But the 1976 law authorizes the spending.
Printable View
Swordshyll: X
Ron Paul: X is not true.
Swordshyll: X
Rand Paul: X is not true.
Swordshyll: X X X X X X
Keep repeating it until it's true like a propagandist XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Gee, I wonder why few of the regulars at ronpaulforums.com are buying that?
A bully who has no substance to what they say will simply outshout anyone who dares to disagree with them (or their Authoritairan Idol), almost always using the most emotionally imflamatory and divisive terms possible. Look at the average post count, and compare it to that of any legitimate Ron Paul supporter here. Then examine how well their empty rhetoric and tactics compare with Ron Paul's message of freedom bringing people together rather than dividing them, and following the golden rule. It doesn't take much to figure out what such people are really doing here, and it's shameful that the site owner and mods willfully condone this deliberate opposition to the site mission and conduct guidelines.
There is one way Rand could have voted with Trump...the fiscal angle, illegal immigration is costing America millions of dollars via various means, whether it be criminals being incarcerated or lack of taxes paid or a drain on health care. He could have said the long term fiscal savings would Trump the overreach of power, and we will let the SCOTUS deal with an overreach that happens from the DNC on something like guns or abortion.
I certainly don't believe that. What I thought was happening is that in the latest budget, Congress appropriated funds to the DoD and now Trump is saying he will use those funds for national defense at the border. I haven't looked into it all that deeply so I have a lot of ignorance here. If this is just spending DoD money in a way that Democrats don't want, I doubt they can stop him because I figure most money isn't appropriated at a very detailed level.
The Constitution? Come now, my friend. Surely you know by now that as far as many of the "constitutionalists" around here any more are concerned, the Constitution means precisely what it must in order to allow for their desired outcomes, nothing more, nothing less.
I am glad this presidency is hilarious though.
https://i.imgur.com/jO0WZig.png
You keep saying that. And I've repeatedly asked you to find that provision in that law, and you have never been able to. Have you found it yet?
If not, then please stop saying this as if you know it to be true, when in fact you have absolutely no reason to believe it.