remember and most of it I probably have approved. So I support the military. Big deal.And what do you do when Congress refuses to supply funds to enhance national security, purely as a partisan finger in the eye?Marijuana is a useful therapy for a lot of things, but had not heard it useful as a therapy for Covid, not sure she meant it that way, but what ever.
Another thing is the wording of "money for defense to replenish the wall.". Does that mean there is money to repair or replace sections of the wall or did they put back the money trump stole from the military to build the wall? I am all for replacing the stolen funds, but not if trump is just going to sign the legislation with the money for the military and pillage it again before the election or between election and leaving office in January for that matter. It was better in the old days when the constitution said congress had the per strings and we jailed people who misdirected funds. I am not up for a revolving slush fund to be restocked, but reassigned at whim, without congressional approval.
As president Trump is well within his authority to use excess military funds when partisan jackasses like Charles Schumer block emergency funding. Or do you think the poor Pentagon will be out on street corners with a five star hat begging for money to get by?
Or perhaps you are an open borders advocate? In any event Trump was legally entitled to put excess funds already allotted to good use. Sorry if that chafes your ass.
Or do you not follow the news? Supreme Court sides with Trump on building border wall with diverted military funds
I don't really care about the wall. Never saw one I wasn't trained to breach (your tax dollars at work). If they want to appropriate for it fine. If the do not want to appropriate for it, that's fine too with me. I agree with the original judge that pronounced it illegal and with the court of appeals that said, yep, no doubt about it, illegal and with the constitution that says how money is to be appropriated. I don't agree that the chief executive should sign off on the appropriations budget bill with fanfare and backslapping, taking credit for the bill and then turn around a few months later and steal the money and spend it before it could be stopped. If he doesn't approve of a bill he is supposed to veto it or at best let it go into effect without signature, not redirect the funds as if he had line item veto after the fact or appropriation powers clearly relegated to congress by the constitution and the founding fathers. It is not how we do business.