It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump to Fox News: I may defund California as 'a weapon' to fight illegal immigration

page: 10
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Forgetful, or redundant.
Why reiterate the threat contained in the EO? Why not simply act on it like he did with the "protection" EO? Is he not as confident of the legality?

Read The Art of the Deal, all will be revealed.




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If the local and states police aren't enforcing federal immigration laws and they receive federal funding, couldn't that funding be halted?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: PlasticWizard

Is there a law which ties funding to local enforcement of federal immigration law? I think someone else asked if there is a law which ties funding to local enforcement of federal drug (marijuana) laws.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah

Got it. Just punish the people who live in sanctuary cities.


It's interesting that you are so worried about the people in these cities, but you were not so worried about how children would be affected when you supported Obama cutting federal funding of schools for not following his bathroom gender rules.


originally posted by: Phage
...
Yeah, well. Title IX is a law, afterall. A law that says federal funding cannot be given to states which discriminate based on gender. A law that has been in effect for more than 40 years.


I think that immigration laws are much more important that who uses which bathroom.
But you supported removing federal funding to schools over bathrooms?





Well done!

Notice how phage is indicting Trumps proposal on moral grounds, insinuating its an unjust punishment of people in Sanctuary cities, and also on practical grounds, saying that defunding law enforcement because of just one part of there job would be counter productive.

Yet when the fact is brought up that he did not make those objections when Obama suggested removing funding to schools over the bathroom issue, he made no such objections.

When he is called out on this, he immediately switches to an argument of legality.

I may be detecting a hint of bias.
edit on 5-2-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

how is trying to make public officials and law enforcemnt follow the laws they are paid by all U.S. tax paying citizens to follow insane? how is trying to protect this country from being invaded by ILLEGALS insane?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The scope of the effects of Title IX is limited. The scope of the effects of Trump's EO is not.

In addition to the legal mandate of Title IX.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

The scope of the effects of Title IX is limited. The scope of the effects of Trump's EO is not.

In addition to the legal mandate of Title IX.



I will admit I have not looked into the legality of either Trump or Obamas threats.

My point is just you seemed to have moral and practical oppositions to Trumps withholding funds over one issue, but didn't have those with Obamas.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

I may be detecting a hint of bias.


Picking a political affiliation would, by its very nature, lead to some sort of bias. Do you claim to be free of it?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I find this very ironic considering the fact that Donald is the same man who had to run to daddy and other real billionaires to be bailed out when his bad decisions failed him. I also love how his supporters believe him to be this man beholden to the law when through out his life, he has constant tip-toed on that fine line of law and illegality.


edit on 5-2-2017 by FelisOrion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
I find this very ironic considering the fact that Donald is the same man who had to run to daddy and other real billionaires to be bailed out when his bad decisions failed him.

I see no connection there.
This is a matter of national security.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I hope you keep using that excuse when foreign nations isolate themselves from Us, and form new trade and political alliances.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: D8Tee

I hope you keep using that excuse when foreign nations isolate themselves from Us, and form new trade and political alliances.

That is a more valid concern, thank you.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
I find this very ironic considering the fact that Donald is the same man who had to run to daddy and other real billionaires to be bailed out when his bad decisions failed him. I also love how his supporters believe him to be this man beholden to the law when through out his life, he has constant tip-toed on that fine line of law and illegality.



I'm with you.

I don't get it.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: Grambler

I may be detecting a hint of bias.


Picking a political affiliation would, by its very nature, lead to some sort of bias. Do you claim to be free of it?


No I have bias too, I admit.

Its just that my side is always right!

But all joking aside sure we all have biases. But that's why discussions with people of all ideologies are good, they can point out when you are being hypocritical by being biased.

So I was just pointing it out. No hard feelings or anything.

And if you see me make arguments that are hypocritical because of my bias, I hpe that you will point it out to me.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You tell me man, I'm just asking the questions. Didn't see it covered in the thread. Hopefully someone chimes in that knows if there is a law that ties funding to local law enforcement to federal immigration laws.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


But all joking aside sure we all have biases. But that's why discussions with people of all ideologies are good, they can point out when you are being hypocritical by being biased.

So I was just pointing it out. No hard feelings or anything.

And if you see me make arguments that are hypocritical because of my bias, I hpe that you will point it out to me.


Great response.
Carry on then. And feel free to point out mine (kindly, if you will) when it rears its ugly head!
edit on 6-2-2017 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
California forks over $400 billion in taxes to the federal government.

California is also one of the VERY few states called Donor States, meaning they pay more in fed taxes than they get back in fed money.

Methinks Trump didn't think this one through. California holds the leash here. Trump can't withhold what they don't give up in the first place, and they contribute a massive amount of money. Not arguing the sanctuary stuff -- just pointing out California can have him bent over with a whip in hand (withheld fed taxes) easily.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah


California forks over $400 billion in taxes to the federal government.


Source?



just pointing out California can have him bent over with a whip in hand (withheld fed taxes) easily.

No
edit on 6-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I live in Los Angeles and I am absolutely against our mayor declaring us a sanctuary city and blowing off Trump's warning to stop federal funds.

If someone wants to allow the law to be broken, that is their prerogative but don't risk and gamble with money law-abiding citizens are depending on. I need our damn subway system to be finished and construction is only going forward thanks to 2 billion in matching federal funds.

And when we win the 2024 Olympics, it would be nice to actually recieve Federal backing unlike the '32 and '84 Games which was paid for by citizens & local companies entirely because Washington simply wasn't interested both times. Trump has already said he would love to back the games if we get them.
edit on 01/22/2007 by Ripper777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 01/22/2007 by Ripper777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




The 10 states receiving the most in federal aid as a percentage of their general revenue, in order, were:

1. Mississippi, 42.9% federal aid as percentage of general revenue
2. Louisiana, 41.9%
3. Tennessee, 39.5%
4. South Dakota, 39.0%
5. Missouri, 38.2%
6. Montana, 37.4%
7. Georgia, 37.3%
8. New Mexico, 36.6%
9. Alabama, 36.1%
10. Maine, 35.3%

At the other end, the 10 states receiving the least in federal aid as a percentage of their general revenues were:

40. Illinois, 25.9%
41. New Jersey, 25.5%
42. California, 25.0%
43. Nevada, 25.0%
44. Kansas, 24.9%
45. Delaware, 24.8%
46. Connecticut, 23.4%
47. Virginia, 22.9%
48. Alaska, 22.4%
49. Hawaii, 21.5%
50. North Dakota, 19.0%

www.cnsnews.com...



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join