Live now: House Republicans officially announce start of investigation into Hunter Biden and “the big guy”

So you admit Republicans were lying when they ran for election. They really weren’t concerned with inflation, gas prices or the border
They were only concerned with Hunter Biden’s laptop and retaliation against Democrats

You Impeached Trump twice so we are going to Impeach Biden twice to get even
I don’t understand where you get the notion that a party can only do one thing at a time.

You throw hey makers for 6 years and are now whining that the people you’ve been attacking might jab back…
 
So you admit Republicans were lying when they ran for election. They really weren’t concerned with inflation, gas prices or the border
They were only concerned with Hunter Biden’s laptop and retaliation against Democrats

You Impeached Trump twice so we are going to Impeach Biden twice to get even
/——-/ I’m mocking you libtards by reminding you that Joe and the democRATs claimed they fixed everything. You’re just too dense to see it. DUHHHH
 
Wow. That is some crazy semantics you're using there.

Hard to take you seriously with responses like that.

Ok. If it makes you feel better. I disagree with the fed using politics to with hold money from state funds because a city exercises their constitutional rights.

Does that make it better for you?
You just can't handle reality. Reality is the majority in the House determines where the money goes. No one is stopping Democrats from giving to sanctuary cities. Go ahead.
 
You just can't handle reality. Reality is the majority in the House determines where the money goes.

Really? I simply disagree with withholding federal money from states as a punishment for cities that are exercising their constitutional rights.

I accept the reality, I just disagree with it.

Is that ok?

No one is stopping Democrats from giving to sanctuary cities. Go ahead.
You are missing the point...or more likely evading it.
 
Really? I simply disagree with withholding federal money from states as a punishment for cities that are exercising their constitutional rights.

I accept the reality, I just disagree with it.

Is that ok?


You are missing the point...or more likely evading it.
I totally get it. You want every taxpayer to pay for something that isn't a benefit to them, but it is to the far left Democrats who want to flood my country with illegal aliens so they will eventually vote Democrat. Oh, I get it.
 
I totally get it. You want every taxpayer to pay for something that isn't a benefit to them, but it is to the far left Democrats who want to flood my country with illegal aliens so they will eventually vote Democrat. Oh, I get it.
Evidently you don't get it but that is a neat narrative you made out of whole cloth.
 
Okay, then tell me why Democrats support sanctuary cities and Republicans don't.
Reasonable question.

I can't really speak for sanctuary cities, especially because I don't live in one, but it is probably a combination of things. Just off the top of my head.

1. Bad optics for areas with a large populations of Hispanics and illegals.

2. Increased expenditure of limited law enforcement recourses.

3. Economically damaging to workforce consisting of many illegals.

4. More diverse political bodies, many of Hispanic origin, creates sympathy.

5. Employers in positions of political power don't want to rock the boat of increased profits that come from employers of illegals.

While number one brushes up against your claim, I don't think future votes have much to do with it. Hell, aren't most Hispanics catholic and anti abortion?

I can see where perhaps this could lead to potential short term votes for dems from Hispanics but in the long term I suspect most Catholic Hispanics will be voting repub.
 
Reasonable question.

I can't really speak for sanctuary cities, especially because I don't live in one, but it is probably a combination of things. Just off the top of my head.

1. Bad optics for areas with a large populations of Hispanics and illegals.

2. Increased expenditure of limited law enforcement recourses.

3. Economically damaging to workforce consisting of many illegals.

4. More diverse political bodies, many of Hispanic origin, creates sympathy.

5. Employers in positions of political power don't want to rock the boat of increased profits that come from employers of illegals.

While number one brushes up against your claim, I don't think future votes have much to do with it. Hell, aren't most Hispanics catholic and anti abortion?

I can see where perhaps this could lead to potential short term votes for dems from Hispanics but in the long term I suspect most Catholic Hispanics will be voting repub.
Your number one is bad optics. You just agreed with me. Bad optics leads to less votes from Hispanics. It's always about votes. That's how you stay in power.
 
Yes, I did, and I agree. There is a shift going on. You can bet that once that shift results in Democrats losing the Hispanic vote they will stop supporting sanctuary cities and support closing the border.
I have a hard time with that statement as I don't think either side cares much about illegals except to politicize them but...

Maybe. Do you think conversely Repubs will do the opposite?
 
I have a hard time with that statement as I don't think either side cares much about illegals except to politicize them but...

Maybe. Do you think conversely Repubs will do the opposite?
No, Repubs will never support sanctuary cities.
 
Why so many Repubs ask questions like that before researching it themselves is curious to me.

Please refer to post 124.

But from what I heard, Obama had declassified all those documents with a thought, so your entire arguement is moot.
When Congressional investigators ask for all materials related to Benghazi and Hillary starts destroying thousands of emails, two servers and taking hammers to numerous cell phones it's rather obvious that the argument she was in violation of the law is alive and well, Cats!

Bill cutting a deal with Loretta Lynch for the DOJ not to indict her doesn't make what she did "moot"! Or are you one of the lemmings that bought James Comey's excuse that Hillary wasn't "sophisticated" enough to know that she was breaking the law?
 
When Congressional investigators ask for all materials related to Benghazi and Hillary starts destroying thousands of emails, two servers and taking hammers to numerous cell phones it's rather obvious that the argument she was in violation of the law is alive and well, Cats!

Bill cutting a deal with Loretta Lynch for the DOJ not to indict her doesn't make what she did "moot"! Or are you one of the lemmings that bought James Comey's excuse that Hillary wasn't "sophisticated" enough to know that she was breaking the law?
But if the emails on the server were not classified then they shouldn't have been investigating anyhow. She did nothing wrong.
 
Well, maybe your right. I don't support them either but respect their right, within the constitution, to do so.
A lot of things can be allowed, but doesn't mean that they're good for the nation. The Constitution allows states to legalize killing babies. I wonder how the babies feel about Constitutional murder.
 
A lot of things can be allowed, but doesn't mean that they're good for the nation. The Constitution allows states to legalize killing babies.

No it doesn't. It legalizes aborting fetuses.

I wonder how the babies feel about Constitutional murder.

It also isn't murder. Murder is a legal term and is the unlawful taking if a life. Since abortion is legal in those states, by definition, it can't be murder.
 

Forum List

Back
Top