Skip to comments.
VETO The Spending Bill President Trump!
My Head ^
| 2/14/19
| OneVike
Posted on 02/14/2019 7:12:15 PM PST by OneVike
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: LeeClementineKenny
He needs to veto it and force the establishment to override his veto. Then the blood is on their hands not his.
41
posted on
02/14/2019 9:48:47 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: b4me
No, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional when Republicans gave Clinton the line item veto power in the 90’s.
42
posted on
02/14/2019 9:50:23 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: OneVike
The longest shutdown in U S history wasn’t enough?
43
posted on
02/14/2019 9:59:03 PM PST
by
marajade
(Skywalker)
To: glenduh
Right now it looks like he will.
44
posted on
02/14/2019 9:59:18 PM PST
by
Coronal
To: OneVike
The bill passed both Houses with veto proof majorities. Trump can veto it if he wishes (though it looks like he’s going to sign), but there won’t be a shutdown.
45
posted on
02/14/2019 10:02:43 PM PST
by
Coronal
To: Coronal
not everyone who votes for a bill, will vote to override a veto
46
posted on
02/14/2019 10:08:45 PM PST
by
morphing libertarian
(Use Comey's Report; Indict Hillary now; build Kate's wall. --- Proud Smelly Walmart Deplorable)
To: morphing libertarian
In this case I would say if Trump were to veto even more congress people would vote in favor
47
posted on
02/14/2019 10:10:43 PM PST
by
marajade
(Skywalker)
To: plain talk
Ah, we are talking different uses of “lost”. I was leaning towards the perception thing and not that actual reality of votes, etc.
Sorry.
48
posted on
02/14/2019 10:11:16 PM PST
by
Fledermaus
(Republicans - As Usless As Democrats)
To: morphing libertarian
It passed 300-128 in the House and 83-16 in the Senate. Even if some votes are lost, it’s a pretty safe bet that there will be enough to override a veto.
49
posted on
02/14/2019 10:11:18 PM PST
by
Coronal
To: Fledermaus; plain talk
Trump did not lose. Don’t listen to the talking swamp heads. No he didn't(won't) we did(will).
50
posted on
02/14/2019 10:21:09 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: InterceptPoint
Tell me how that will work out in Trump’s favor? Well maybe he could build the wall with an overpass every mile, would that help?
51
posted on
02/14/2019 10:23:09 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: glenduh
52
posted on
02/14/2019 10:25:46 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: marajade
Obviously not. They are playing him for a fool. Trump is no fool, so he needs to veto it and put the ball back in their court.
53
posted on
02/14/2019 10:29:15 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: Windflier
President Trump won a big case in the Supreme Court just last summer. The court upheld the President's broad authority in all matters of immigration. Did they tell him about that broad authority he has? Just asking.
54
posted on
02/14/2019 10:29:49 PM PST
by
itsahoot
(Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
To: Coronal
Veto it and allow them yo override it. Then the blood is on their hands.
55
posted on
02/14/2019 10:30:00 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: marajade
We will not know unless he veto’s it
56
posted on
02/14/2019 10:30:45 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: glenduh
Am I reading this right? If PDJT signs this bill, DHS (border patrol) cannot stop anyone from entering... with or without a wall... if they are with a child?
Section 224(a) of the bill
“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 ( as defined in section 462 (g) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/hidden-amnesty-provision-border-security-deal/
This was being discussed. Seems bill makes it EASIER TO bring in children...Dear Lord
!
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details :(
57
posted on
02/14/2019 10:37:34 PM PST
by
Freedom56v2
(#KATE'SWALL Build it Now)
To: Windflier
How is that ruling helping him on the border?
It ain’t!
58
posted on
02/14/2019 10:37:35 PM PST
by
OneVike
(Just another Christian waiting to go home)
To: OneVike
Sarah Sanders said he’s going to sign it
59
posted on
02/14/2019 11:00:05 PM PST
by
marajade
(Skywalker)
To: OneVike
How is that ruling helping him on the border? It ain’t! Well, that may be, but the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear last June that the President has broad and sweeping powers over all matters of immigration.
It's up to each president to choose whether to use that power or not.
60
posted on
02/14/2019 11:06:51 PM PST
by
Windflier
(Pitchforks and torches ripen on the vine. Left too long, they become black rifles.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson