Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

This. Can someone explain why the republicans won’t agree to these cosmetic changes that most Americans are for? It doesn’t impact funding. Or immigration enforcement really.

I've heard they can't afford body cams for all....BS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

This. Can someone explain why the republicans won’t agree to these cosmetic changes that most Americans are for? It doesn’t impact funding. Or immigration enforcement really.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

This. Can someone explain why the republicans won’t agree to these cosmetic changes that most Americans are for? It doesn’t impact funding. Or immigration enforcement really.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

This. Can someone explain why the republicans won’t agree to these cosmetic changes that most Americans are for? It doesn’t impact funding. Or immigration enforcement really.

Anonymous wrote:So when will flights start to get iffy again?

Anonymous wrote:This plays into project 2025 they want to eliminate dhs a reorganize things under customs.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not how it works they already had a chance to vote against this when the bill passed before. It shouldn't be allowed to change already passed bills to fund the govt. I bet if Democrats ever get power Republicans will do the same thing it's going to be a problem

Tell me you're not American without telling me you're not American.

This is a weird loophole why would an already approved funding bill that was voted on get blocked later. This needs to stop on both sides or else it will be very messy if Republicans lose power.

There was no already approved funding bill that got blocked later. Feel free to ask factual questions not invented hypothetical questions.

Big beautiful bill was already voted on and passed , there shouldn't even be a debate to pass the budget in relationship to things already agreed to. Whether Republican or Democrat this passing the bill thing is not being used as intended and is being used to go back to already voted on matters

So? USAID was funded and Trump closed it down overnight. Same can be done for ICE by Congress.

That is not how it works. Different situations.

USAID was not legally erased overnight. The administration froze funding and shut down a lot of operations, partly citing fraud and questionable programs. That can cripple an agency in practice, but the laws behind it still exist unless Congress repeals them.

ICE is written directly into federal law as part of DHS. You cannot just make it disappear the same way. To eliminate ICE, Congress would have to change the statute.

Big difference between shutting down operations and actually abolishing an agency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not how it works they already had a chance to vote against this when the bill passed before. It shouldn't be allowed to change already passed bills to fund the govt. I bet if Democrats ever get power Republicans will do the same thing it's going to be a problem

Tell me you're not American without telling me you're not American.

This is a weird loophole why would an already approved funding bill that was voted on get blocked later. This needs to stop on both sides or else it will be very messy if Republicans lose power.

There was no already approved funding bill that got blocked later. Feel free to ask factual questions not invented hypothetical questions.

Big beautiful bill was already voted on and passed , there shouldn't even be a debate to pass the budget in relationship to things already agreed to. Whether Republican or Democrat this passing the bill thing is not being used as intended and is being used to go back to already voted on matters

So? USAID was funded and Trump closed it down overnight. Same can be done for ICE by Congress.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they to t just give in and agree to the changes. They are really no-brainers, mild changes as far as I can tell-
No masks, body cams, only use judicial warrants.
What’s the hold up?