The Results Are In: Speaker Nancy Pelosi Absolutely Manhandled P-Grabber Trump

[OKTexas]

ROFL bringing in enough drugs to kill 46 million Americans is nothing more serious than a walk in the park, RIGHT?

Unfortunately for you...a wall would affect that not at all

You're a liar, DHS says 60% of drugs come in BETWEEN the ports of entry.

.

Try this report from. DEA, which part of the Department of HOMELAND SECURITY.

https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/DIR-032-18 2018 NDTA final low resolution.pdf

Prescrpition drug overdoses and marijuana account for more than 70% of hospital admissions, and prescription opioids account for 45,000 of last year’s 72,000 deaths.

Or this Homeland security report that says 90% of illegal drugs are coming in through legal ports of entry.

Fact-checking Trump officials: Most drugs enter US through legal ports of entry, not vast, open border

These are the statistics that Trump’s own White House issued and Jim Acosta asked about that Trump dismissed as a “fake question” and said he had different statistics. When Acosta presses where they came from, Trump got angry and told him to sit down.

Marijuana? Aren't everyone being told marijuana is safe? How can it be a major player in ER visits. And everyone is parsing words when they view theses various reports, reality says by weight, 60% of all illegal drugs are coming in between the ports of entry. Then there's this from the CDC:

"The past decade has seen opioid overdose deaths skyrocket in the US, and public health officials report that one drug is largely responsible: fentanyl."

CDC Identifies the Drug Responsible for the Most Overdose Deaths in the US | Inverse

.

 

[OKTexas]

So you can't cite the law that "requires" a chamber to take up and vote on, a joint resolution. Figures.

.

if they are required to do something it is a law. it's written as the concrete rule under resolution procedure. you are playing semantics, kitty.

Once again, WHAT LAW? Cite the title and paragraph.

.

lol... you think you got me? i used the word 'law' when the joint resolution is indeed de facto 'law' per the constitution.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Presentment of Resolutions

'may be necessary' EXCEPT in one instance... which is not the exception IN THIS CASE.. kinda sums it up.

you're welcome.

And what happens when one house of congress refuses to take up a bill?

.

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

 

[playtime]

if they are required to do something it is a law. it's written as the concrete rule under resolution procedure. you are playing semantics, kitty.

Once again, WHAT LAW? Cite the title and paragraph.

.

lol... you think you got me? i used the word 'law' when the joint resolution is indeed de facto 'law' per the constitution.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Presentment of Resolutions

'may be necessary' EXCEPT in one instance... which is not the exception IN THIS CASE.. kinda sums it up.

you're welcome.

And what happens when one house of congress refuses to take up a bill?

.

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

pretty much, ya.

are you willing to bet that mitch won't allow the vote?

 

[Hale]

This is typical of the kind of "victory" that Dems proclaim. Meanwhile, we deal with actual issues.

It’s a victory that Trump can’t waste billions of taxpayers’ money on a vanity project undertaken as a campaign stunt.

Victims of Illegal Aliens

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, WHAT LAW? Cite the title and paragraph.

.

lol... you think you got me? i used the word 'law' when the joint resolution is indeed de facto 'law' per the constitution.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Presentment of Resolutions

'may be necessary' EXCEPT in one instance... which is not the exception IN THIS CASE.. kinda sums it up.

you're welcome.

And what happens when one house of congress refuses to take up a bill?

.

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

pretty much, ya.

are you willing to bet that mitch won't allow the vote?

He's already said he'll support the emergency declaration, you figure it out.

.

 

[playtime]

lol... you think you got me? i used the word 'law' when the joint resolution is indeed de facto 'law' per the constitution.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3

Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Presentment of Resolutions

'may be necessary' EXCEPT in one instance... which is not the exception IN THIS CASE.. kinda sums it up.

you're welcome.

And what happens when one house of congress refuses to take up a bill?

.

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

pretty much, ya.

are you willing to bet that mitch won't allow the vote?

He's already said he'll support the emergency declaration, you figure it out.

.

that's his single vote. do you think he's afraid to let the other 99 have their constitutional right to say the same or go against the party?

 

[OKTexas]

And what happens when one house of congress refuses to take up a bill?

.

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

pretty much, ya.

are you willing to bet that mitch won't allow the vote?

He's already said he'll support the emergency declaration, you figure it out.

.

that's his single vote. do you think he's afraid to let the other 99 have their constitutional right to say the same or go against the party?

At this point I see a 49-51 vote to either not take it up or disagree with the resolution. It may be moot, because the money has probably already been moved and contracts are ready to let and will most likely be executed prior to any vote. They can't undo anything already done. Read the law.

.

 

[beagle9]

According to FOXNEWS at least...

Sounds like a gang rape victim bragging to her friends about how she “fucked the shit out of those guys”...

Aside from the odiousness of your metaphor, it's only applies if Trump is the rape victim.

Under what LAW?

.

Glossary Term | Joint Resolution

joint resolution - A legislative measure, designated "S. J. Res." and numbered consecutively upon introduction, which requires the approval of both chambers and, with one exception, is submitted (just as a bill) to the president for possible signature into law. The one exception is that joint resolutions (and not bills) are used to propose constitutional amendments. These resolutions require a two-thirds affirmative vote in each house but are not submitted to the president; they become effective when ratified by three-quarters of the States.

U.S. Senate: Glossary Term | Joint Resolution

if both houses of congress are required to vote ( & therefore give possible approval for it to go to the prez) then that in & of itself is a 'law'. i suppose any yellowbelly can abstain on record... but it must have attention & voted on. it can't be ignored by either chamber & not have on record the vote to proceed.

So you can't cite the law that "requires" a chamber to take up and vote on, a joint resolution. Figures.

.

Your ignorance is well noted (and oft repeated)

Here's the law

[USC07] 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

The illegals breaching our borders without being vetted is no different than the Muslim terrorist breaching our air space with planes, and then slamming them into the towers. In either cases, when American's are killed by either situation, the results of why they were killed end up being the same.

Just as we are charged to protect our air space with a declared national emergency, the same goes for the southern and northern borders after 9-11. We are to use resources directed at the most weakest points of entry where the most action or breaches are taking place, and we are to be diligent within the most urgent areas of concern.

We cannot take chances by allowing our gaurd to be put down in any of these areas of concern, and proper measures are to be directed be it in the allocation of resources, and in man power if are needed to protect our citizens from current or future attacks.

The southern border has become an area of concern due to the wrecklace actions of those who would think that it is ok to allow thousands to flow over our borders unvetted, and un-invited thus placing Americans in danger by such a wrecklace self serving thought process.

Trump is absolutely right to declare an emergency, just as George W. Bush did the same. Trump can justify it by bringing forth the victim's parents and their loved ones whom were murdered by those who had breached our borders illegally, and we're unknowns who had freedom to kill undetected until caught.

There is just one small problem with your analogy. Illegals aren't "breaching your borders" with the intent to harm Americans. There is NO EMERGENCY on the Southern Border, and Trump is lying to you.

Go tell that to the victims families if your cold heart will let you get anywhere near to them.

 

[beagle9]

According to FOXNEWS at least...

Sounds like a gang rape victim bragging to her friends about how she “fucked the shit out of those guys”...

Aside from the odiousness of your metaphor, it's only applies if Trump is the rape victim.

So you can't cite the law that "requires" a chamber to take up and vote on, a joint resolution. Figures.

.

Your ignorance is well noted (and oft repeated)

Here's the law

[USC07] 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

The illegals breaching our borders without being vetted is no different than the Muslim terrorist breaching our air space with planes, and then slamming them into the towers. In either cases, when American's are killed by either situation, the results of why they were killed end up being the same.

Just as we are charged to protect our air space with a declared national emergency, the same goes for the southern and northern borders after 9-11. We are to use resources directed at the most weakest points of entry where the most action or breaches are taking place, and we are to be diligent within the most urgent areas of concern.

We cannot take chances by allowing our gaurd to be put down in any of these areas of concern, and proper measures are to be directed be it in the allocation of resources, and in man power if are needed to protect our citizens from current or future attacks.

The southern border has become an area of concern due to the wrecklace actions of those who would think that it is ok to allow thousands to flow over our borders unvetted, and un-invited thus placing Americans in danger by such a wrecklace self serving thought process.

Trump is absolutely right to declare an emergency, just as George W. Bush did the same. Trump can justify it by bringing forth the victim's parents and their loved ones whom were murdered by those who had breached our borders illegally, and we're unknowns who had freedom to kill undetected until caught.

There is just one small problem with your analogy. Illegals aren't "breaching your borders" with the intent to harm Americans. There is NO EMERGENCY on the Southern Border, and Trump is lying to you.

ROFL bringing in enough drugs to kill 46 million Americans is nothing more serious than a walk in the park, RIGHT?

.

The drugs that are killing 46 million Americans are made by Big Pharma. American cities and hospitals are launching lawsuits now against 25 pharmaceutical manufacturers for the contributions to the opioid crisis. Only fools believe Trump's lies that the drugs that are causing all of these deaths are coming across the borders. Trump has done nothing to prevent or even slow down the over-prescription and sale of legal opioid painkillers, even as the death toll has mounted.

I remember people having problems with Oxycontin back in the 1970's. A bank customer of mine went on Oxy for a back injury in a car accident and ended up losing his job, his house, and everything, going to rehab, and putting his life back together. He was young, good looking, had a great job, a beautiful wife, played baseball in a mixed league. Just a nice regular family guy. Last person you'd expect to be a down and out drug addict.

Successive administrations from both parties let the drug companies put more and more of these poisons on the market. Nothing drivesi drug profits like addiction, and the US for profit medical complex has built a wonderful industry around drug addiction, rehab, relapse, recycle, repeat. A couple I know who met in rehab (her - heroin, him - cocaine), told me that after a recent car accident, her PCP was insisting on prescribing opoids to her, despite her sitting there saying to him "I'm a heroin addict. I can't take these". Similarly, her husband's doctor push opioids on him for back problems, despite knowing his medical history as well.

Tucson hospital sues 25 pharma companies, distributors over opioid crisis: Tucson (Ariz.) Medical Center on Aug. 22 filed a 270-page lawsuit against at least 25 drug manufacturers and distributors, claiming they negligently and fraudulently created the opioid crisis affecting communities nationwide, according to tucson.com.

The hospitals and states shouldn't have to be launching these lawsuits. The federal government should be cracking down and holding these assholes accountable. Oh wait, no. Big Pharma were big contributors to the Inauguration Slush Fund. Blame the illegals!!!!

Yes, drugs are coming across the southern border, but not in the quantities or with the same results as the addicting of the American population and the profitting on that addiction, by for profit medicine.

Ok, so we take care of two birds with one stone. You gotta a problem with multi-tasking in America ?

 

[22lcidw]

Pelosi has been beaten. All she can do is scaremonger and threaten.

Good job President Trump!

LOL! DJT lost the House and the new SOTH Nancy Pelosi won. Love how you POTUS apologists spin that as "beaten" LOL! Squeeze Nancy squeeze!

AOC is grabbing Pelosi's *****! AOC rules the House.

 

[playtime]

well i'm glad you finally relented to the FACT that it is pretty much a LAW... as for your question : they won't violate the constitution. even turtle boy knows that is a bozo nono.

'pretty much a law", is that like being a little pregnant? The law says either house can vote not to take up a JR, the law has been posted.

.

pretty much, ya.

are you willing to bet that mitch won't allow the vote?

He's already said he'll support the emergency declaration, you figure it out.

.

that's his single vote. do you think he's afraid to let the other 99 have their constitutional right to say the same or go against the party?

At this point I see a 49-51 vote to either not take it up or disagree with the resolution. It may be moot, because the money has probably already been moved and contracts are ready to let and will most likely be executed prior to any vote. They can't undo anything already done. Read the law.

.

the money can't be moved unless a court decides in trump's favor, because it is already earmarked for projects not having to do with his vanity wall.

 

[keepitreal]

According to FOXNEWS at least...

Amazing, even a majority of Fox Viewers finally get it. Trump is weak!

Amazing, even a majority of Fox Viewers finally get it. Trump is weak!

Trump is weak....
Or, Pelosi has too much power

Look, Trump has been in office, what, 2 years

Pelosi has been in office, how ******* long?

The problems this country is facing,
hasn’t happened overnight, let alone, over 2 years

We are dealing with shit now,
because of the shit that has been going on for years

So, what does that tell you, huh

 

[Wry Catcher]

According to FOXNEWS at least...

Amazing, even a majority of Fox Viewers finally get it. Trump is weak!

Amazing, even a majority of Fox Viewers finally get it. Trump is weak!

Trump is weak....
Or, Pelosi has too much power

Look, Trump has been in office, what, 2 years

Pelosi has been in office, how ******* long?

The problems this country is facing,
hasn’t happened overnight, let alone, over 2 years

We are dealing with shit now,
because of the shit that has been going on for years

So, what does that tell you, huh

I suggest you go on line and read the first three articles of the Constitution. We have always had problems to face, and by working together, we have solved most of them. Gingrich was the root of our troubles. Doubt that, read some history.