Trump signed the mammoth legislation reluctantly, saying in a press availability with other members of the administration that, in order to secure a necessary increase in military spending, he had to give money to Democratic projects that he derided as a "wasted sum of money."
"It's not right and it's very bad for our country," he said.
Has nobody told Trump he doesn't HAVE to sign things that he thinks are very bad for the country? Maybe he just doesn't know what a veto is.
#bigliestNegotiator
Kath wrote:Has nobody told Trump he doesn't HAVE to sign things that he thinks are very bad for the country? Maybe he just doesn't know what a veto is.
#bigliestNegotiator
Our "National Security" was at stake. Without the largest military budget in history ($700B), we'd surely be overrun within the fortnight.
Kath wrote:Has nobody told Trump he doesn't HAVE to sign things that he thinks are very bad for the country? Maybe he just doesn't know what a veto is.
#bigliestNegotiator
Our "National Security" was at stake. Without the largest military budget in history ($700B), we'd surely be overrun within the fortnight.
Smart play by Trump & Co, taking the punch bowl away is ever Red Team's downfall, if the GOP can be profligate spenders that fill the pig trough with alacrity, Blue Team literally has nothing left to run on.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Markets down 6% this week. I got laid off, but made up some paychecks in trading. Might take a trip down to Florida in 2 weeks...
Damn, you liked your new job too.
Hope something else comes up soon.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
