First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017 Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the "ban" case and now the "sanctuary" case is brought in ...
[one of the previous inhabitants of the Co-op I lived in suggested to a hearing-impaired young man he befriended that telling a girl that you have abalone in your room was a no miss pick-up line]
And then the White House complained about how a single unelected judge could "make law" across the entire country, pretending that this wasn't triggered by a single President who lost the popular vote by a wide margin.
Trump should go back to the miss universe thing where he could get the girls to put out for whatever his tiny hands could grab, and the judges would grovel and do what he says -
a) no, they were just denying funding for crime victims assistance, rehabilitation programs, indigent defense, body cameras, etc. that's nice.
b) California is still a giver state which means they pay more in federal taxes than they receive. what they're talking about with "how much we spend on CA" is anyone's guess.
c) so the definition of "sanctuary city" has been hiding in Jefferson BS's magic hate balls this whole time? that's nice. bless his heart.
d) they do receive partial reimbursement for honoring detainers. it's called SCAAP funding, but it was lowered to 15% reimbursement from it's gentle slide from 100% funding previously (they didn't raise it over the years to account for inflation). in FY2015, the program was appropriated $165.3 million for SCAAP and if they had been providing full reimbursement, it would have been $1.08 billion. and who was holding the purse strings when those slashes were inflicted on the program? the GOP. though, to be fair, Bamz was talking about eliminating it entirely because he didn't like the idea of locking people up for traffic tickets. http://www.houstonchronicle...
e) there are some federal court directives to PORT cities (don't forget the El Pasos of this world) which prohibit their law enforcement from engaging in 287(g) programs. I didn't find anything in the court documents about what a shitty position this EO had put those cities in in the ruling. but it's worth noting.
For serious, now, whenever I hear reporting that Trump is talking 'tough', I already know before they even get to the actual quote that there's a big, limp, whiny whinge a-comin', full of boo hoo baw 'very unfair', 'mean to me', and so on...
Only thing I can't work out is if maybe the reporters are being sarcastic? Otherwise, this is a usage of 'tough' with which I was previously unfamiliar.
Splain me this, Wonkers.Can Ca threaten to withhold their contributions to US America if Donnie-boy threatens to withhold his?(Sorry if this is answered in the post. I'm terribly confuzzled.)
[one of the previous inhabitants of the Co-op I lived in suggested to a hearing-impaired young man he befriended that telling a girl that you have abalone in your room was a no miss pick-up line]
she wants him to know what he can't have anymore
"blood of dead Americans, sex trafficking, innocent lives"Spicey hit the trifecta there with bombast.
Sea otter furs. Fort Ross was the collection depot.
It is ridiculously expensive. Even in Portland, which used to be the affordable west coast city. :(
And then the White House complained about how a single unelected judge could "make law" across the entire country, pretending that this wasn't triggered by a single President who lost the popular vote by a wide margin.
Trump should go back to the miss universe thing where he could get the girls to put out for whatever his tiny hands could grab, and the judges would grovel and do what he says -
a) no, they were just denying funding for crime victims assistance, rehabilitation programs, indigent defense, body cameras, etc. that's nice.
b) California is still a giver state which means they pay more in federal taxes than they receive. what they're talking about with "how much we spend on CA" is anyone's guess.
c) so the definition of "sanctuary city" has been hiding in Jefferson BS's magic hate balls this whole time? that's nice. bless his heart.
d) they do receive partial reimbursement for honoring detainers. it's called SCAAP funding, but it was lowered to 15% reimbursement from it's gentle slide from 100% funding previously (they didn't raise it over the years to account for inflation). in FY2015, the program was appropriated $165.3 million for SCAAP and if they had been providing full reimbursement, it would have been $1.08 billion. and who was holding the purse strings when those slashes were inflicted on the program? the GOP. though, to be fair, Bamz was talking about eliminating it entirely because he didn't like the idea of locking people up for traffic tickets. http://www.houstonchronicle...
e) there are some federal court directives to PORT cities (don't forget the El Pasos of this world) which prohibit their law enforcement from engaging in 287(g) programs. I didn't find anything in the court documents about what a shitty position this EO had put those cities in in the ruling. but it's worth noting.
$5Fem you are the best at law-splaining.
Grand malfeasance or petit malfeasance?
I'm confused. Is she the illeaGAL?
This.
For serious, now, whenever I hear reporting that Trump is talking 'tough', I already know before they even get to the actual quote that there's a big, limp, whiny whinge a-comin', full of boo hoo baw 'very unfair', 'mean to me', and so on...
Only thing I can't work out is if maybe the reporters are being sarcastic? Otherwise, this is a usage of 'tough' with which I was previously unfamiliar.
I think this one was a Messican ban.
Love Lyin' Spice's rhetoric there. You'd think the North Koreans had landed in San Francisco and were slaughtering their way towards Nevada.
Don't get too hopeful, but this does help quiet the worst of today's stomach tremors.
Splain me this, Wonkers.Can Ca threaten to withhold their contributions to US America if Donnie-boy threatens to withhold his?(Sorry if this is answered in the post. I'm terribly confuzzled.)