tvc184

Maybe they would prefer unlawfuls.

Because millions of people aren’t crossing illegally. Would you pull thousands of agents off the southern border and send them to the Canadian border?

This bill would force the US to enforce their own law and detain illegal aliens who commit burglary (breaking and entering) and theft. The Democrat leader in the House said the Republicans were, “throwing together legislation that targets immigrants”. Immigrants? The Dems just laid their cards on the table and broadcast what try are trying to gain. People illegally enter the country and then commit a crime and the Democratic parties refers to them as immigrants, otherwise known as unregistered Democrats. Thirty-seven Democrats crossed the aisle and voted for this bill.

So where did Phelan’s $9 million come from, local donors? I can only find Covey with almost $1 million but I am still looking. I am assuming they some of these pages aren’t updated. You define radicals as anyone that you don’t agree with. I guess school choice is radical. It is certainly okay if you don’t like conservative politics but that doesn’t make them radicals. It only means that you lean left and don’t agree.

Feeling matter, results don’t…..

Is the failure (as noted by BS Wildcats) the person who has the constitutional right to complain or the legal body that issues a ruling that clearly is unconstitutional? In this case we have a 91 year old former Republican lawmaker who was butt hurt over January 6 and made the sole determination that it was unconstitutional for Trump to be on the ballot. Like you, she was likely blinded by her anyone but Trump hatred but that is a protected right. This supposedly famed Colorado (first woman state leader) Republican in the article that you posted said that the Founding Fathers contemplated a candidate like Trump. She knew he was ineligible to run again. (quoted from the article) “She knew!!!” The Founding Fathers?? This doddering old fool has apparently lost enough of her marbles that she forgot that the Fourteenth Amendment came out after the Civil War as a response to civil rights for Blacks almost 100 years after independence was declared and the Founding Fathers have long since left the Earth. With this brilliant insight into the Constitution and history, she solely made the determination that Trump was ineligible. Utterly brilliant!! Of course she still has enough beans rattling around in her brain to know that her absolute knowledge of the Constitution had to be upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. So who is the on the Colorado Supreme Court and how are they selected? A Colorado Supreme Court justice is selected by the governor of Colorado. So the only way to be appointed as a Colorado Supreme Court justice, the sitting governor has to make the appointment. They each later face a 10 year term for reelection by the public in a general election. All current Colorado Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democrats. Some? A majority perhaps? Nope, the entire Colorado Supreme Court was appointed by a Democrat governor. So again, who owns the failure? A person who complains like this old biddy that deemed herself as a constitutional scholar and out to (again from the article) save the Democracy or the duly constituted body who by law is supposed to make decision based on the US Constitution? Sorry but this falls squarely on the constitutional body who was selected by the Democratic governors. A body who a unanimous US Supreme Court slapped down because they collectively couldn’t understand this section from the Fourteenth Amendment: Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Again, it doesn’t say a state legislature, a state Supreme Court, a state attorney general, an old woman who thinks that the Founding Fathers were still around after the Civil War or anyone else other than Congress. BS Wildcats was 100% correct. It wasn’t an old Republican lawmaker who has the First Amendment constitutional right to free speech and also the First Amendment right to redress the government for grievances. It was the 100% Democratic Supreme Court of Colorado who could not understand a single sentence and in particular a single word, “Congress”.

Reading the decision, it should be very clear simply by reading the entire Fourteenth Amendment and not cherry picking sentences. In Section 3 the amendment says that no person shall be a federal official whether senator, representative, president, etc., if the person had taken an oath of office and then was involved in an insurrection or rebellion against the country. Nothing is defined however. What is an insurrection? What is a rebellion against the country? People come debate that topic all they want but as a Supreme Court today, pointed out, you have to read the entire amendment. The people with TDS simply stopped reading at the point that they liked. “Oh, an insurrection stops a candidate!!”. But let’s review Section 5. Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. So who can define what an insurrection is and who can be on a ballot? OH WAIT…. The actual amendment says that it is the authority of “Congress” with appropriate legislation, to enforce the provisions of the amendment. It doesn’t mention state Supreme Courts, state attorney generals or anything about a state whatsoever. So what has the US Congress passed since the ratification of the 14th Amendment that determines exactly what an insurrection is and who gets to make that decision? Here is the law on insurrection or rebellion. 18 United States Code 2383 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. So they passed a law that said, a person can be convicted of insurrection and defined what is an insurrection or rebellion. This seems like a ridiculously easy determination for the Supreme Court, simply by reading Section 5. Congress has the authority to enact a law to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, they have an enacted such a law that defines what the insurrection is including a conviction. Colorado or any other state simply needs to put forth evidence that Trump has been charged with and convicted of an insurrection.

I am assuming that there is no way this could ever happenbut one of the sub articles on the page you cited, has the LA Times saying that Schiff is a team player and willing to compromise. 🤣🤣🤣 HUH?

The sign might not be impressive but I bet it sure makes you want to come to Port Arthur now, right? Like: Geez, what have I been missing!!?

There was one article that I saw on another forum that said, Ketanji Brown Jackson sides with Trump. No, she sided with the Constitution. If anyone wants some entertainment, look at some of the news articles or videos of the left coming unhinged that the Supreme Court didn’t rule against the Constitution and then did so in unanimous fashion.

TDS yet again on display.

It clearly appears that everyone knew this was nonsense to begin with. Listening to some of the oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court, even the very liberal justices had a hard time accepting anything from Colorado. I think it was Kagan or Sotomayor who asked something like, if this is allowed, could other states then remove Biden from the ballot?

… and I still think that Trump is going to pick someone who is not being discussed.

The “love of country” won’t sway any votes. Her best feature is it for a middle-age woman, she is extremely attractive. She might be very likable to masculine type guys but most of them will be voting for Trump anyway so…… I am not against her in the least. Noem would probably be seen as very likable, maybe more than most people. She might be very popular in her home state of South Dakota, and that might even translate somewhat into North Dakota but both of those went Republican in 2020.

That is what I was referring to with Gabbard. It should not be a person that anyone thinks can truly be the next president if needed but the person who can win the election. It doesn’t always work that way as the candidates or their handlers don’t always seem to be the politically most intelligent. I think it’s because most of them do not live inside the real world. Like Ramaswamy, Lake would be a Trump clone except a female. I am not against that, but what was she bring to the table other than her sex? Nothing except a long shot at winning AZ.

Seriously, which president would pick a running mate in order to have someone play devil’s advocate? It was not the vp but look at the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential primary. That was a very lively primary to say the least with accusations going both ways. So who does he pick for Secretary of State (The most powerful position outside the president)? Hillary Clinton. Does she even do what she claimed that she would do or did she follow the directions of the president? Which presidential candidate would ever pick a vp running mate thinking, this person is going public and criticizing things that I do or will not follow the party as I dictate? I will make it easy ….. none.

A puppet for what? The veep has virtually no constitutional authority. We could say that every cabinet member is a puppet because the cabinet member has actual authority to do the bidding of the president in their particular field.

Mostly presidents choose who might swing a few votes. The Veep isn’t likely to lose votes but could potentially swing a close state. Presidential nominees aren’t exactly known for choosing a front runner or what the talking heads feel is a “likely” pick. It’s like Nixon choosing Gerald Ford (although in the middle of a presidency and not a primary), Ford choosing Dan Quayle, Mondale choosing Geraldine Ferraro, etc. Certainly there are outliers such as Ronald Reagan, choosing George Bush. So the biggest question will be, will Trump choose one of the claimed front runners such as Ramaswamy, Gabbard, Noem or Scott or will he go outside like with Pence? The odds seem to be in favor of a person who isn’t typically mentioned in the usual conversations. From a purely voting standpoint, it seems like Tulsi Gabbard would be the most likely choice or the choice most likely to swing any votes from the undecided or claimed swing voters In her favor for things that some people feel are important are: 1. Female and Pacific Islander. 2. Current member of the National Guard and with deployments overseas during the Iraq War and later in Kuwait. As a combat medic she earned a Combat Medic Badge which I believe is given by the Army for medics who have actually treated wounded soldiers while engaged with an enemy. 3. Like Ronald Reagan, she was a former Democrat, who realized the folly of that party. 4. She is very young and can get away from the old person stereotype that currently seems to be running politics. I don’t know that any of the other candidates can bring as much to the table that might entice a swing voter. I have seen people for example, push for Ramaswamy, saying that he is a rich businessman and outspoken, much like Trump. I like the guy however is he going to swing a middle of the road independent? If one of those people likes a person such as Trump, why not just vote for Trump? But I think Trump is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat …….

I haven’t lost anything. You make up nonsensical arguments that don’t exist. There are no rules on the chairman positions for the minority party. It is a tradition to throw the losers a bone. That tradition however can shut down an agenda because the committee chair controls the committee just like the Speaker controls the House. I have never said nor implied that the Speaker has no power. He has control over committee chairs and what comes up for a vote. Controlling what can be voted on is huge. It is the very reason that the democrats in the US Congress cannot pass a law right now without the consent of the Republicans because the Democrats don’t have the Speaker, who can shut down any bill on a whim. In effect, the Speaker has veto power just like the president or governor because the Speaker can usually stop a bill from being voted on. If it cannot be voted on, it cannot pass into law. And I don’t use the term rino.

What is it that this radical right wants done that Phelan is trying to stop?

I saw them a couple of times before I realized that that was the signs that people were talking about. 🤣

The Speaker cannot pass laws. The Speaker can control chair and co-chair positions and I believe deny any bill to come up for a vote. The Speaker cannot submit bills any different than any other member. The Speaker cannot give money to his district or declare an emergency. So what has Phelan done (since he was the rookie in 2021) that any other Republican would have done? Appoint committee chairman? Oh wait, when the Republicans had complete control, Phelan has appointed a total of 30 Democrats to committee chairman positions. Those committee chairmen can control what bills are allowed to be voted on in committee, thereby allowing them to come to the floor of the actual House of Representatives. The committee chairman are therefore in a fairly powerful position and Phelan gave a substantial percentage to Democrats. So, what has this Hall of Fame, multi-state champion head coach done that the theoretical rookie head coach will not do? Appoint more Democrats instead of from his own party? I am almost positive the claimed rookie head coach would not do worse. Your analogy is worse than weak, it is silly. If he wins election to the House again, so be it. If the Republicans again elect him as Speaker, then they get what they deserve. Hall of Fame? Multi-state champion? You’ve got to be kidding…. Again, I will ask, name what accomplishments that Phelan has done that another Republican would not have done in order to get conservative issues past? Oh yeah, his district isn’t Orange County only. It is most of Beaumont, all of Port Arthur, part of Nederland, most of Groves and Port Neches, Taylor’s Landing, Kirbyville, Jasper and so on.

I know it’s not his money but it makes you wonder why someone is spending about $10 million for a job that pays about $22,000 a year.

Emails, messages, flyers, television, radio…. and all daily. A former president endorsing one candidate and a former Texas governor endorsing the other (although there is a third). Locally the presidential elections don’t get this kind of coverage. I agree with TxHoops that the final money totals will be staggering.

How much are you charging Trump for rent?