It's on now

[atlkvb]

Come on ATL,you know BETTER than that.. This is a full and complete troll trap. "Research" the 1974 omnibus law...The 45th told his "opponents". "Try on this really cool rope necklace that I bought on Amazon,look at the "pretty beads and glitter,doesn't it have a "nice fit"? Trap set..just in time for the mid terms,now for the (5:5) to fall....VERY,VERY SOON. The 45th played them BIG LEAGUE! The omnibus bill..
IS suggestions for the POTUS to act on..oh,he'll ACT right along..the "obstructionist" don't have a clue what they're in for!!! If he'd went along with their "budget",Congress could've told how and where to spend our money. With this bill,he OWNS THE MUTE BUTTON!

At first I didn't see that but in subsequent readings from posters and in doing a little more research I have come to understand the Omnibus Bill is simply an authorization for spending and not a direction for the Congress to spend in any particular way.

So you may be right Lenny. Trump probably did do the rope-a-dope on the Left and they just haven't figured it out yet

 

[lenny4wvu]

“Draining the swamp” must be interpreted as replacing ALL main stream republicans along with the communist/socialist left wing Democrats. Do NOT blame Trump for the failures to get ALL his agenda put into action. Blame lies with the Congress. Must run people supportive of what the President and party speak about. Otherwise those not really left wing will over react and still vote for the Dems and get more of what we had with Obama. yUK!!!!

17 Intel "agencies" w/. 4 Layers! What's there to hide from American citizens that Ovomit was so afraid we'd find out about?!!! Enquiring minds want to know... It's one thing to be a PEDO,ITS A WHOLE NOTHER "ANIMAL" TO EAT YOUR PREY.. DEMONICALLY ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING... I pray constantly that these monsters will pay,with the price of a guillotine!

 

[lenny4wvu]

At first I didn't see that but in subsequent readings from posters and in doing a little more research I have come to understand the Omnibus Bill is simply an authorization for spending and not a direction for the Congress to spend in any particular way.

So you may be right Lenny. Trump probably did do the rope-a-dope on the Left and they just haven't figured it out yet

It's just damn comical,how Piss-losi and Shit-mur think they've got the 45th in their "sights" anmd he flips the end of the barrel on them when they pull "the trigger" COMEDY GOLD!!!

 

[lenny4wvu]

This is the crap our government funds.

THIS NEED TO END...Y E S T E R D A Y!!!

 

[lenny4wvu]

View embedded media

I smell an "American Fabia" in our "midst"..took IT long enough to "resurface"...must be a "swamp thing"..

 

[lenny4wvu]

Finney didn't answer this.



Finney wouldn't admit to this.



Finney wouldn't answer this.



Finney didn't answer this.



Finney never honestly answered my questions directly.



Finney didn't admit to this either.



Finney proved my point by the way he didn't/couldn't/wouldn't answer these questions.

Thanks Finney kay:

Don't you know you're dealing with anderson pooper?

 

[Boomerwv]

At first I didn't see that but in subsequent readings from posters and in doing a little more research I have come to understand the Omnibus Bill is simply an authorization for spending and not a direction for the Congress to spend in any particular way.

So you may be right Lenny. Trump probably did do the rope-a-dope on the Left and they just haven't figured it out yet

The omnibusbspending bill is now a law, not a recommendation as a budget resolution would be. I wouldn't count on this. If a president tries to direct an ageny to spend less than what is in the law, he has to ask congressional permission and give reasoning. Since Congress passed this bill I would wager that they won be willing to change what is there. Nixon tries this and even if Trump did try it he would face immense legal, constitutional, and congressional hurdles.

Had Trump wanted to fight it, his veto was the only real tool he had.

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

Finney My Man you are just digging yourself deeper.

Iran Contra, Watergate, WMD...all were administration policy predicaments. Those weren't any hard positions held on the Right.

Abortion? Most Leftists will tell you they are personally opposed to it, but simply will not "impose" their morality onto others. Food stamps? They recruit folks to sign up for them and call Republicans who want to means test them evil people. I don't see anyone on the Left saying it's OK to take opioids, but most of them do favor elimination of Marijuana as an illegal substance.

As for the Center I thought that's where you stood? Why are you upset with them?

Nice try.

You keep spinning your stuff. I have given you my position. Like it, don't like it I don't care. You are almost an exact replica of the poster named WVPATX -- so close that you may be one and the same. Deflect , miscontrue, and falsely accuse others. So with that I will close this little word fest as of now and wish you ahappy life.

 

[atlkvb]

You keep spinning your stuff. I have given you my position. Like it, don't like it I don't care. You are almost an exact replica of the poster named WVPATX -- so close that you may be one and the same. Deflect , miscontrue, and falsely accuse others. So with that I will close this little word fest as of now and wish you ahappy life.

It was my distinct pleasure watching how adroitly you avoided defending what you actually believe while not actually stating what that is!

Maybe I can learn that from you one day? Might avoid me always being called horrible names like "racist" which I find hard to be since I'm Black

 

[atlkvb]

The omnibusbspending bill is now a law, not a recommendation as a budget resolution would be. I wouldn't count on this. If a president tries to direct an ageny to spend less than what is in the law, he has to ask congressional permission and give reasoning. Since Congress passed this bill I would wager that they won be willing to change what is there. Nixon tries this and even if Trump did try it he would face immense legal, constitutional, and congressional hurdles.

Had Trump wanted to fight it, his veto was the only real tool he had.

It's debatable. Omnibus means "everything" but it's not a directive like a mandate would be. Particularly on the discretionary side of the budget, that money is open for spending directives and doesn't even all have to be spent. It's simply been authorized.

Some say Trump would need permission from Congress to redirect those funds, but in the case of the Defense authorizations, Congress can't direct the President on how he chooses to run the Military. He's commander-in-chief, and he can direct resources to wherever he sees the need to protect National security.

The Wall could be one of those needs.

 

[Boomerwv]

It's debatable. Omnibus means "everything" but it's not a directive like a mandate would be. Particularly on the discretionary side of the budget, that money is open for spending directives and doesn't even all have to be spent. It's simply been authorized.

Some say Trump would need permission from Congress to redirect those funds, but in the case of the Defense authorizations, Congress can't direct the President on how he chooses to run the Military. He's commander-in-chief, and he can direct resources to wherever he sees the need to protect National security.

The Wall could be one of those needs.

I think that talk is more desperation and frustraition from the president than a legitimate path forward on it.

 

[atlkvb]

I think that talk is more desperation and frustraition from the president than a legitimate path forward on it.

We'll see. Even if he can't spend this authorization, his next budget for FY '19 is likely to include a request for it. Congress can vote that down too, but it's an election year, that budget request will be coming out around mid October and Trump won his Office in part by promising to build that Wall. Congressmen wanting to keep their jobs running in Trump supporting districts this Fall would be hard pressed to vote against that.

 

[Boomerwv]

We'll see. Even if he can't spend this authorization, his next budget for FY '19 is likely to include a request for it. Congress can vote that down too, but it's an election year, that budget request will be coming out around mid October and Trump won his Office in part by promising to build that Wall. Congressmen wanting to keep their jobs running in Trump supporting districts this Fall would be hard pressed to vote against that.

I don't think we will see any further spending bill before the midterms. This one was supposed to have been done my last October. We will get to the end of the fiscal year and live on CRs until at least the new Congress is assembled.

By the time fall is here, who are those deep red districts going to vote for other than the republican?

 

[Boomerwv]

Also, remember that these spending bills don't just say "the Pentagon gets $x to spend as they wish." Instead the monies are specifically assigned to individual programs and purposes. In other to take that money and spend it on anything else, the President would need to go back to congress and have it reprogrammed. Given nothing else other than Republicans have a majority in name only in the senate, and it could be filibustered, there is no chance to that happening.

Even if it could be done with a bare majority, it would only take two defections from the senate to kill it. Which of these senators do you feel comfortable would vote for it?

Graham
McCain
Collins
Murkowski
Flake
Corker
Bryant (Cochran's replacement)

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think we will see any further spending bill before the midterms. This one was supposed to have been done my last October. We will get to the end of the fiscal year and live on CRs until at least the new Congress is assembled.

By the time fall is here, who are those deep red districts going to vote for other than the republican?

Also, remember that these spending bills don't just say "the Pentagon gets $x to spend as they wish." Instead the monies are specifically assigned to individual programs and purposes. In other to take that money and spend it on anything else, the President would need to go back to congress and have it reprogrammed. Given nothing else other than Republicans have a majority in name only in the senate, and it could be filibustered, there is no chance to that happening.

Even if it could be done with a bare majority, it would only take two defections from the senate to kill it. Which of these senators do you feel comfortable would vote for it?

Graham
McCain
Collins
Murkowski
Flake
Corker
Bryant (Cochran's replacement)

Look how the Dems are already running in Trump leaning districts. That PA Congressional race...'Bama Senate...even Virginia. The Democrat candidates were touting fiscal restraint, strong Military, lower taxes, strict border enforcement and anti-establishment. Democrats are dumb when it comes to running Government, but they are very crafty when it comes to convincing voters.

By Law a budget has to be passed by October. Trump will have his requests out well before then. I find it almost impossible to believe he won't request more funding for the Wall. He's already said he won't sign another spending bill like that last one.

 

[Boomerwv]

Look how the Dems are already running in Trump leaning districts. That PA Congressional race...'Bama Senate...even Virginia. The Democrat candidates were touting fiscal restraint, strong Military, lower taxes, strict border enforcement and anti-establishment. Democrats are dumb when it comes to running Government, but they are very crafty when it comes to convincing voters.

By Law a budget has to be passed by October. Trump will have his requests out well before then. I find it almost impossible to believe he won't request more funding for the Wall. He's already said he won't sign another spending bill like that last one.

This hasn't been done in decades. By law the budget resolutions are supposed to be made by April 15th, or two weeks from now. After that 12 appropriations bills are supposed to be passed by Oct. 1. We haven't met this requirement since 1997, and in that time we have never passed more than 4 by the deadline. In recent years 0 has been the more common number. We end up passing CRs (continuing resolutions) to keep the government open and buy time while working on the appropriations. Eventually we end up passing an omnibus spending bill that just lumps together all of the separate appropriations that we couldn't do anything with that whole time. The bill that we passed last week was made up of the same appropriation bills that we couldn't pass by the deadline, which was last October.


So, again, I don't think we have any chance of seeing a spending bill before the midterms.

As far as saying he won't sign it, I think he will. He says lots of things he never follows though with. And even if he doesn't there are likely enough votes to override it anyway.

 

[atlkvb]

This hasn't been done in decades. By law the budget resolutions are supposed to be made by April 15th, or two weeks from now. After that 12 appropriations bills are supposed to be passed by Oct. 1. We haven't met this requirement since 1997, and in that time we have never passed more than 4 by the deadline. In recent years 0 has been the more common number. We end up passing CRs (continuing resolutions) to keep the government open and buy time while working on the appropriations. Eventually we end up passing an omnibus spending bill that just lumps together all of the separate appropriations that we couldn't do anything with that whole time. The bill that we passed last week was made up of the same appropriation bills that we couldn't pass by the deadline, which was last October.


So, again, I don't think we have any chance of seeing a spending bill before the midterms.

As far as saying he won't sign it, I think he will. He says lots of things he never follows though with. And even if he doesn't there are likely enough votes to override it anyway.

Everything you described here is true except it's an election year. Those clowns will say or do anything to keep their cushy jobs. If Manuchin gets a spending request to Congress by mid-summer as he claims he will do, and funding for a Wall is in there, how can those bozos vote against that while running for re-election on Trump's agenda?

I know the way business as usual has gone on in the past---but we are not in the past and Trump is not the usual politico. I think this upcoming election is going to be for the future of the country. Trump will offer a clear choice to Dems this fall and the smart ones will find a way not to oppose him.

If the Dems thought they could win by running against Trump, why aren't they trying that now in the races where has inserted himself? They're running against their own leadership trying to tell voters they still support Trump's agenda, even if they personally can't stand him!

 

[Boomerwv]

Everything you described here is true except it's an election year. Those clowns will say or do anything to keep their cushy jobs. If Manuchin gets a spending request to Congress by mid-summer as he claims he will do, and funding for a Wall is in there, how can those bozos vote against that while running for re-election on Trump's agenda?

I know the way business as usual has gone on in the past---but we are not in the past and Trump is not the usual politico. I think this upcoming election is going to be for the future of the country. Trump will offer a clear choice to Dems this fall and the smart ones will find a way not to oppose him.

If the Dems thought they could win by running against Trump, why aren't they trying that now in the races where has inserted himself? They're running against their own leadership trying to tell voters they still support Trump's agenda, even if they personally can't stand him!

There have been 10 election years in that time and they haven't made a difference.

Republicans cant pass a budget on their own because enough of the party will vote against it out of hand. They need democrats and they won't be interested in handing a wall to them.

Democrats are winning in districts where they usually don't even play. Just because the democrats there are centrists doesn't mean that isn't significant, don't be fooled. Trump personally stumped for the losers, and in PA the R was a quality candidate. I'm not sure Lamb even discussed the wall, he focused on unions. He certainly wasn't voicing support for it. In more competative districts the democrats are running against Trump and winning, see Virginia for evidence. We are seeing shifts of 15-20 points toward democrats in many special elections, even in those they lose. You also see record numbers of incumbent republicans retiring rather than facing the re-election.

Trump isn't special. He benefited from another historically weak candidate, squeeked by, and is at record lows for approval at this point in his term. Beyond that his coattails are short. He hasn't shown the ability to pull anyone to a win.

 

[atlkvb]

There have been 10 election years in that time and they haven't made a difference.

Republicans cant pass a budget on their own because enough of the party will vote against it out of hand. They need democrats and they won't be interested in handing a wall to them.

That wall will be built (is being built) and any pol who opppses it does so at their own risk.

Hillary did. Look what happened to her. Most Dems do. Who wants them?

 

[Boomerwv]

That wall will be built (is being built) and any pol who opppses it does so at their own risk.

Hillary did. Look what happened to her. Most Dems do. Who wants them?

Ok, we will just have to see.

 

[atlkvb]

Ok, we will just have to see.

That's all we can do. Trump is just another goofy Politician without his strong stance for that wall and against the Swamp. None of the other Republicans last year would take that on, he stood out as a result and who won the GOP primary?