Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just curious - on what ground can a city that is breaking federal law sue the federal government for federal funds?It won't happen, lawsuit will tie up the courts for years.
Obama wasn’t big on listening sessions; he preferred talking ones. He didn’t meet with the GOP’s Senate leadership, for instance, until his 542nd day in office. The irony is Obama’s party had such firm control of Congress back in 2009 and 2010 that it could ram through the immense bill with not a single Republican vote.
Inviting rivals to The White House to simply listen to their concerns.
I think the radical contingent of The Dem Party is in a panic, and feels like if Trump can get established and the public grows tired of The Dem Party "crying wolf" that their party is in serious trouble for the next election..
Has anyone even heard Gorsuch's name mentioned in weeks? Did he disappearInviting rivals to The White House to simply listen to their concerns.
I think the radical contingent of The Dem Party is in a panic, and feels like if Trump can get established and the public grows tired of The Dem Party "crying wolf" that their party is in serious trouble for the next election..
Trump invited red state senators to the white house to get their support for Gorsuch. Trump has NOT invited the democratic leadership
Playing 'Devil's Advocate'...since some funds currently going to cities are FEDERAL Funds, technically, I believe, the Federal Govt can withhold those funds as they see fit...at least and / when specifically a city is breaking federal law.That the funds being cut were not legislatively tied to their status, ie sanctuary city, or particular legal compliance. For an example, federal highway funds were tied to the state enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. They could be withheld in states like Montana who didn't enforce the federal speed limit. But highway funds couldn't be withheld because the state didn't follow EPA guidelines.
Has anyone even heard Gorsuch's name mentioned in weeks? Did he disappear
You are not an attorney, you do not know the intricate details of the law, so assume nothingPlaying 'Devil's Advocate'...since some funds currently going to cities are FEDERAL Funds, technically, I believe, the Federal Govt can withhold those funds as they see fit...at least and / when specifically a city is breaking federal law.That the funds being cut were not legislatively tied to their status, ie sanctuary city, or particular legal compliance. For an example, federal highway funds were tied to the state enforcing the 55 mph speed limit. They could be withheld in states like Montana who didn't enforce the federal speed limit. But highway funds couldn't be withheld because the state didn't follow EPA guidelines.
In the case of harboring illegals against Federal Law the case can easily be made that refusal to adhere to / enforce federal law has resulted in and is resulting in crimes and the loss of life of American citizens and resulted in numerous other crimes.
California, for example, is demanding that the Federal Govt HELP - financially support - breaking federal law. That is absurd. In a loose way that's like a child demanding a parent cough up money to support his pot habit.
I'm responding to the CBO misrepresentation of the bill confusing it with obummercare. kapeesh? The fact is there will be three separate bills to avoid needing the democrats. who don't care about their constituents and just wish to philibuster everything that might actually be an advantage for them. Again, the bill doesn't mandate coverage. And that is the piece they missed. oops. BTW, feel free to say I'm wrong on that mandate piece.Glad to see you are a health care expert without even reading the bill. You should meet the head of Health and human Services, Tom Price, he too liked the bill but admitted he hadn't read itwho cares, it ain't gonna be me. BTW, that is the nice thing about the bill out now, if all you want is catastrophic care, guess what, you can buy it, and that will pay for hospitalization.If you dont want insurance and dont buy insurance, who pays the hospital bills you cant afford?as I stated they miss interpreted the term access as obummer cares mandate. nope, access means if you don't want insurance, you don't have to buy insurance. They included those numbers in their figures which is wrong.Where exactly did the CBO get this wrong. I would like to hear your spinyep, they are, 40% fewer attempted to sneak into the country out of mehico. Hmmm, nothing actually in place yet accept enforcing laws on the books that have been neglected for years.
Choice in healthcare, and the CBO got it wrong, but who'd have thunk an organization like them would get that access doesn't mean no coverage. I love the cluelessness of such organizations run by the government. And why, in fact, I want less of them. By the way, that includes idol cabinet positions not yet filled. let the job titles die.
Playing 'Devil's Advocate'...since some funds currently going to cities are FEDERAL Funds, technically, I believe, the Federal Govt can withhold those funds as they see fit...at least and / when specifically a city is breaking federal law..
Another health care "expert" on displayI'm responding to the CBO misrepresentation of the bill confusing it with obummercare. kapeesh? The fact is there will be three separate bills to avoid needing the democrats. who don't care about their constituents and just wish to philibuster everything that might actually be an advantage for them. Again, the bill doesn't mandate coverage. And that is the piece they missed. oops. BTW, feel free to say I'm wrong on that mandate piece.Glad to see you are a health care expert without even reading the bill. You should meet the head of Health and human Services, Tom Price, he too liked the bill but admitted he hadn't read itwho cares, it ain't gonna be me. BTW, that is the nice thing about the bill out now, if all you want is catastrophic care, guess what, you can buy it, and that will pay for hospitalization.If you dont want insurance and dont buy insurance, who pays the hospital bills you cant afford?as I stated they miss interpreted the term access as obummer cares mandate. nope, access means if you don't want insurance, you don't have to buy insurance. They included those numbers in their figures which is wrong.Where exactly did the CBO get this wrong. I would like to hear your spin
You are not an attorney, you do not know the intricate details of the law, so assume nothing
You're comparing an entire city violating federal law to a divorce. umm, ia the ex-wife harboring illegals / criminals and using the money to support them? If so, the husband could easily turn her ass in and have her and the illegals arrested - her possibly jailed and them deported...and say good-bye to alimony. There's not a judge in this country that would order the husband to continue paying alimony so his wife could continue to BREAK THE LAW. (Ok maybe some liberal freak in the 9th Circuit Court would do it..)Playing 'Devil's Advocate'...since some funds currently going to cities are FEDERAL Funds, technically, I believe, the Federal Govt can withhold those funds as they see fit...at least and / when specifically a city is breaking federal law..
The federal government can't withhold funds any more than a divorced man can withhold child support or alimony because his ex violated a condition of their divorce.
Doomed DhimmisObama wasn’t big on listening sessions; he preferred talking ones. He didn’t meet with the GOP’s Senate leadership, for instance, until his 542nd day in office.
That sounds exactly like Trump. The article doesn't point out a meeting with a single Democrat. Typical partisan bullshit.
no, someone who thinks, listens and reads. you not so much I guess.Another health care "expert" on displayI'm responding to the CBO misrepresentation of the bill confusing it with obummercare. kapeesh? The fact is there will be three separate bills to avoid needing the democrats. who don't care about their constituents and just wish to philibuster everything that might actually be an advantage for them. Again, the bill doesn't mandate coverage. And that is the piece they missed. oops. BTW, feel free to say I'm wrong on that mandate piece.Glad to see you are a health care expert without even reading the bill. You should meet the head of Health and human Services, Tom Price, he too liked the bill but admitted he hadn't read itwho cares, it ain't gonna be me. BTW, that is the nice thing about the bill out now, if all you want is catastrophic care, guess what, you can buy it, and that will pay for hospitalization.If you dont want insurance and dont buy insurance, who pays the hospital bills you cant afford?as I stated they miss interpreted the term access as obummer cares mandate. nope, access means if you don't want insurance, you don't have to buy insurance. They included those numbers in their figures which is wrong.
The Melting Pot Has Had a MeltdownDo you deny the term was coined by a white supremacist? Do you deny that you are a nationalist? Do you deny that you are a populist? Do you deny that you oppose diversity?A term coined by a white supremacist, representing nationalist populism and a hatred of diversityTrump's on day 51. You think he'll make it to 542? I don't think so, since 2018 is looking to be a complete massacre of the alt-right.The article said Trump has SOME leadership styles different from Obama - not all evidently.
As the article states, Obama did not meet with Republicans until his 542nd day in office and spent the rest of his time in the WH by-passing them.
View attachment 116612
Says the fool who doesn't even know what the Alt-right is.
Thank you for proving me right. You are speaking of matters you are ill informed on.
Playing 'Devil's Advocate'...since some funds currently going to cities are FEDERAL Funds, technically, I believe, the Federal Govt can withhold those funds as they see fit...at least and / when specifically a city is breaking federal law..
The federal government can't withhold funds any more than a divorced man can withhold child support or alimony because his ex violated a condition of their divorce. If she refuses to grant visitation, he can't withhold child support. It's pretty much the same with federal law. Unless the funds came with stipulations, new restrictions can't be retroactively applied. Of course future funding may have such clauses, but current funding does not.
here, read something and educate yourself.Obama wasn’t big on listening sessions; he preferred talking ones. He didn’t meet with the GOP’s Senate leadership, for instance, until his 542nd day in office.
That sounds exactly like Trump. The article doesn't point out a meeting with a single Democrat. Typical partisan bullshit.
dude, it isn't hard to look it up. I know you wish it didn't happen, but here:Trump's on day 51. You think he'll make it to 542? I don't think so, since 2018 is looking to be a complete massacre of the alt-right.The article said Trump has SOME leadership styles different from Obama - not all evidently.That sounds exactly like Trump. The article doesn't point out a meeting with a single Democrat. Typical partisan bullshit.
As the article states, Obama did not meet with Republicans until his 542nd day in office and spent the rest of his time in the WH by-passing them.
View attachment 116612
The Dealmakers: Donald Trump Meets with Six Senate Democrats - Breitbart
"President Donald Trump met with a select group of Senate Democrats who appeared willing to work with the president, despite many of their colleagues doing everything possible to obstruct the president’s agenda.
White House aides described the meeting as a “listening session” on the Supreme Court, but as the press was allowed in to snap pictures of senators sitting with the president, it was clear that Trump would rely on them in the future to help him cut deals in the Senate."
