"In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: FACECRIME, it was called." ~ George Orwell, 1984
Do things...to what? She's got bewbs and a pretty face, but where's the rest of her? Might slice your groin open on those protruding hip bones.
Really, it was the total package that sold this soap. A perfect storm of things to unleash the hounds; not unlike like a fat, cowardly white lady calling the cops on little black kids for selling water. My hottest take from this is... why the fuck are you sending children to a anti-abortion rally when you’re in DC? The Smithsonian along with dozens of other far educational things are just down the street and instead we get to watch church-sponsored MK Ultra in action.
Spoiler So Trump is deliberately not taking the hint and wants to force a showdown with Pelosi over the SOTU. Officially he needs a joint session of Congress, which requires the assent of both houses which he will not get. If he attempts to show up anyway the Sergeant at Arms could bar him from the chamber. However this goes the optics will be quite interesting.
Yeah, but don't you guys think it's kind of stupid they keep calling the wall "immoral" when they fucking voted for a wall last time they tried to pass immigration reform? If the republicans weren't so worthless they would have passed something when they controlled both houses, but the democrats sitting there calling anyone who wants border security racist is some seriously cringe worthy shit. Grow the fuck up already. And yes, I'm asking the democrats to grow up because we know Trump never will.
We don't need Trump to grow up, we need the Senate Republicans to grow up. They can pass the House's bill (which is essentially the same one the Senate passed by voice vote in December) and then even if Trump vetoes it, they can just override the veto. The Republicans are keeping the government shutdown because they don't want to override their own party's president, not because of any interest in what's best for the country.
But the republican congressman can't do anything. Like, at all. That's the one thing I will give Trump credit for by comparison. Say what you will about Trump, at least he tries to do things. The republican congressmen are just beached whales, lying around waiting for him to squeeze their pussy.
I didn't see Pelosi's letter to Trump. What were her security concerns? I don't think he would "show up anyway" at the chamber - isn't that what he's implying by the "on location" comment? Like, he'll just give the speech somewhere else? Doesn't the President (not just this one) want to lay out his plans, congratulate himself on previous success, pause for applause, and recognize people in the audience to use for the first two? He could just accept the invitations to speak in some of the State houses and get all that.
Honestly her security concerns were a bit of a cover. They're not totally invalid; the SOTU is the juiciest target imaginable (both houses of Congress, the President, Vice President, and members of the Supreme Court all in one room) and with the Department of Homeland Security operating at below full capacity there's no sense taking the risk. Mostly it's a political move though, with her using her right as Speaker of the House to deny Trump an opportunity to lie to Congress about the shutdown and the wall in front of a national audience. He can make a speech elsewhere, or deliver the SOTU in writing, but the House of Representatives is Pelosi's house and she gets to decide who is invited to speak before it.
I mean they certainly can, but I guess I agree with the assessment that they're spineless and won't. Although I would expect them to cave before Trump does, given that he's fighting for his political life right now.
Bolded that part because people keep using this phrase interchangeably. It’s not the same thing and everyone knows it. The objection is for the wall specifically and not for security in general. People keep painting a false picture of what the dems are saying. But it’s more fun to falsely attribute the other side’s message. Also, the gop lost the midterms. They don’t get to just impose their will on people anymore. The gop has pretty much done whatever the fuck they want for the last 2 years because they had no one to check them except for the courts. This marks the first major point in Trump’s presidency where they might have to break with him and I don’t think they are prepared to do so. At least McConnell isn’t. In addition, the bills being presented to the senate are ones they already voted unanimously for before the new congress got sat. Suddenly, they don’t want it anymore?
So if the wall is so bad why did EVERY democrat senator vote for one in 2013? Should we call it a "robust fence" instead if you find such distinctions meaningful? There might be a deal somewhere in all this, but not with the way the two sides are acting.
Trump made it clear throughout his campaign that the wall would be a 30 foot monstrosity that went from coast to coast, which is an unprecedented proposal. The Democrats have at times supported (and I believe still support) targeted fencing in specific locations such as around ports of entry.
The last bill had something like 600 miles of "fence". It's essentially the same damn thing. Trump just wants more of it. So calling it immoral as a concept is stupid. That's my point.
At this point he’s willing to take 5 billion for a chained link fence. Problem with border security funding is that its promised and then never really acted upon. Happened with Regans amnesty. Promised beefed up boarder enforcement but was eventually scuttled in Congress. I don’t fault him that he wants something tangible however ridiculous his campaign promises were. I’d take 1 billion for drones if he could also make deep changes to immigration reform. His outline for that was already a non starter for democrats. They really don’t want to see anything done since Hispanics are homogeneous voters for them.