POTUS Epic fAiL

[Cellblock2429]

It would be hilarious if he tries shutting down the government again in a few weeks.

Donald tries to punish American people for his idiotic campaign promise, surrenders like a little bitch, then shuts the government down again. How terrible would that look?

I don't think he's stupid enough to try that again.

/—-/ He’s fighting the swamp people. Whatever it takes.

How can he be fighting swamp people when he keep putting more and more of them in positions of power in his Admin?

/——/ The swamp people can take on any appearance even aTrump supporter

I do like the faux enemy you guys have created…

The can take on the appearance of anyone, be anywhere at any time.

If you sold your bullshit to Hollywood….they would write it off as being too unbelievable.

But since you brought it up…couldn’t Trump be a swamp critter if what you say is true?

/——/ If Trump was part of the swamp Mueller wouldn’t be going after him, you nitwit

 

[candycorn]

It would be hilarious if he tries shutting down the government again in a few weeks.

Donald tries to punish American people for his idiotic campaign promise, surrenders like a little bitch, then shuts the government down again. How terrible would that look?

I don't think he's stupid enough to try that again.

/—-/ He’s fighting the swamp people. Whatever it takes.

How can he be fighting swamp people when he keep putting more and more of them in positions of power in his Admin?

/——/ The swamp people can take on any appearance even aTrump supporter

I do like the faux enemy you guys have created…

The can take on the appearance of anyone, be anywhere at any time.

If you sold your bullshit to Hollywood….they would write it off as being too unbelievable.

But since you brought it up…couldn’t Trump be a swamp critter if what you say is true?

/——/ If Trump was part of the swamp Mueller wouldn’t be going after him, you nitwit

Hmmmm

So that would mean Bill Clinton wasn't part of the swamp; he had a special prosecutor too and special prosecutors only go after non-swamp creatures, right looney toons?

 

[Seawytch]

Cool, the national emergency is a POTUS out of touch with reality, and is focused on one and only one thing, himself. Not you, not your family and not the United States of America.

Give him 5 billion to start on the fence, and this problem goes away.


So, what's the hold up?

He shut down the government, at an estimate cost of over 6 billion dollars. Is that the art of the deal?

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

 

[Seawytch]

You know what I thought was particularly disgusting in Trump's speech today? When he praised all the people as "patriots" for being willing to forgo pay because they were supporting his border wall.

No. They weren't. There were many people who said that all they wanted to do was go back to work, because they didn't want to starve or end up on the streets.

And, most of those "patriots" that decided to starve instead of work, don't support Trump's wall.

Show me one person who is “starving” because of the shutdown. All Fed employees I know love shutdowns because they are free vacations.

There are many of them who are visiting food banks because they don't have money to feed their families.

Federal workers line up for free meals, visit food banks as shutdown hits Day 28

Government shutdown: Federal employees, contractors turn to food banks to help - CNN

As Shutdown Continues, Thousands Of Federal Workers Visit D.C.-Area Pop-Up Food Banks

Federal employees showing up to food banks in the hundreds as shutdown enters fourth week: report

Couple if issues here. Many of them are in California. That is there choice to live in such a high cost of living location which might explain whey they live pay check to pay check.

-Geaux

80-85% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. 80% of the country does not live in California.

Thats because they don't live within their means

-Geaux

It could also mean that wages haven't kept up with inflation.

 

[Seawytch]

So who are these so called experts who state their is no crisis at the border?

-Geaux

The experts actually say there IS a crisis, but it's not the one Trump keeps lying about.

Trump: "There’s a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border."

There is crisis, but it’s about the asylum system, not people pouring across the border, experts say.

The overall number of people caught at the southwest border is not at historic high levels. During Trump’s time in office, overall apprehensions have been below 400,000; there were more than 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000.

Illicit drugs mostly enter through legal checkpoints, not in between points of entry. Several studies also say that immigrants (regardless of immigration status) are not more prone to crime than native-born Americans. Trump regularly contends that immigrants coming in illegally will increase crime in the United States.

The most pressing problem, researchers say, is the country’s backlogged system for dealing with asylum claims from migrants.

Once immigrants are in the asylum process, it can take years for their cases to be decided. That lengthy waiting period is what creates the biggest incentive for people to come to the United States, knowing they’ll be able to stay for at least some period of time, an immigration expert told us.
​

Fact-checking Trump’s false, misleading immigration claims

 

[Geaux4it]

Show me one person who is “starving” because of the shutdown. All Fed employees I know love shutdowns because they are free vacations.

There are many of them who are visiting food banks because they don't have money to feed their families.

Federal workers line up for free meals, visit food banks as shutdown hits Day 28

Government shutdown: Federal employees, contractors turn to food banks to help - CNN

As Shutdown Continues, Thousands Of Federal Workers Visit D.C.-Area Pop-Up Food Banks

Federal employees showing up to food banks in the hundreds as shutdown enters fourth week: report

Couple if issues here. Many of them are in California. That is there choice to live in such a high cost of living location which might explain whey they live pay check to pay check.

-Geaux

80-85% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. 80% of the country does not live in California.

Thats because they don't live within their means

-Geaux

It could also mean that wages haven't kept up with inflation.

The FED says inflation is a non-factor in today's economy. However, if you're premise were to be accurate, one needs to adjust their budget to meet current conditions. i.e, live within their means

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

he overall number of people caught at the southwest border is not at historic high levels. During Trump’s time in office, overall apprehensions have been below 400,000; there were more than 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000.

That is assuming 1.6m is an acceptable number. POTUS clearly believes it isn't. Being apprehensions are down supports POTUS in that is quite likely more are getting through than ever, thus we need a wall/barrier to deter entry. Once the wall in Yuma Az was extended by 60 miles, crime went down over 90% in that area.

llicit drugs mostly enter through legal checkpoints, not in between points of entry. Several studies also say that immigrants (regardless of immigration status) are not more prone to crime than native-born Americans. Trump regularly contends that immigrants coming in illegally will increase crime in the United States.

Interesting, considering per-capita there is no comparison between the two, yet they are equally likely to commit crime? When it comes to experts, U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey is not one. I tend to side with the ICE, BP, and other boots on the ground. And of course, more drugs will be apprehended where more officers are located

-Geaux

 

[Toro]

I thought Trump was a lot more reasonable than the Democrats.

However, why didn’t Trump fund the wall when the gop controlled everything? Why do it as the first thing the Dems have to face, other than as a political stunt?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ He’s fighting the swamp people. Whatever it takes.

How can he be fighting swamp people when he keep putting more and more of them in positions of power in his Admin?

/——/ The swamp people can take on any appearance even aTrump supporter

I do like the faux enemy you guys have created…

The can take on the appearance of anyone, be anywhere at any time.

If you sold your bullshit to Hollywood….they would write it off as being too unbelievable.

But since you brought it up…couldn’t Trump be a swamp critter if what you say is true?

/——/ If Trump was part of the swamp Mueller wouldn’t be going after him, you nitwit

Hmmmm

So that would mean Bill Clinton wasn't part of the swamp; he had a special prosecutor too and special prosecutors only go after non-swamp creatures, right looney toons?

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

 

[Norman]

So who are these so called experts who state their is no crisis at the border?

-Geaux

The experts actually say there IS a crisis, but it's not the one Trump keeps lying about.

Trump: "There’s a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border."

There is crisis, but it’s about the asylum system, not people pouring across the border, experts say.

The overall number of people caught at the southwest border is not at historic high levels. During Trump’s time in office, overall apprehensions have been below 400,000; there were more than 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000.

Illicit drugs mostly enter through legal checkpoints, not in between points of entry. Several studies also say that immigrants (regardless of immigration status) are not more prone to crime than native-born Americans. Trump regularly contends that immigrants coming in illegally will increase crime in the United States.

The most pressing problem, researchers say, is the country’s backlogged system for dealing with asylum claims from migrants.

Once immigrants are in the asylum process, it can take years for their cases to be decided. That lengthy waiting period is what creates the biggest incentive for people to come to the United States, knowing they’ll be able to stay for at least some period of time, an immigration expert told us.
​

Fact-checking Trump’s false, misleading immigration claims

Yeah, we just need to let them all in.

Not surprised to hear this opinion from a regressive idiot.

Build the wall, all the way. It indeed is a crisis, the fact that we have so many anti-Americans here proves as much, where might have they come from.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Give him 5 billion to start on the fence, and this problem goes away.


So, what's the hold up?

He shut down the government, at an estimate cost of over 6 billion dollars. Is that the art of the deal?

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

/——/ The Gubmint has been shut down many times because one side didn’t get what they wanted. You seem to think this was the first time.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

You are not very smart at all. His impeachment was not overturned, such a thing is not possible. He was impeached, that has not changed.

 

[candycorn]

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

You are not very smart at all. His impeachment was not overturned, such a thing is not possible. He was impeached, that has not changed.

Apparently the same swamp that investigated him impeached him too .

Trump supporters are batshit crazy often times

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

You are not very smart at all. His impeachment was not overturned, such a thing is not possible. He was impeached, that has not changed.

/---/ This is what I meant: "Clinton was the first president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868, who was also acquitted"
House votes to impeach Clinton , Oct. 8, 1998

 

[Harpy Eagle]

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

You are not very smart at all. His impeachment was not overturned, such a thing is not possible. He was impeached, that has not changed.

/---/ This is what I meant: "Clinton was the first president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868, who was also acquitted"
House votes to impeach Clinton , Oct. 8, 1998

That is not what you said!

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Billy Boys impeachment was eventually overturned and he was not removed from office by the Senate. Yeah Billy Boy was protected by the swamp people.

You are not very smart at all. His impeachment was not overturned, such a thing is not possible. He was impeached, that has not changed.

/---/ This is what I meant: "Clinton was the first president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in 1868, who was also acquitted"
House votes to impeach Clinton , Oct. 8, 1998

That is not what you said!

/—-/ I said overturned instead of acquitted. So sue me you nit picking asswipe.

 

[Correll]

Give him 5 billion to start on the fence, and this problem goes away.


So, what's the hold up?

He shut down the government, at an estimate cost of over 6 billion dollars. Is that the art of the deal?

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

Considering the stakes, yes it is.

 

[Seawytch]

He shut down the government, at an estimate cost of over 6 billion dollars. Is that the art of the deal?

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

Considering the stakes, yes it is.

What stakes? And again, no it isn't. A "wall" is not the best way to secure our borders.

 

[Correll]

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

Considering the stakes, yes it is.

What stakes? And again, no it isn't. A "wall" is not the best way to secure our borders.

Oh, just the interests of our citizens, from their wages to their very lives, not to mention the damage to the nation as a whole.



And a "Wall" is a fine addition to securing our borders, which is why you libs are so against it.

 

[dannyboys]

Yes.

Give him the token he wants, and everything goes back to normal.

So that's the precedent you want to set? Every time a president doesn't get what they want they can just shut down the government until they do like a toddler with a cookie?

Or is this only okay with you when a Republican is in the Oval?

A. it's peanuts, give it to him.

B. there is no good reason to be strongly opposed to the Wall.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if that is really a precedent you're comfortable setting. Every time a president doesn't get what they want, it's okay with you for them to hold fed workers hostage and shut down the government?

Or is it only okay when a Republican is president?

There's plenty of reasons to oppose "the wall". hat it is ineffectual would be the primary reason. Money needs to be spent on border security, but a wall is not the best way to secure our borders.

Considering the stakes, yes it is.

What stakes? And again, no it isn't. A "wall" is not the best way to secure our borders.

I guess you never was CNN's Jim Acosta standing in front of a portion of the wall and declaring how there were not any illegals trying to climb over it........ASSHOLE!
A 'WALL' keeps out everyone Nancy and Hillary don't want living moving into their mansions and stealing their garbage cans.