Active Now

Danilo_G
Shuhak
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » We ought not be SHOCKED at the petulant Putin puppet jeopardizing NATIONAL SECURITY by his hissy fit tantrum. He follows orders. Remember?
RosieG

We ought not be SHOCKED at the petulant Putin puppet jeopardizing NATIONAL SECURITY by his hissy fit tantrum. He follows orders. Remember?

He did an UNFORGIVABLE THING! He cancelled the use of a government plane that was scheduled to take MAJORITY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Nancy Pelosi (second in line to be president of the United States) to Afghanistan. NO ONE EVER TELLS ANYONE OF ANY PLANNED TRIPS TO A WAR ZONE. Except of course for the petulant Putin puppet who does all he can to undermine sabotage attack hobble cripple destroy the security of the United States of America. There is nothing more certain of his mindset and goals than that he should make very happy his mentor handler boss. No matter the cost . Make America Great Again my a**! An empty slogan. Too bad.

Posted - January 20, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 34982
    Hardball or childishness....she made the first move. 
      January 20, 2019 5:45 AM MST
    0

  • 17036
    Nope, Trump shut down government BEFORE the Dems took control of the House.
      January 20, 2019 5:47 AM MST
    3

  • 34982
    No, our pitiful Senate did not do their job and pass a proper budget. Glad some of those idiots are gone. 

    But in the battle recently Pelosi made the first move by disinviting President Trump for the SOTU. So her trip got canceled. Again they are both either being childish or playing hardball. But she made the first move against Trump. 

    Perhaps she took it anyway, she was photographed at the airport. 
      January 20, 2019 5:54 AM MST
    0

  • 19937
    She asked him to postpone his SOTU for security reasons.  She didn't say he couldn't give his speech.
      January 20, 2019 1:54 PM MST
    2

  • 34982
    As I explained she has not filed the Bill (which must be passed by both chambers of Congress) to allow the President to give his speech in the House chamber. And by asking for a postponement or it being in writing...shows does not plan to introduce that bill. Meaning she has not even officially invited him and does not plan to. 
    That was the first attack...childish or hardball. She made the first move against President Trump.
      January 20, 2019 2:36 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    I don't know what bill you're talking about.  The only requirement in the Consitution is:

    The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution:

    • The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” Article II, Section 3, Clause 1.

      It says nothing about an invitation, a bill, where the information is to be given or how so it does not have to be given publicly, does not have to be televised, does not have to be given in the House and can be written in crayon and given as a written report.
      January 20, 2019 3:37 PM MST
    1

  • 34982
    Then let me explain it since you don't know. 

    Though Pelosi (D-Calif.) invited Trump to give the annual address on Jan. 29, she had not pushed through the legislation necessary to make it happen. It’s not unusual for the speaker to wait until a few days before the speech to file what’s called a “concurrent resolution” that sets the day and time of the traditional speech. The measure must be passed by both chambers.

    If Pelosi doesn’t file the resolution, there will be no presidential address before Congress. In her letter, Pelosi suggested that Trump could send his speech in writing to Capitol Hill. She later said he could also deliver it to the American people from the Oval Office.

    So as I said she made the first attack by effectively not inviting or disinviting the President from delivering the SOTU in the House chamber. 
    Nowhere did I say it must be a speech or televised etc. But it has been done that way for at least the last 50yrs. (With a few exceptions who choose not to give a SOTU)
      January 20, 2019 6:29 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    With all due respect, would you please direct me to whatever leads you to believe that there has to be a bill signed inviting the president to give the SOTU in the House.  Thank you.
      January 20, 2019 11:50 PM MST
    1

  • 34982
      January 21, 2019 7:59 AM MST
    0

  • 19937
    At the risk of seeming to be nit-picking, there is a difference between a "concurrent resolution" and a "bill."  The concurrent resolution is pretty much the "invitation" to speak before Congress and a bill is something pertaining to a proposed law.

    EDIT:

    A concurrent resolution is a resolution adopted by both houses of a legislative assembly that does not require the signature of the chief executive and that does not have the force of law. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at January 21, 2019 8:38 AM MST
      January 21, 2019 8:37 AM MST
    0

  • 34982
    Semantics....whatever you call it Pelosi has not submitted to and does not sound like she plans to submit it. And it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.
      January 21, 2019 8:40 AM MST
    0

  • 19937
    No, it not semantics.  You responded before my EDIT.  

    "a resolution adopted by both houses of a legislative assembly that does not require the signature of the chief executive and that does not have the force of law."  

    In this case, the resolution is nothing more than the invitation while a bill has to be presented to the president and, if signed, has the force of law.  
      January 21, 2019 8:43 AM MST
    0

  • 34982
    I did misspeak, I should have said the legislation, not a bill. 
    But it still comes down to does Speaker Pelosi plan to introduce it or not. From her recent statements, it does not appear to be her intent.
      January 21, 2019 8:54 AM MST
    0

  • 7280
    You say:  "Meaning she has not even officially invited him and does not plan to."

    Internet article says: "On the evening of Jan. 3, just hours after she was elected speaker, Pelosi sent Trump a letter inviting him to address “a joint session of Congress” on Jan. 29."

    And: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she isn’t disinviting President Donald Trump from delivering his State of the Union address — the California Democrat insists she just wants him to come another time, once the partial government shutdown has ended."










      January 20, 2019 6:56 PM MST
    1

  • 34982
    Unless she files the legislation in the House officially setting the date and time for the joint session of Congress and it passes both House and Senate.....it is not a valid invite. If it is not passed the President cannot come and do the speech there.
      January 20, 2019 8:21 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    So, if it isn't a valid invite, her asking him to postpone his SOTU is not disinviting him.  
      January 21, 2019 10:31 AM MST
    0

  • 34982
    I agree but the term the media is using is disinvited. 
      January 21, 2019 11:43 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      January 21, 2019 2:40 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    :):):)
      January 20, 2019 6:55 AM MST
    1

  • The president is not required to deliver a state of the union in the House Chamber.That was only a matter of convenience until the inmates gained control of the asylum.He really shouldn't be required to spend time on something that no one has any interest in anyhow. Half of Congress sleeps through it. Most people don't watch it. Make 535 copies of the damn fool thing and send it to Capitol Hill, then if it must be a TV event(it doesn't), deliver it from the Oval Office. This advice is for all presidents. As a post script to this comedy of errors, if I was Nancy, the Wicked Witch of the West, I'd throw in the towel on the standoff. She has blindly and stupidly made a fool of herself with both the aircraft excursion AND the phony "security" issue. 
      January 20, 2019 3:44 PM MST
    0

  • It is a sensible decision to make Trump wait till the shutdown is over. Security would be a problem if he gives his address as usual.  Its not fair to make his security work without pay so he can make his speech.  We pretty much know the state of the union already! lol
      January 20, 2019 3:46 PM MST
    3

  • 34982
    Homeland Security and Secret Service say security is not a problem.
      January 20, 2019 6:30 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Imagine my relief in knowing that is an objective reality and not simply wishful thinking.
      January 20, 2019 6:41 PM MST
    3

  • 34982
    Glad to put your mind at ease.
      January 20, 2019 8:22 PM MST
    0