Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

We already transport them from the centers. Some are in California, some are in Texas/New Mexico. They are then moved all over the country. Why not put them in towns/cities where voters want them?

Dropping them off on a random street corner in the middle of the night was what was proposed

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
2h
Replying to
@realDonaldTrump
....The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

So you would be Okay for a Democratic president to:

- Take away social security from red states
- Take away ACA from red states
- Take away Medicare from Red States
- Fight tooth and nail to take away disaster relief from red states
- If universal healthcare is implemented, to make it available only in blue states
- if free college plan is implemented, to make it available only in blue states?
- pay for infrastructure improvement only in blue states

In a nutshell, you would be okay for a Democratic president to look out for the welfare of the Blue States and stick it to the red states?

Trump isn’t taking anything from you. He’s fulfilling one of your political platforms.

You should thank him.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not punishment. It’s what liberals advocate for.

+1

Liberals: Why is this punishment to you?

You march and post and protest to have illegals come here. Why is bringing them to sanctuary punishment?

Because Trump is bringing them? False. They brought themselves. Trump just needs a place to put them.

Don’t be stingy. They will just need housing, medical care, schools, food, and jobs. You’ve got them in your blue vibrant cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

So you would be Okay for a Democratic president to:

- Take away social security from red states
- Take away ACA from red states
- Take away Medicare from Red States
- Fight tooth and nail to take away disaster relief from red states
- If universal healthcare is implemented, to make it available only in blue states
- if free college plan is implemented, to make it available only in blue states?
- pay for infrastructure improvement only in blue states

In a nutshell, you would be okay for a Democratic president to look out for the welfare of the Blue States and stick it to the red states?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only...

Do it, Mr. President. Give the people what they want. They want illegal immigration- here you go. Home delivery.

If sanctuary cities don’t want this, they are hypocrites.

They don’t want illegals sent back or turned away or kept in government facilities. Literally every venue is racist or harmful.

So take these people in your community and show us how it’s done.

Libs pretend it’s because Trump is being spiteful! Ha! They actually don’t want to be overwhelmed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

Can you read? Why are you asking the same thing again? I'm not repeating myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

Same. And I think most Trump supporters would agree.

Most Trump supporters would support Trump trying to "stick it to the libs"?

Anonymous wrote:It’s not punishment. It’s what liberals advocate for.

That's not how Miller and Trump view it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

So it's totally fine if Obama and his advisors were sitting around trying to find ways to PUNISH Republicans. You'd be totally fine with that? Fully support it? Think it's patriotic and presidential? Completely A-OK?

It’s not punishment. It’s what liberals advocate for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

As stated before I'd be perfectly fine with allowing anyone with a gun in places that dont want gun restrictions while keeping restrictions in liberal areas. I think people should have to live with the policies they advocate for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes please, let's hear the policy rationale for transporting asylum seekers halfway across the country and dropping them off on a random street corner in San Francisco.

We already transport them from the centers. Some are in California, some are in Texas/New Mexico. They are then moved all over the country. Why not put them in towns/cities where voters want them?

Why not put them in towns and cities where they know people and have family or connections that can support them? Just dumping them on a random street corner 3000 miles away solves what, exactly?

Because the US taxpayer should not be transporting them anywhere. theyve travelled hundreds/thousands of miles to "escape." they can find their way to their cousin's house.

I am the PP you are quoting. Perhaps you are misunderstanding. They should make their own way to where they have a network and then report back to the boarder court at the appropriate date for their asylum hearing. But just dumping them in Albany, NY or some such is silly. So I think we are saying the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

What if Obama sat in his office with his advisors plotting various ways to punish Republicans. Think that's OK for him to do as POTUS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I agree with Trump sticking it to the libs. It shows thei hypocrisy of the sanctuary city and resist policies.

OK - thank you for finally answering.

Dp. He is putting their money where their mouth is. I honestly do not understand this backlash.

Same. And I think most Trump supporters would agree.