Another Trump Victory!

[hislegacy]

How exactly did the "party of no" fight it? Donald's travel bans have been fought in the courts, not the legislature.

Or is The Law now the party of no?

The Presidents travel ban was brought to the courts because members of the party of no objected and sued. And then the party of no lost because the Supreme Court said it was in the Presidents right to enact the travel ban.

Something that the members of the party of no spent millions fighting in court.

Did I mention that the court sided with the President?

And that is exactly how they attempted to resist.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why would they listen to me? According to you, they're the "party of no."

Yes, "they" are. I didn't say you were. But thanks for letting us know which side of the political spectrum you belong to. I had no idea.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The court isn't the law. It's simply where 2 sides are presented, and then someone interprets the law and applies it to that situation.

But they're still not the "party of no" -- although Donald certainly has reason to oppose them.

 

[Aldebaran]

But they're still not the "party of no" --

They're not? How many times have they unanimously voted "No" when an issue is being voted on so far since the last presidential election (that they were so roundly defeated in)?

although Donald certainly has reason to oppose them.

Tell me about it!
If the people of this country knows what's good for it, they'd all oppose them.

 

[hislegacy]

But they're still not the "party of no" -- although Donald certainly has reason to oppose them.

They absolutely are the party of no. They are fighting everything and say no to everything. You know, RESIST

 

[Aldebaran]

Party of no:

How Every Member Voted on the House Tax Bill

$1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Passed by House in Mostly Party-Line Vote

Republicans fail to pass a 'skinny' Obamacare repeal bill

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Presidents travel ban was brought to the courts because members of the party of no objected and sued. And then the party of no lost because the Supreme Court said it was in the Presidents right to enact the travel ban.

Something that the members of the party of no spent millions fighting in court.

Did I mention that the court sided with the President?

Did you mention that the Supreme Court only dismissed the case against the March travel ban?

Did you mention that the reason the Court dismissed the case is not on its merits, but instead that the March ban would've expired anyway by now, making the case moot?

Did you mention that the Court's decision is only temporary until they hear the full appeals for the September ban?

Seems like a lot you didn't mention.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They're not? How many times have they unanimously voted "No" when an issue is being voted on so far since the last presidential election (that they were so roundly defeated in)?

I was referring to the federal courts -- the ones that actually stopped the ban.

(True, SCOTUS has allowed it to go forward, but only until they hear the case)

Tell me about it!
If the people of this country knows what's good for it, they'd all oppose them.

Again, I was referring to the judiciary -- although I suppose that wouldn't change your answer.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Party of no:

How Every Member Voted on the House Tax Bill

$1.5 Trillion Tax Cut Passed by House in Mostly Party-Line Vote

Republicans fail to pass a 'skinny' Obamacare repeal bill

Once again, I was originally referring to the judiciary, which is the force which actually stopped the travel ban.

And none of your sources make reference to state governments, which are the ones who originally brought the bans to court in the first place.

But by all means, enjoy your name-calling. Donald be Praised.

 

[Aldebaran]

Once again, I was originally referring to the judiciary, which is the force which actually stopped the travel ban.

And none of your sources make reference to state governments, which are the ones who originally brought the bans to court in the first place.

But by all means, enjoy your name-calling. Donald be Praised.

And I was referring to the "party of no", who votes "NO" whenever something comes up that the president might actually be able to fulfill a promise with if the opposition party wasn't putting up roadblocks. The 3 links I showed you are just a few examples of when they have done this.

If the dems really want progress to happen, then they need to get out of the way rather than complain that the president hasn't kept certain campaign promises.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And I was referring to the "party of no", who votes "NO" whenever something comes up that the president might actually be able to fulfill a promise with if the opposition party wasn't putting up roadblocks. The 3 links I showed you are just a few examples of when they have done this.

Noting that the first two links are in reference to the same event, which means two times where the Democratic party determined that a proposed bill was not in the best interests of the country. Of course, there have been others, but let's focus on these for now.

Now, the Obamacare repeal, lacking anything substantial to replace it with, is a no-brainer, whereas the tax bill has been argued substantially, and I've yet to see anything that shows it actually supports the middle class that its proponents claim to be helping. Sure, it gives them a temporary tax cut, but it then permanently removes deductions which more than erase any bonus.

Can't really blame a party for not liking something unlikable.