The Trump Shutdown

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This is factually incorrect. Congress does not need POTUS to pass a budget at all. 

 

So, there are more than one person who has the authority to reopen the government. Making this position you're taking incorrect. 

Congressn passes budgetary bills but the president has to sign off, correct?

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's not what he said but you know that. It was pointed out to you earlier in this thread but you continue to use wording that is not precise. He said he'd take the blame for a shutdown, not that he would be proud to shut the government down.

You're correct.  So he needs to take the blame.  Because he said he would.

[boyst]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Congressn passes budgetary bills but the president has to sign off, correct?

You're correct.  So he needs to take the blame.  Because he said he would.

Incorrect.  Override of veto. 

 

Words matter.  Get your facts straight. Words matter.  Do better. Words matter.

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Incorrect.  Override of veto. 

 

Words matter.  Get your facts straight. Words matter.  Do better. Words matter.

Correct.  The president can veto bills.  We all understand that.

[DC Tom]

9 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Correct.  The president can veto bills.  We all understand that.

 

Congress can override vetos.

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Congress can override vetos.

Yes they can.  The Senate should vote today, pass the bill the House sent them that the Senateapprovrd overwhelmingly in December and send it to the president.  If he vetoes then decide to override or not.

[Deranged Rhino]

40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Congressn passes budgetary bills but the president has to sign off, correct?

 

Incorrect. They can pass a budget without needing the president to sign off on it. That's why I'm pointing out your premise is flawed. 

 

Yes, Trump said he'd own the shutdown six weeks ago. And while he bares a great deal of the responsibility for it, a lot has changed in those six weeks to alter that equation. Pretending nothing has changed is being disingenuous. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[3rdnlng]

Yes, let's get involved with vetoes and overrides over a continuing resolution for 3 weeks.

[boyst]

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Correct.  The president can veto bills.  We all understand that.

K

 

Congress can override those vetoes. Yes?

47 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes they can.  The Senate should vote today, pass the bill the House sent them that the Senateapprovrd overwhelmingly in December and send it to the president.  If he vetoes then decide to override or not.

K. So this analysis shows that it is not just the president that can undo the shutdown, right?

[row_33]

43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, let's get involved with vetoes and overrides over a continuing resolution for 3 weeks.

 

i hope people who want to argue about this at least take the time to learn the roles of each body

 

 

most of them think the Constitution can change if enough people get upset in the last two minutes

 

[3rdnlng]

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. They can pass a budget without needing the president to sign off on it. That's why I'm pointing out your premise is flawed. 

 

Yes, Trump said he'd own the shutdown six weeks ago. And while he bares a great deal of the responsibility for it, a lot has changed in those six weeks to alter that equation. Pretending nothing has changed is being disingenuous. 

 

 

Trump certainly bears a good deal of the responsibility for the shutdown, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The shutdown is giving us a new focus on border security including the wall. That's a good thing.

[Kevbeau]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Looks like IRS won't be processing tax refunds. Give me my stupid useless wall or tax payers can't have their money! 

I’m sure they’ll be processing payments however. Door definitely doesn’t go both ways with the IRS.

[B-Man]

11 minutes ago, Kevbeau said:

I’m sure they’ll be processing payments however. Door definitely doesn’t go both ways with the IRS.

 

 

Actually,

 

Gator deliberately left out a few words to try and make a point.

 

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Looks like IRS won't be processing tax refunds. Give me my stupid useless wall or tax payers can't have their money! 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/426532-union-says-irs-worker-absences-expected-to-surge-amid-shutdown

IRS offices across the country are reportedly experiencing a spike in absences as part of the protest.

The IRS is headed into its busiest time of the year, raising the possibility that millions of Americans will receive their tax refunds later than usual.

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Looks like IRS won't be processing tax refunds. Give me my stupid useless wall or tax payers can't have their money! 

 

I'm old enough to remember when money was the government's, not the tax payers'.

 

Seems like it was just a couple years ago...

[KRC]

11 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when money was the government's, not the tax payers'.

 

Seems like it was just a couple years ago...

 

Damn taxpayers actually thinking that the money is theirs. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!1!

 

Or, you can just set your withholdings such that you owe a little each year, instead of getting a refund. That may be too complicated for some, who would just prefer to give the government a zero-percent interest loan.

[keepthefaith]

Only Democrat taxpayers will have their tax refunds held.  Payback's a biatch ain't it? 

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, KRC said:

 

Damn taxpayers actually thinking that the money is theirs. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!1!

 

Or, you can just set your withholdings such that you owe a little each year, instead of getting a refund. That may be too complicated for some, who would just prefer to give the government a zero-percent interest loan.

 

 

The US allows an established $200,000 income earner to refuse to make suitable interim payments from deduction or installments?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by row_33

[snafu]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

So they should have put the bill in front of him, then not have him sign?  I could go along with that.  In fact that is exactly what should happen if the Congress was doing its job.  The House sent the same bill that the Senate approved a month ago.  The Senate should vote on it, pass it (unless they are so spineless that they change their votes within a month), put it on the President's desk.  If he vetoes then the Congress can decide if they override the veto and put people back to work.

 

That is how our government is supposed to work.  But, again, Trump is the only one right now who can reopen government.  If he indicates he'd sign that then it's over with today.  But, no, he's proud to shut it down.

Because there are 800,000 people not being paid, and because it is affecting our national security.  Open it, and if the Dems refuse to negotiate in good faith then you have a ready made political hammer to use. 

 

I just said above there is room to blame for both sides.  Try reading. 

 

"But, again, Trump is the only one right now who can reopen government."

Trump did say what he said.  You're right about that.  How would you like him to FULLY re-open the government (it is partially shut down now)?  Should it be like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?  Should he get hold of the world's biggest megaphone and broadcast it to the sky?  Hire a marching band to carry a giant banner through the streets of D.C.?  If, like Trump, YOU were the only one who could re-open the government, how would you do it?  How would you pay for it, since you have no power of the purse?

 

The fact that you said "I just said above there is room to blame for both sides" completely contradicts your original point.  Actually, you're right about "there is room to blame for both sides", but you chose to only focus on the President.

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Her position is that if you do that then you are basically saying that any Chief Executive should just shut down government if he or she doesn't get their at on a budgetary issue.  I agree with her on that.  It would be a horrible precedent.   And she doesn't have sole power, as it would depend on the House and Senate agreeing with that bill.  Unlike the President, who has sole power.  Nice try though.

 

Then what Congress should do -- if they were so outraged -- is pass a bill that is veto-proof.  See, checks and balances.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

It's a move right out of the Cuban missile crisis: ignore the second letter, accept the first. 

[oldmanfan]

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

"But, again, Trump is the only one right now who can reopen government."

Trump did say what he said.  You're right about that.  How would you like him to FULLY re-open the government (it is partially shut down now)?  Should it be like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?  Should he get hold of the world's biggest megaphone and broadcast it to the sky?  Hire a marching band to carry a giant banner through the streets of D.C.?  If, like Trump, YOU were the only one who could re-open the government, how would you do it?  How would you pay for it, since you have no power of the purse?

 

The fact that you said "I just said above there is room to blame for both sides" completely contradicts your original point.  Actually, you're right about "there is room to blame for both sides", but you chose to only focus on the President.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then what Congress should do -- if they were so outraged -- is pass a bill that is veto-proof.  See, checks and balances.

 

 

How would I do it?  Simple.  Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass.  Then sign it.  Then negotiate.

 

is there blame on both sides?  Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall.  But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down.  The president said it would be on him.  He was right.

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How would I do it?  Simple.  Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass.  Then sign it.  Then negotiate.

 

is there blame on both sides?  Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall.  But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down.  The president said it would be on him.  He was right.

Except Speaker Nancy is on record that there will be no negotiating on the wall. In other words she will not allow any funding for a wall. So, you expect Trump to give up any leverage he might have to get another continuing resolution that just pushes the issue down the road? We've pushed this issue down the road for decades because the dems don't want to settle the DACA issue because they need it for political purposes.

[row_33]

26 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How would I do it?  Simple.  Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass.  Then sign it.  Then negotiate.

 

is there blame on both sides?  Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall.  But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down.  The president said it would be on him.  He was right.

 

 

cool story bro

 

it doesn't matter

 

 

[oldmanfan]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Except Speaker Nancy is on record that there will be no negotiating on the wall. In other words she will not allow any funding for a wall. So, you expect Trump to give up any leverage he might have to get another continuing resolution that just pushes the issue down the road? We've pushed this issue down the road for decades because the dems don't want to settle the DACA issue because they need it for political purposes.

I have already said I think she was wrong to say that.

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I have already said I think she was wrong to say that.

If I came up with an avatar picture for youthats not terrible would you use it?  Thinking an old.man from the Simpsons changed up a little to be Billsy if I can.  Or just grandpa Simpson

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Boyst62 said:

If I came up with an avatar picture for youthats not terrible would you use it?  Thinking an old.man from the Simpsons changed up a little to be Billsy if I can.  Or just grandpa Simpson

Add something constructive.  This is just more garbage from you.

[boyst]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

Add something constructive.  This is just more garbage from you.

Offering to make you an avatar is constructive dingbat.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I have already said I think she was wrong to say that.

Yes, but then you say to give her what she wants because Trump said he'd own the shutdown. Let's not be so obtuse and do what's  right rather than parse words to try to win some imaginary debate.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm old enough to remember when money was the government's, not the tax payers'.

 

Seems like it was just a couple years ago...

Cute. Was that back when workers still got paid for...doing their jobs? 

45 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

How would I do it?  Simple.  Tell the Senate majority leader to allow the House bill (the one the Senate approved in December) to come to a vote and pass.  Then sign it.  Then negotiate.

 

is there blame on both sides?  Yes, Pelosi should not have said no money at all for a wall.  But that does not put her in charge , or blame, or whatever, of the shut down.  The president said it would be on him.  He was right.

And he said Mexico would pay for the wall that our government is shutdown over. But he just keeps digging. The American people elected the Dems to stand up to this clown and that is what they are doing. Elections have consequences, a forty seat house blue Wave matters. 

[oldmanfan]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, but then you say to give her what she wants because Trump said he'd own the shutdown. Let's not be so obtuse and do what's  right rather than parse words to try to win some imaginary debate.

I agree.  Let's do what's right.  Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate.  You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power.

 

Here's the thing I would say to those who take the latter view.  Opening he government gives you the high ground.  Polls indicate the president is being blamed (and since he said he'd take the blame that seems appropriate).  I don't think the American people are dumb; if they see someone say on TV they'll take the blame, then that's where they'll place the blame.  But you open things up, you look like the guy wanting to get things done.  The Democrats then don't want to negotiate in good faith, they are the ones that look bad politically.  You open the government today, then Pelosi refuses to negotiate, you have the political and moral high ground.

 

The precedent that cannot be set in my view is to allow the Executive branch to have so much more power than the Legislative branch, regardless of what party holds each part of government at any time.  If a precedent is set where a president can shut down government for weeks or months at a time just because he or she does not like one part of an appropriations bill, then our country's government cannot function.   

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree.  Let's do what's right.  Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate.  You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power.

 

Here's the thing I would say to those who take the latter view.  Opening he government gives you the high ground.  Polls indicate the president is being blamed (and since he said he'd take the blame that seems appropriate).  I don't think the American people are dumb; if they see someone say on TV they'll take the blame, then that's where they'll place the blame.  But you open things up, you look like the guy wanting to get things done.  The Democrats then don't want to negotiate in good faith, they are the ones that look bad politically.  You open the government today, then Pelosi refuses to negotiate, you have the political and moral high ground.

 

The precedent that cannot be set in my view is to allow the Executive branch to have so much more power than the Legislative branch, regardless of what party holds each part of government at any time.  If a precedent is set where a president can shut down government for weeks or months at a time just because he or she does not like one part of an appropriations bill, then our country's government cannot function.   

 

 

Polls are garbage, they select a sample that will meet their client's wishes, then twist the questions and interpret the answer to meet their client's wishes.

 

Doesn't mean it is always going to be against reality, but there is a huge risk that it is not reflective at all.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree.  Let's do what's right.  Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate.  You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power.   

 

No. Pelosi told Trump she would not negotiate even after he opens the government. So no one is presuming anything. We are going off the speakers own words. 

[3rdnlng]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree.  Let's do what's right.  Our difference is I want the government open right now, and then negotiate.  You don't, and I presume because you think the president would then no longer have negotiating power.

 

Here's the thing I would say to those who take the latter view.  Opening he government gives you the high ground.  Polls indicate the president is being blamed (and since he said he'd take the blame that seems appropriate).  I don't think the American people are dumb; if they see someone say on TV they'll take the blame, then that's where they'll place the blame.  But you open things up, you look like the guy wanting to get things done.  The Democrats then don't want to negotiate in good faith, they are the ones that look bad politically.  You open the government today, then Pelosi refuses to negotiate, you have the political and moral high ground.

 

The precedent that cannot be set in my view is to allow the Executive branch to have so much more power than the Legislative branch, regardless of what party holds each part of government at any time.  If a precedent is set where a president can shut down government for weeks or months at a time just because he or she does not like one part of an appropriations bill, then our country's government cannot function.   

So, you are asking Charlie Brown to trust Lucy just one more time?

 

This precedent nonsense is just another dem manufactured talking point. Every shutdown in the past and in the future is caused by disagreements between the two chambers or the Executive branch.

[Foxx]

@oldmanfan

 

Indy, you began today's foray into the shutdown argument with agreement of a previous discussion that words matter and that the precision of those words are very important. i am glad you agree with many of us here, that that matter is of the utmost importance in any dialogue. 

 

you then proceed to go off on Trump stating that he has to own the shutdown because he stated he would. this is somewhat disingenuous. an equal part of words having meaning, is that having those words in context is essential to grasp the full meaning of what was said. as i'm sure you know, a sound bite can be taken to convey something entirely different than what was meant, in context. i don't believe you to be dishonest, so i will have to say that you are just not well informed as to what the context was of that statement or that possibly you have a blind spot due to political leanings.

 

Trump stated that he would own the government shutdown if he didn't get what he wanted, that being funding for the border wall. further, in fuller context, it was meant that he would shut it down for border security. and, to put the fuller context into a more complete contextual setting, a little history should be considered. I shall attempt to provide that context below.

 

previously, Trump was promised that he would have his border funding by the end of the year.  a bill was upon his desk and the promise was made in order to get him to sign the bill, a cheeseburger tomorrow for payment today.

 

...President Donald Trump is attacking Republican leaders in Congress, saying they haven’t kept promises that he would get money for his long-promised border wall by year’s end.

 

Trump says in a tweet that when he “begrudgingly” signed an earlier spending bill, he was “promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen!”...

 

so, we now then come to the days just ahead of the shutdown and what transpired in the congressional halls.

 

... The Senate on Friday considered legislation to fund the government agencies through Feb. 8 and appropriate $5.7 billion to build 215 miles of wall structures along the Mexico border.

 

The House passed that legislation Thursday evening, but Senate Democrats successfully unified on Friday and refused to back that measure.

 

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday that Democrats were open to talks with the White House and Republicans but would not agree to any measure that funded the construction of a new border wall.

 

Schumer said Friday that the Senate had unanimously agreed to a spending bill earlier in the week and accused Trump of having a “temper tantrum” because he wasn’t getting money for the wall.

 

“President Trump, you will not get your wall,” Schumer said. “You’re not getting your wall today, next week or on Jan. 3 when Democrats take control of the House.”

 

Democrats tried to make clear to the White House for weeks that they had the votes to block any measure that contained money for the wall.

 

As their power became clear to White House officials, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders signaled Tuesday that Trump was planning to withdraw his request for the funds in an effort to keep the government open.

 

But he received a torrent of criticism from conservative lawmakers and commentators following this decision, and he reversed course on Thursday, scuttling a temporary, bipartisan spending bill that would have extended funding through Feb. 8 but did not contain wall money.

 

Trump on Friday urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change long-standing Senate rules to pass the House’s measure providing $5.7 billion for the wall. McConnell refused, making it impossible for Senate Republicans to push the measure through because Democrats control 49 seats in the 100-member chamber. ...

 

... “We’re going to be working very hard to get something passed in the Senate,” Trump said earlier Friday in the Oval Office. “Now it’s up to the Democrats as to whether or not we have a shutdown tonight. I hope we don’t, but we’ve very much prepared for a long shutdown.” ...

 

further, from the same article, Chuck U. Shumer said the following:

 

... “President Trump, you will not get your wall,” Schumer said. “You’re not getting your wall today, next week or on Jan. 3 when Democrats take control of the House.” ...

 

forward to this past Saturday and Trump offered a grand compromise, ceding to many of the Democrats demands. which for all his efforts, was rejected out of hand before he even formally made the new offer.

 

so... please tell me in an unabashed, nonpartisan way who is to blame for the gov shutdown?

 

does Trump own the shutdown because he said he would in order to get what the american people who voted him into office wanted? do the Republicans own it because they promised him funding by the end of the year? do the Democrats own it because they wouldn't allow a vote on the bill passed by the House? do Democrats own it because they stated outright that Trump would never get his wall? do the Democrats own it because they have previously argued and voted for a border wall and now are only against it because Trump wants it? these are completely honest, serious questions.

 

one last item here... being responsible for something is not the same as being at fault for something. you can be responsible for something while the actual fault lies elsewhere.

[3rdnlng]

31 minutes ago, Foxx said:

@oldmanfan

 

Indy, you began today's foray into the shutdown argument with agreement of a previous discussion that words matter and that the precision of those words are very important. i am glad you agree with many of us here, that that matter is of the utmost importance in any dialogue. 

 

you then proceed to go off on Trump stating that he has to own the shutdown because he stated he would. this is somewhat disingenuous. an equal part of words having meaning, is that having those words in context is essential to grasp the full meaning of what was said. as i'm sure you know, a sound bite can be taken to convey something entirely different than what was meant, in context. i don't believe you to be dishonest, so i will have to say that you are just not well informed as to what the context was of that statement or that possibly you have a blind spot due to political leanings.

 

Trump stated that he would own the government shutdown if he didn't get what he wanted, that being funding for the border wall. further, in fuller context, it was meant that he would shut it down for border security. and, to put the fuller context into a more complete contextual setting, a little history should be considered. I shall attempt to provide that context below.

 

previously, Trump was promised that he would have his border funding by the end of the year.  a bill was upon his desk and the promise was made in order to get him to sign the bill, a cheeseburger tomorrow for payment today.

 

...President Donald Trump is attacking Republican leaders in Congress, saying they haven’t kept promises that he would get money for his long-promised border wall by year’s end.

 

Trump says in a tweet that when he “begrudgingly” signed an earlier spending bill, he was “promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership. Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen!”...

 

so, we now then come to the days just ahead of the shutdown and what transpired in the congressional halls.

 

... The Senate on Friday considered legislation to fund the government agencies through Feb. 8 and appropriate $5.7 billion to build 215 miles of wall structures along the Mexico border.

 

The House passed that legislation Thursday evening, but Senate Democrats successfully unified on Friday and refused to back that measure.

 

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday that Democrats were open to talks with the White House and Republicans but would not agree to any measure that funded the construction of a new border wall.

 

Schumer said Friday that the Senate had unanimously agreed to a spending bill earlier in the week and accused Trump of having a “temper tantrum” because he wasn’t getting money for the wall.

 

“President Trump, you will not get your wall,” Schumer said. “You’re not getting your wall today, next week or on Jan. 3 when Democrats take control of the House.”

 

Democrats tried to make clear to the White House for weeks that they had the votes to block any measure that contained money for the wall.

 

As their power became clear to White House officials, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders signaled Tuesday that Trump was planning to withdraw his request for the funds in an effort to keep the government open.

 

But he received a torrent of criticism from conservative lawmakers and commentators following this decision, and he reversed course on Thursday, scuttling a temporary, bipartisan spending bill that would have extended funding through Feb. 8 but did not contain wall money.

 

Trump on Friday urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change long-standing Senate rules to pass the House’s measure providing $5.7 billion for the wall. McConnell refused, making it impossible for Senate Republicans to push the measure through because Democrats control 49 seats in the 100-member chamber. ...

 

... “We’re going to be working very hard to get something passed in the Senate,” Trump said earlier Friday in the Oval Office. “Now it’s up to the Democrats as to whether or not we have a shutdown tonight. I hope we don’t, but we’ve very much prepared for a long shutdown.” ...

 

further, from the same article, Chuck U. Shumer said the following:

 

... “President Trump, you will not get your wall,” Schumer said. “You’re not getting your wall today, next week or on Jan. 3 when Democrats take control of the House.” ...

 

forward to this past Saturday and Trump offered a grand compromise, ceding to many of the Democrats demands. which for all his efforts, was rejected out of hand before he even formally made the new offer.

 

so... please tell me in an unabashed, nonpartisan way who is to blame for the gov shutdown?

 

does Trump own the shutdown because he said he would in order to get what the american people who voted him into office wanted? do the Republicans own it because they promised him funding by the end of the year? do the Democrats own it because they wouldn't allow a vote on the bill passed by the House? do Democrats own it because they stated outright that Trump would never get his wall? do the Democrats own it because they have previously argued and voted for a border wall and now are only against it because Trump wants it? these are completely honest, serious questions.

 

one last item here... being responsible for something is not the same as being at fault for something. you can be responsible for something while the actual fault lies elsewhere.

Well said.

[Foxx]

more evidence of cracks in the Democrats position.

 

when one of your major mouthpieces posts something that directly contradicts your stance, do you disown them?

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088149393851760642

 

[3rdnlng]

Nancy Pelosi is refusing to let POTUS have the STOTU speech on 1-29-19.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Nancy Pelosi is refusing to let POTUS have the STOTU speech on 1-29-19.

 

 

 

She has no power. And it shows. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

She has no power. And it shows. 

Yep. This can't go well for her. If she could control her caucus she wouldn't have had to do this.

[DC Tom]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Yep. This can't go well for her. If she could control her caucus she wouldn't have had to do this.

 

She only cares how it polls in California.  Maybe New England.  

 

And it likely has overwhelming support in both places, silencing the fake president.

[bilzfancy]

Pelosi is showing signs of early dementia 

[Chef Jim]

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

She has no power. And it shows. 

 

And I will again pose my one word favorite question Ms. Speaker regarding you not authorizing the State of the Union.  Why?