Foreign junkets on hold until politicians work out their differences

[Mycroft]

Seems one foreign junket went through, eh?

Trump Ally Lindsey Graham Shows Up In Turkey On Friday After Trump Cancels Nancy Pelosi Trip To Visit Troops

Even if we disregard the blatant, deliberate lie in that inquisitr article..."came the day after Pelosi postponed Trump’s annual State of the Union address due to the government shutdown"...it doesn't seem to enter the Trump hating mind that Graham very well could be meeting with the Turkish President FOR Trump for the purpose of advancing Trump's foreign relations agenda. This is a valid use of government resources.

Nancy's 7 day party plane trip with her Dem buddies isn't.

Here is a list of booze Nancy had the taxpayer stock for a previous party plane trip:

Purchases for one Pelosi-led CODEL on May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin...

https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1086093310706487296

 

[Airyaman]

Even if we disregard the blatant, deliberate lie in that inquisitr article..."came the day after Pelosi postponed Trump’s annual State of the Union address due to the government shutdown"...it doesn't seem to enter the Trump hating mind that Graham very well could be meeting with the Turkish President FOR Trump for the purpose of advancing Trump's foreign relations agenda. This is a valid use of government resources.

Nancy's 7 day party plane trip with her Dem buddies isn't.

Can any of what you say be supported by evidence?

Furthermore, why would a Senator be doing the bidding of the president?

 

[dcsports]

Horse pucky - the House passed the same exact bill the GOP house did - Mitch #WheresMitch wouldn't put it to a vote.

Can you restate that? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Mycroft]

Can any of what you say be supported by evidence?

Furthermore, why would a Senator be doing the bidding of the president?

Well, you can start by reading the letter that Pelosi sent to Trump. Nowhere in that letter did Pelosi postpone Trump's SOTU. Since these are the facts...since everyone has access to that letter...the only way Inquisitr could say what they say is by deliberately lying.

Many Senators and Congressmen do things for a sitting President. Heck, McCain did stuff for Obama...and they were in different Parties. This isn't unusual at all.

Of course, you could ask why Graham would do the bidding of Trump. That would be a valid question. Perhaps some reporter will ask him when he gets back.

 

[dcsports]

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2019

Check out all of the bills that the House has passed. Then check out how many the Senate has done anything with.

Generally speaking, the senate is where bills go to die. Senate democrats have been particularly obstructionist. Note that many of those shown in that source are from last year.

In this case though, Pelosi has put herself in the driver's seat. We're talking about specific legislation. Unless democrats start to fracture, the two constraints are her and Trump.

 

[jdog21]

Why would I say anything about that? That is the bill that had the $5B for the wall. I've already said I'm against giving $5B for the wall.

Makes you a hypocrite. You don't blame democrats when they refuse to vote a bill and shuts down the government, then you blame republicans for refusing to vote on a bill that would open government. So any comments you have on the topic we should all ignore because you have no moral standards.

 

[Peter King]

Trump shut down Pelosi's planned all expense paid overseas junket to Brussels and Afghanistan due to the shutdown. The government shutdown just keeps on yielding cost saving results. These savings are not hurting America.

Junkets cost money. Big money. Taxpayer money. Politicians sometimes seem to not feel the pain taxpayers experience when forced to fork over that money. The Guardian ran an article on Obama's travel in 2011, entitled

Barack Obama's European baggage: the full kit and caboodle https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/23/barack-obamas-european-baggage-kit

Any foreign tour by a US president brings with it hundreds of people and tonnes of equipment. ...

Packing for a foreign trip is tricky enough at the best of times. So pity those planning Barack Obama's week-long European jaunt, a visit involving an entourage of anything up to 1,500 people and numerous tonnes of vehicles and equipment.

except it was no junket, it was a trip to the troops and generals, you know doing their job as congresspeople. And Obama was way cheaper as a president than the Orange Oaf and his wife.

 

[Airyaman]

Well, you can start by reading the letter that Pelosi sent to Trump. Nowhere in that letter did Pelosi postpone Trump's SOTU. Since these are the facts...since everyone has access to that letter...the only way Inquisitr could say what they say is by deliberately lying.

She effectively postponed the speech, if he wanted to give it in the normal venue. Obviously, he is free to give it elsewhere or submit it in writing, but she was not going to allow him access to the House chamber to give it. So not a "blatant lie" but not theoretically 100% correct either.

Many Senators and Congressmen do things for a sitting President. Heck, McCain did stuff for Obama...and they were in different Parties. This isn't unusual at all. <snip>

So just winging it and taking a guess then?

 

[Airyaman]

Makes you a hypocrite. You don't blame democrats when they refuse to vote a bill and shuts down the government, then you blame republicans for refusing to vote on a bill that would open government. So any comments you have on the topic we should all ignore because you have no moral standards.

Um...how does this make me a hypocrite? The Senate already passed a bill 100-0 with $1.6B for the wall. The House -- under different leadership than now -- added more money for the wall. The Senate's bill gave Trump what he asked for in his budget. The House added money that Trump never asked for, and then Limbaugh and Ann Coulter browbeat Trump so he would not fold.

If anyone is to blame, it was the House under Paul Ryan for adding the additional funding that was not requested in Trump's budget proposal.

 

[Airyaman]

Um...how does this make me a hypocrite? The Senate already passed a bill 100-0 with $1.6B for the wall. The House -- under different leadership than now -- added more money for the wall. The Senate's bill gave Trump what he asked for in his budget. The House added money that Trump never asked for, and then Limbaugh and Ann Coulter browbeat Trump so he would not fold.

If anyone is to blame, it was the House under Paul Ryan for adding the additional funding that was not requested in Trump's budget proposal.

Correction: in trying to figure out the timeline in this, it appears Trump is to blame first. He was the one to demand at least $5B, and the House simply reacted to his demand. Not sure where the $5B originated from since he only asked for $1.6B in his own proposed budget.

 

[Mycroft]

She effectively postponed the speech, if he wanted to give it in the normal venue. Obviously, he is free to give it elsewhere or submit it in writing, but she was not going to allow him access to the House chamber to give it. So not a "blatant lie" but not theoretically 100% correct either.

Nonsense. She presented nothing to state nor imply that she was not going to allow him access to the House chamber. So yes...it was a blatant lie.

The best excuse you can make is that Inquisitr believed that all the spin and speculation equaled fact. A lot of people think that way...even though it is totally wrong.

So just winging it and taking a guess then?

Nope. Just stating facts.

 

[Airyaman]

Nonsense. She presented nothing to state nor imply that she was not going to allow him access to the House chamber. So yes...it was a blatant lie.

The best excuse you can make is that Inquisitr believed that all the spin and speculation equaled fact. A lot of people think that way...even though it is totally wrong.



Nope. Just stating facts.

End of letter:

Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.

Without her consent, Trump cannot deliver the SOTU in the House chamber.

Just stating the facts.

 

[Parrish]

Sen. Graham is in Turkey. Did he fly commercial?

 

[Mycroft]

End of letter:

Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.

Without her consent, Trump cannot deliver the SOTU in the House chamber.

Just stating the facts.

At the time she wrote that letter, she had already formally invited Trump to speak in the House Chamber. This later letter did not rescind that invitation.

January 3, 2018

The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Constitution established the legislative, executive and judicial branches as co-equal branches of government, to be a check and balance on each other. The Constitution also calls for the President to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.”

In the spirit of our Constitution, I invite you to deliver your State of the Union address before a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 in the House Chamber.

I look forward to welcoming you to the Congress.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/1318-3/

Just stating the facts.

 

[Airyaman]

At the time she wrote that letter, she had already formally invited Trump to speak in the House Chamber. This later letter did not rescind that invitation.



Just stating the facts.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

I never said she rescinded the invitation. I said she postponed it. The part I highlighted plainly states that. She gave him the option of rescheduling or submitting the address in writing.

Those ARE the facts.

 

[Mycroft]

Now you are moving the goalposts.

I never said she rescinded the invitation. I said she postponed it. The part I highlighted plainly states that. She gave him the option of rescheduling or submitting the address in writing.

Those ARE the facts.

She didn't postpone it...or, as you originally contended, "effectively postponed" it...the date and location of the speech has not been changed in any way. She simply asked that Trump consider either postponing or moving the speech.

Please...don't confuse spin with facts. The media constantly presents stuff that way and useful idiots constantly believe it. Don't be one of them.

 

[Airyaman]

She didn't postpone it...or, as you originally contended, "effectively postponed" it...the date and location of the speech has not been changed in any way. She simply asked that Trump consider either postponing or moving the speech.

Please...don't confuse spin with facts. The media constantly presents stuff that way and useful idiots constantly believe it. Don't be one of them.

Here is the up front plain fact: he cannot have the SOTU at the House unless Nancy allows him.

End of story.

We're done.

 

[Mycroft]

Here is the up front plain fact: he cannot have the SOTU at the House unless Nancy allows him.

End of story.

We're done.

Since she has already extended her invitation, she would have to disallow him for the event to not take place. She hasn't done that.

So...to get back to what we started talking about, the writer of that Inquistr article lied.

 

[RetiredUSN]

She wanted to visit the troops! :lamo :lamo :lamo

They hate the bitch!

 

[marke]

except it was no junket, it was a trip to the troops and generals, you know doing their job as congresspeople. And Obama was way cheaper as a president than the Orange Oaf and his wife.

Obama was "cheaper?" I guess I cannot prove you wrong about that.

 

[Deuce]

Probably not. If they wanted to pass a continuing resolution, they could have. I'm not sure the president would accept it though. Democrats have been stringing along wishes and promises for some time, and he seems set to force them to paint or get off the ladder.

...you don't think the Democrat-controlled house would pass a bill without wall funding.

That's what you think.

I mean. Ok buddy.

 

[jghiretire]

Graham flew commercially. Pelosi can do the same.

Since the trip was outed - it was no longer safe to go at all. But since you dislike her so much, you probably don't care.

 

[Peter King]

Obama was "cheaper?" I guess I cannot prove you wrong about that.

Yup, cheaper and I would assume much cheaper. Or do you think Obama went to Mar-a-lago so many times? Or went golfing that much?

 

[marke]

Yup, cheaper and I would assume much cheaper. Or do you think Obama went to Mar-a-lago so many times? Or went golfing that much?

Obama was "cheaper" because he did not go to Mar-a-Lago to play golf? How much did just one of his many trips cost where he took more than a thousand friends, relatives and associates with him on government-paid excursions overseas for a week at a time or more? That had to cost a lot more than the green fees at a Florida golf course.