ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

That's going to make an interesting precedent.

Still disappointed that he wants to sign that weak-ass bill but he knows the shutdown hurts him in the long run so there is no point in not signing it. Daily reminder that Paul Ryan is a little bitch. Still hope Trump vetos it so Senate alone is responsible for that shit.

One juicy part of the bill:

"

SEC. 224. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act or any other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child

To paraphrase, "don't you dare fuck with our child trafficking supplier". Moloch is a very hungry beast.

I didn't know that you were actually crazy! Although a more likely scenario is that you don't really believe this? How does this insane conspiracy theory help keep Merkel the leader of the free world?

While the Left gears up to crow about their victory when President Trump signs the bill the Uniparty voted in through both houses, it's important to realize who got what out of this deal.

Remember: Nancy Pelosi said "No funding for the wall, ever, period."

While the amount provided for in this bill is significantly lower than President Trump wanted, it is there, which means Pelosi lost that fight. Meanwhile, though there are plenty of poison pills in the bill, President Trump gains a win on that point. Many Trump supporters are upset that he's stated his intent to sign it, but really, the only other option is to grandstand with an impotent veto when the bill passed (and would do so again) with a veto-proof majority in both houses. This also serves to illustrate who's in the Uniparty camp, while providing the President an opportunity to present himself as the magnanimous one, the compromiser who got the intransigent Dems to deal.

Meanwhile, as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, President Trump can and will order the military to construct the wall. He doesn't even have to declare an emergency; he could order them to build a string of outhouses along the border, if he so chose, and it's within his authority to do so.

Is the bill a bad one? Yes. But President Trump will make the best of this bad deal, and things will move along. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Remember: Nancy Pelosi said "No funding for the wall, ever, period."

Yeah.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

While the amount provided for in this bill is significantly lower than President Trump wanted, it is there, which means Pelosi lost that fight. Meanwhile, though there are plenty of poison pills in the bill, President Trump gains a win on that point.

This does not follow logically. Proving that Pelosi lost isn't proving that Trump won. Is Mexico paying for the Wall? No? OK then. Did Trump get his 5.7 billion? No? Well shit, Trump lost too.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

This also serves to illustrate who's in the Uniparty camp, while providing the President an opportunity to present himself as the magnanimous one, the compromiser who got the intransigent Dems to deal.

I'm not sure about the magnanimous part, but it is a compromise. A compromise is when enemies win (and lose) about equally, as is the case here. That isn't a Trump win. In this most unbiased analysis it's a tie, which doesn't fit well into either partisan narrative and thus will be spun by each side into a win as you are doing.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Meanwhile, as Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, President Trump can and will order the military to construct the wall. He doesn't even have to declare an emergency; he could order them to build a string of outhouses along the border, if he so chose, and it's within his authority to do so.

On the one hand, it's hilarious seeing Hollywood freak out over Trump going all unitary executive, as if they lived under a rock during Obama. On the other hand, Trump's previous unwillingness to bypass Congress was based on his longstanding criticism of Obama doing so, and it's bittersweet that he's resorting to hypocrisy to get this important Wall built.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This does not follow logically. Proving that Pelosi lost isn't proving that Trump won. Is Mexico paying for the Wall? No? OK then. Did Trump get his 5.7 billion? No? Well shit, Trump lost too.

Nance wins and Trump loses if Trump doesn't build a significant part of the wall. That's the only relevant thing here. Mexico could pay 5.7b and Trump would still lose bigly if he only built 20 miles of fence with that money, for example. My benchmark is 200+ miles of non-fence. Should cover the worst parts of the border.

Building a partial wall makes even less sense than building a complete wall...

"The worst parts" will simply move to areas where there won't be a wall, so you'll have a completely useless 6b dollars structure compared to having a highly ineffective 6b dollars structure.

I bet that behind a set of closed doors, so deep that down that nothing ever gets leaked from there, Trump has at least once suggested that they should just move the Great Wall of China to the USA/Mexico border.

Senate Democrats declare no evidence Trump colluded with Russia

TheReporter BTFO

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Senate Democrats declare no evidence Trump colluded with Russia

TheReporter BTFO

Did you even read what you just linked?

"But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media."

"I'm not going to get into any conclusions I have," he said, before adding that "there's never been a campaign in American history ... that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did."



There's no DIRECT evidence, there's plenty of circumventionnal evidence though.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Senate Democrats declare no evidence Trump colluded with Russia

TheReporter BTFO

Did you even read what you just linked?

"But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media."

"I'm not going to get into any conclusions I have," he said, before adding that "there's never been a campaign in American history ... that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did."



There's no DIRECT evidence, there's plenty of circumventionnal evidence though.

CIrCuMsTaNtIaL eViDeNcE

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Yeah you did, TD. We all did.

I don't disagree with the statement. It does seem to be the most likely explanation. It is truly an insane interpretation. Giving him the benefit of the doubt though, he could be trolling? I mean it is more likely trolling than the doubt I have that the sun will rise in east on the morrow.