PDA

View Full Version : Trump to declare national emergency for border wall after signing spending bill




Pages : [1] 2

donnay
02-14-2019, 02:33 PM
1096142866060099584

Anti Federalist
02-14-2019, 02:36 PM
Trump will sign spending bill and declare a national emergency, Mitch McConnell says

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/trump-decides-whether-to-sign-border-security-deal-to-avoid-shutdown.html

President Donald Trump will sign spending legislation to prevent a government shutdown while declaring a national emergency to try to build his proposed border wall, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday.

"He's prepared to sign the bill, he will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time," the Kentucky Republican said as the chamber prepared to vote on a measure to keep the government open past a midnight Friday deadline.

If Trump follows through, lawmakers and the White House would dodge their second partial shutdown since December, sparing about 800,000 federal workers from more financial pain. But the emergency declaration would quickly spark lawsuits challenging the president's authority, creating yet another fight over his key campaign promise.

The emergency declaration would allow Trump to redirect funds from other parts of the government to the project without congressional approval. The move could in part assuage conservative critics who argued the president should not accept the latest congressional plan, which denied him the funding he demanded for the border barrier. He had threatened the action for weeks, splitting the GOP caucus as some Republicans argued it would set a dangerous precedent.

McConnell said he "indicated to [Trump] that I am going to support the national emergency declaration." Democratic leaders have warned Trump against the action.

"I think declaring a national emergency where this is no national emergency is not good for the president to do and is not good as a precedent," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told MSNBC shortly after McConnell spoke.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request to comment on whether Trump would do what McConnell said. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat would hold a press conference Thursday afternoon.

Both Republicans and Democrats showed concerns about the spending plan, but congressional leaders from both parties backed it. The GOP appeared to wait for Trump's support Thursday before voting, as the president waffled on whether to support the agreement.

The measure would put about $1.4 billion toward physical border barriers. But it would specifically not allow construction of new wall prototypes proposed by Trump. The president has claimed the wall will still get built, even as Congress dealt him his latest defeat on one of his signature campaign issues.

Senate Republicans looked eager to avoid the second partial government shutdown since December. Without a new spending plan, funding for nine U.S. departments will lapse at 12:01 a.m. ET Saturday.

Despite Congress' latest blow to his border wall plans, Trump has insisteed he will build the structure regardless. He argues he has the authority to allocate funds from other parts of the government to construct it.

He also said he will still consider declaring a national emergency to circumvent Congress.

"The bottom line is on the wall we're building the wall and we're using other methods other than this and in addition to this," Trump said during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday.

Funding for about a quarter of the government lapsed for 35 days during December and January. About 800,000 federal employees, furloughed or working without pay, missed two paychecks during the closure. Another shutdown threatens more financial hardship for those workers.

Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to construct the wall, and Democrats' refusal to yield to him, led to the earlier shutdown. In December, Trump said he would "take the mantle" for the shutdown. Most Americans eventually did blame him for it, according to polls.

Brian4Liberty
02-14-2019, 02:45 PM
This will make #32 on the active “emergency” list. And it will be the first “national emergency” opposed by the swamp.

phill4paul
02-14-2019, 04:29 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Republicans on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency.

Her comments to reporters came shortly after the White House said President Donald Trump would declare a national emergency in order to "build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country."

Pelosi said she was not advocating for Democrats to declare a national emergency but that Trump was establishing a precedent that should, at least, make Republicans nervous.

"If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people," Pelosi said.

"You want to talk about a national emergency? Let's talk about today," Pelosi said, referring to the first anniversary of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead on Feb. 14, 2018.

She said the shooting was "another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America."

"That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that an emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would," she said. "But a Democratic president can do that. A Democratic president can declare emergencies as well."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 04:42 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html
If they could do that they would have done it already, no new precedent is being set.

dannno
02-14-2019, 04:48 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html

AF: Bring it bitches

dannno
02-14-2019, 04:49 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yL088q_sKE

phill4paul
02-14-2019, 04:49 PM
AF: Bring it bitches

Works for me.

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 04:54 PM
So Dems will take this to court and no wall money for years to come if it at all approved by courts? Trump recently appointed CFR member and abortion leaning judge to courts.

Trump says government shutdown will be terrible, does not want to see gov shutdown.


Non GOP-Adelson conservatives of Breitbart, Coulter et al won't be pleased.





Related


President Trump's National Emergency Is a Ploy to Avoid Admitting Defeat on the Wall
February 14, 2019
the lawsuits will trigger a prolonged court battle that could halt construction efforts. And in the meantime, the President will be boasting to his supporters about everything he’s doing to deliver what he promised.
http://time.com/5530086/donald-trump-national-emergency-risks/



Trump's emergency declaration would trigger a drawn-out legal fight
USA TODAY Feb. 14, 2019
Declaring an emergency would let Trump sidestep Democratic opposition to more wall funding, but it could draw legal challenges from lawmakers and others who viewed the move as a power grab. Although that could delay construction of his border barriers, an extended legal battle would give Trump a potent political issue to run on in the 2020 presidential election.

"Everyone’s going to come out of the woodwork," said Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas-Austin law professor who teaches national security law. "I think we’re going to see an array of lawsuits that actually would all have to be dealt with separately."

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the administration is "very prepared" for legal challenges.
The potential for an extended legal battle may explain why Trump backed away from the emergency scenario last month. The president, who faced criticism from some Republicans for the idea, said he wouldn't declare an emergency imminently. Republicans noted a future Democratic president could also use an emergency to work around Congress.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/donald-trump-emergency-border-wall-long-legal-fight/2548526002/

RonZeplin
02-14-2019, 05:01 PM
So Dems will take this to court and no wall money for years to come if it at all approved by courts? Trump recently appointed CFR member and abortion leaning judge to courts.

Trump says government shutdown will be terrible, does not want to see gov shutdown.


Non GOP-Adelson conservatives of Breitbart, Coulter et al won't be pleased.

It seems like 90% of Republicans are RINO's these days.

timosman
02-14-2019, 05:06 PM
It seems like 90% of Republicans are RINO's these days.

10% are non-RINOs? What is the source of your optimism? :D

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 05:11 PM
Rand Paul: Trump Won ‘Big Victory’ with Border Wall Deal (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/13/rand-paul-trump-won-big-victory-with-border-wall-deal/)

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 05:15 PM
Steve Bannon famed Breitbart and Coulter blog headlines today would be interesting.

“Why would you [vote for him again]? Coulter calls border agreement Trump's 'Yellow New Deal' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531471-“Why-would-you-vote-for-him-again-Coulter-calls-border-agreement-Trump-s-Yellow-New-Deal&)


02/12/19


Conservative commentator Ann Coulter ripped President Trump on Tuesday, saying he is "afraid" to fight for a border wall and calling a bipartisan compromise to avert a government shutdown his "Yellow New Deal."

"Trump talks a good game on the border wall but it's increasingly clear he's afraid to fight for it," Coulter tweeted to her 2.13 million followers. "Call this his 'Yellow New Deal.'"

Au contraire, @realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)! America will be a socialist country within 5 years, if you don't build the wall.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 12, 2019 (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1095163663642578944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

“Why would you [vote for him again]?” the provocative author and columnist asked during a Daily Caller interview on Dec. 20. “To make sure, I don’t know, Ivanka [Trump] and Jared [Kushner] can make money? That seems to be the main point of the presidency at this point.”

“They’re about to have a country where no Republican will ever be elected president again,” she added. “Trump will just have been a joke presidency who scammed the American people, amused the populists for a while, but he’ll have no legacy whatsoever."














The Shutdown is coming.

Are you sure you have a good understanding of MAGA's mindset?

From Gov Shut folding to Syria/Iraq exits to second amend to surorounding himself with creme de la cerme of neocons, almost all predictions of MAGA supporters are turning out to be false.
Not suggesting he's as liberal as Far Right 'MAGA is fake frontgroup' conspiracy theorists claim but could it be he's not as pro-Wall/anti big gov spending as many of his followers thought he was?

Trump: 'Shutdown would be a terrible thing'
02/13/19 12:34 PM EST
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/429828-trump-shutdown-would-be-a-terrible-thing



As expected, Breitbart/Coulter extremist conservatives will be unhappy and his top funder Adelson probbaly will be pleased with wins like Isreal embassy move, Iran sanctions/deal nixing, continuation of Iraq/Syria interventions, neocons beehive etc.
Looking forward to any 5D Chess explanations here.






Related


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/poll_posticon.gif Poll: Gov shut over $5B Wall funding; which side will fold? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?530496-Gov-shut-over-5B-Wall-funding-which-side-will-fold&)

Trump again spat on and gave the middle finger to his base (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531470-Trump-again-spat-on-and-gave-the-middle-finger-to-his-base-Calls-for-more-foreign-workers&)

Brian4Liberty
02-14-2019, 05:17 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html

What’s she gonna do? Declare martial law and send troops to Chicago?

TheCount
02-14-2019, 05:20 PM
Will dannno have a fan fiction story about why he signed this spending bill? I greatly enjoyed the previous editions of As the Trump Turns.


No, no, what happened was they brought him the bill, he was like wtf is this shit, they were like "OH we need to pass this ASAP btw or the govt shuts down..." Then Trump says, "I'm not signing this crap, I heard on the news it included a tunnel from NY to NJ.." So he threatened to veto it, then they said, "Oh, you MUST sign it, it has all this great military stuff in it, don't you like the military? You don't want to shut down the military do you? Think about the vets!! You've gotta sign it!!!!"


Then Trump was probably like, "Alright, well I hope there is nothing else really egregious I should know about in there, is there?"


"Oh no, Mr. President, all completely normal stuff, we promise!!"




Of course Trump didn't have time to read it, but when he finds out they put this stink bomb in there, he will be way more pissed than he was about a tunnel from NY to NJ...

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 05:24 PM
Rand Paul: Trump Won ‘Big Victory’ with Border Wall Deal



Looking at Rand's recent statement on Syria exit pride, he could be humoring or playing some 3D MAGA speak chess. If MAGA can make statements and then do the exact opposite, why can't other politicians play politics with such an art of the deal guru.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Inhofe: Troops won’t leave Syria, Afghanistan soon; Shanahan not permanent SecDef

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., addresses witnesses on Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.
https://www.stripes.com/inhofe-troops-won-t-leave-syria-afghanistan-soon-shanahan-not-permanent-secdef-1.568386

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 05:25 PM
Will @dannno (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10908) have a fan fiction story about why he signed this spending bill? I greatly enjoyed the previous editions of As the Trump Turns.
He hasn't signed it yet.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 05:25 PM
Looking at Rand's recent statement on Syria exit, he could be humoring or playing some 3D MAGA speak chess. If MAGA can make statements and then do the exact opposite, why can't other politicians play politics with such a art of the deal guru.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Inhofe: Troops won’t leave Syria, Afghanistan soon; Shanahan not permanent SecDef





Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., addresses witnesses on Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2019, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.
https://www.stripes.com/inhofe-troops-won-t-leave-syria-afghanistan-soon-shanahan-not-permanent-secdef-1.568386
Inhofe can't stop the pullouts.

Stratovarious
02-14-2019, 05:30 PM
''Declaring a national state of emergency under the National Emergencies Act of 1974 outlines how a president can activate special statutory power during a crisis.
George W. Bush declared 13 emergencies and Barack Obama declared 12 -- nearly all of which are still active today. Bill Clinton declared 17 national emergencies, six of which are still active. Ronald Reagan declared six and George H.W. Bush declared four -- but all of those have been revoked by now.
The first declaration under the National Emergencies Act of 1974 came during the Iran hostage crisis -- a national emergency that is still active today. Jimmy Carter blocked Iranian government property from entering the country. It's been renewed each year by all presidents since then.
Presidents must renew national emergencies every year because the statute lets emergencies automatically expire after one year.''

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/12/politics/national-emergencies-trump-opioid/

phill4paul
02-14-2019, 05:33 PM
He hasn't signed it yet.

He will. This has been his plan all along. The shut down brought awareness. Pelosi went batshit bonkers. Now he'll declare an emergency.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 05:35 PM
He will. This has been his plan all along. The shut down brought awareness. Pelosi went bat$#@! bonkers. Now he'll declare an emergency.
He said he was going to check it for "landmines", according to articles at breitbart it is full of them.

TheCount
02-14-2019, 05:36 PM
He hasn't signed it yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcjzHMhBtf0

dannno
02-14-2019, 05:36 PM
He hasn't signed it yet.

He'll probably sign it, it's free money for the wall.. then he can declare a national emergency and get the rest of it.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 05:39 PM
He'll probably sign it, it's free money for the wall.. then he can declare a national emergency and get the rest of it.
That depends on the "landmines".

Anti Globalist
02-14-2019, 05:40 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html
Try it bitch. Lets see what happens.

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 06:14 PM
Pelosi threatens with "emergency" based on gun control...



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/pelosi-warns-gop-that-a-democratic-president-could-declare-a-national-emergency-on-guns.html


Is she certain current POTUS won't beat Dems to it and do it himself? (His top funder is a democrat)


White House School Safety Commission Recommends Gun Confiscation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529679-White-House-School-Safety-Commission-Recommends-Gun-Confiscation&)



https://i.redd.it/5gzk1ak057j01.jpg

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 07:13 PM
He said he was going to check it for "landmines", according to articles at breitbart it is full of them.

If he did, will that be the "end" as some Republicans are predicting?


NATIONAL EMERGENCY WON’T HELP. IT’S OVER IF HE SIGNS THIS BILL! https://t.co/K3N8tjVzBK

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 14, 2019 (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1096144630444244993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Coulter has continually acted as one of Trump’s chief media critics during the wall funding debate — alongside the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh — and her comments have helped pressure the president into keeping the government shutdown for many weeks that he did.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYI2QN-qeuo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYI2QN-qeuo

Stratovarious
02-14-2019, 07:51 PM
Is she certain current POTUS won't beat Dems to it and do it himself? (His top funder is a democrat)


White House School Safety Commission Recommends Gun Confiscation (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529679-White-House-School-Safety-Commission-Recommends-Gun-Confiscation&)



https://i.redd.it/5gzk1ak057j01.jpg

I'm hoping that incredibly lame statement Trump made was out of shear ignorance,
it is possible, I'm probably wrong though.

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 08:57 PM
These people aren’t playing games. They will whip up the anti gun folks just like they whipped up the wall building folks into applauding the continued erosion of the balance of powers. Some of the same people having seizures over Obama are now cheerleading Your Guy.

It isn’t about ideological purity at this point, it’s about having a consistent thought for longer than a election cycle.

Remember the basics. Deficit spending=always bad. More government power=always less liberty. No exceptions for crazies with guns or Hispanics. Sorry.

I am saying it here. I will 100% support MAGA Freedom Wall if:

-all welfare to illegals is stopped. Doesn’t cost me a thing.
-enforce current immigration laws. You hire one, you get caught, you pay big money. Doesn’t cost me a thing.

See, it should NEVER be: do this other debt ridden and freedom sucking thing and THEN we get back to the money saving liberty stuff above later. It never works out that way. Wouldn’t need a wall if those things were done anyway. Why aren’t we demanding that? Why isn’t Trump demanding that? Because he knew he wouldn’t get it? I don’t believe that’s the case, even though I am sure someone will set me straight.

Never let a crisis go to waste...

I do enjoy reading the comments about the issue here, even if my neck is 2’ across from SMDH so much.

oyarde
02-14-2019, 09:05 PM
What’s she gonna do? Declare martial law and send troops to Chicago?

I am telling her to send the california guard to invade illinois . Put a stop to this violence now.

Ender
02-14-2019, 09:13 PM
These people aren’t playing games. They will whip up the anti gun folks just like they whipped up the wall building folks into applauding the continued erosion of the balance of powers. Some of the same people having seizures over Obama are now cheerleading Your Guy.

It isn’t about ideological purity at this point, it’s about having a consistent thought for longer than a election cycle.

Remember the basics. Deficit spending=always bad. More government power=always less liberty. No exceptions for crazies with guns or Hispanics. Sorry.

I am saying it here. I will 100% support MAGA Freedom Wall if:

-all welfare to illegals is stopped. Doesn’t cost me a thing.
-enforce current immigration laws. You hire one, you get caught, you pay big money. Doesn’t cost me a thing.

See, it should NEVER be: do this other debt ridden and freedom sucking thing and THEN we get back to the money saving liberty stuff above later. It never works out that way. Wouldn’t need a wall if those things were done anyway. Why aren’t we demanding that? Why isn’t Trump demanding that? Because he knew he wouldn’t get it? I don’t believe that’s the case, even though I am sure someone will set me straight.

Never let a crisis go to waste...

I do enjoy reading the comments about the issue here, even if my neck is 2’ across from SMDH so much.

Pretty much my POV- and besides SMDH I'll also add "WTF did I just read???" to most of this "need government to fix government" shit.

Origanalist
02-14-2019, 09:14 PM
These people aren’t playing games. They will whip up the anti gun folks just like they whipped up the wall building folks into applauding the continued erosion of the balance of powers. Some of the same people having seizures over Obama are now cheerleading Your Guy.

It isn’t about ideological purity at this point, it’s about having a consistent thought for longer than a election cycle.

Remember the basics. Deficit spending=always bad. More government power=always less liberty. No exceptions for crazies with guns or Hispanics. Sorry.

I am saying it here. I will 100% support MAGA Freedom Wall if:

-all welfare to illegals is stopped. Doesn’t cost me a thing.
-enforce current immigration laws. You hire one, you get caught, you pay big money. Doesn’t cost me a thing.

See, it should NEVER be: do this other debt ridden and freedom sucking thing and THEN we get back to the money saving liberty stuff above later. It never works out that way. Wouldn’t need a wall if those things were done anyway. Why aren’t we demanding that? Why isn’t Trump demanding that? Because he knew he wouldn’t get it? I don’t believe that’s the case, even though I am sure someone will set me straight.

Never let a crisis go to waste...

I do enjoy reading the comments about the issue here, even if my neck is 2’ across from SMDH so much.

Wish I had more than one rep for this post.

Ender
02-14-2019, 09:18 PM
Wish I had more than one rep for this post.

Covered.

Anti Federalist
02-14-2019, 09:18 PM
AF: Bring it bitches

Got damn right...enough fucking talk.

Feeling froggy motherfuckers?

Leap...I fucking dare you.

Danke
02-14-2019, 09:22 PM
-enforce current immigration laws. You hire one, you get caught, you pay big money. Doesn’t cost me a thing.



So I can't hire anyone I want. Need the government mafia's approval. Enforcing it will cost you and me. Just like the war on drugs, you won't see a dime of savings.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 09:25 PM
So I can't hire anyone I want. Need the government mafia's approval. Enforcing it will cost you and me. Just like the war on drugs, you won't see a dime of savings.
That is what he would usually say alright.

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 09:31 PM
So I can't hire anyone I want. Need the government mafia's approval. Enforcing it will cost you and me. Just like the war on drugs, you won't see a dime of savings.

Never said I supported that. I was hoping to point out that your government solutions already exist and they don’t work. I was also hoping to point out that if they wanted the problem solved they already have the unconstitutional tools to make shit happen, but curiously don’t. Use those first before coming after my wallet, bro. You think the costs for Freedom Wall will stop at construction? Lol.

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 09:33 PM
That is what he would usually say alright.

You have a persistent way of making me want to register at Democratic Underground and campaign for that AOC wierdo or Bernie.

Edit: just cause I could at least say I canceled you out.

Danke
02-14-2019, 09:34 PM
Never said I supported that. I was hoping to point out that your government solutions already exist and they don’t work. I was also hoping to point out that if they wanted the problem solved they already have the unconstitutional tools to make shit happen, but curiously don’t. Use those first before coming after my wallet, bro. You think the costs for Freedom Wall will stop at construction? Lol.

LOL?

At me?

No LOL at your stupid post that I quoted verbatim, bro.

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 09:37 PM
LOL?

At me?

No LOL at your stupid post that I quoted verbatim, bro.

Have a nice evening.

Danke
02-14-2019, 09:39 PM
Have a nice evening.

Thanks, bro.

Anti Federalist
02-14-2019, 09:39 PM
Marxists in November 2018
"Stop being such drama queens. No one is going to take your guns. Marxists own guns too"

Marxists in February of 2019
"If you dare defend our borders we will come and take your guns."

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 09:39 PM
You have a persistent way of making me want to register at Democratic Underground and campaign for that AOC wierdo or Bernie.

Edit: just cause I could at least say I canceled you out.

I would bet you already do those.

Warlord
02-14-2019, 09:50 PM
Is he going to declare it under the NDAA?

Anti Federalist
02-14-2019, 09:50 PM
The US Constitution:


Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

Invasion:

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/01/New-Migrant-Caravan-640x480.jpg

Do your fucking job.

Miserable pricks, what the fuck are we paying three trillion dollars a year for?

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 10:05 PM
I would bet you already do those.

Nothing personal. Just trying to get one of my posts in your signature line so people could see it 20,000 times a day. Hook me up.

Origanalist
02-14-2019, 10:08 PM
The US Constitution:



Invasion:

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/01/New-Migrant-Caravan-640x480.jpg

Do your fucking job.

Miserable pricks, what the fuck are we paying three trillion dollars a year for?

Do you think all those people just packed up and decided to form some caravan out of the blue? Just a mass epiphany? This shit is all orchestrated and we're being played one against the other. Same old shit, different day. End result, more government power.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 10:27 PM
Do you think all those people just packed up and decided to form some caravan out of the blue? Just a mass epiphany? This $#@! is all orchestrated and we're being played one against the other. Same old $#@!, different day. End result, more government power.
Just because someone is manipulating a threat doesn't mean you can ignore it, it usually means you can't ignore it.

enhanced_deficit
02-14-2019, 10:29 PM
President Trump's National Emergency Is a Ploy to Avoid Admitting Defeat on the Wall
February 14, 2019
the lawsuits will trigger a prolonged court battle that could halt construction efforts. And in the meantime, the President will be boasting to his supporters about everything he’s doing to deliver what he promised.
http://time.com/5530086/donald-trump-national-emergency-risks/



Trump's emergency declaration would trigger a drawn-out legal fight
USA TODAY Feb. 14, 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/14/donald-trump-emergency-border-wall-long-legal-fight/2548526002/

Slave Mentality
02-14-2019, 10:42 PM
Do you think all those people just packed up and decided to form some caravan out of the blue? Just a mass epiphany? This shit is all orchestrated and we're being played one against the other. Same old shit, different day. End result, more government power.

Sure doesn’t look or feel organic to me....could be wrong.


Just because someone is manipulating a threat doesn't mean you can ignore it, it usually means you can't ignore it.

Or it means you are responding exactly how they want. That’s the whole thing with manipulation - you are not aware of it while it’s happening.

Who knows anymore? You don’t. I don’t. It’s quite a situation.

We are best to realize that our perspectives can be a real hazard to reality sometimes. The ego. I am guilty as anyone.

This country is being destroyed from within and I really think all this is the latest distraction and no one wants to look up at it anymore. Too busy bitching into fucking screens. I am guilty as anyone.

Swordsmyth
02-14-2019, 10:51 PM
Sure doesn’t look or feel organic to me....could be wrong.



Or it means you are responding exactly how they want. That’s the whole thing with manipulation - you are not aware of it while it’s happening.

Who knows anymore? You don’t. I don’t. It’s quite a situation.

We are best to realize that our perspectives can be a real hazard to reality sometimes. The ego. I am guilty as anyone.

This country is being destroyed from within and I really think all this is the latest distraction and no one wants to look up at it anymore. Too busy bitching into $#@!ing screens. I am guilty as anyone.
The best manipulations are things you have no other choice other than to react the way they want, like setting your house on fire so that you will drop everything to put it out.

The best you can do is try to find a way to deal with the manipulation and try to turn it so that you can avoid the outcome the manipulator wants or prepare to undo that outcome.

Itsback
02-14-2019, 11:26 PM
What happens in National Emergency ?? :confused:

dannno
02-14-2019, 11:31 PM
What happens in National Emergency ?? :confused:

I dunno, Bush declared 13 National Emergencies and Obama declared 12 National Emergencies.

Most are still in effect.

kahless
02-14-2019, 11:46 PM
If Trump signs the bill it prevents him from declaring a national emergency. Trump will sign and declare an emergency anyway to fool his base. Then when he fails he will just point to the Democrats.

If this happens then there is no doubt it was a scam Presidency or Trump is just completely incompetent letting Jared or whoever run the country or compromised (has no power and totally controlled by the deep state)

1096152060871946240
1096151675729960960

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 12:19 AM
Got damn right...enough fucking talk.

Feeling froggy motherfuckers?

Leap...I fucking dare you.


The US Constitution:



Invasion:

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/01/New-Migrant-Caravan-640x480.jpg

Do your fucking job.

Miserable pricks, what the fuck are we paying three trillion dollars a year for?
Here we are in the middle of an invasion and yet the internet cowboys can't do much more than beg government agents to step in.

Do you think if tanks were rolling across the southwest you'd have to petition government whores to protect the mainland?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 12:27 AM
Here we are in the middle of an invasion and yet the internet cowboys can't do much more than beg government agents to step in.

Do you think if tanks were rolling across the southwest you'd have to petition government whores to protect the mainland?
The government won't let us do the job ourselves and stopping invasions is one of the basic legitimate jobs government is supposed to do for everyone else who can't necessarily drop their other obligations and go to the border.

Division of labor is the basis of civilization.

Pauls' Revere
02-15-2019, 12:29 AM
It seems like 90% of Republicans are RINO's these days.

They should change the GOP mascot/logo to a Rhino instead of an Elephant.

UWDude
02-15-2019, 12:34 AM
Shut down, or dems raise stink about trumps exec order, but actually do nothing, and wall continues.

Trump gets wall, dems claim moral victory, faces saved all around.

Trump at 52%

Trump gets wall.

I said he'd get it. He just had to set it up.

And frankly, he thinks the wall is more important than his haters' tongue clicking.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 12:36 AM
Shut down, or dems raise stink about trumps exec order, but actually do nothing, and wall continues.

Trump gets wall, dems claim moral victory, faces saved all around.

Trump at 52%

Trump gets wall.

I said he'd get it. He just had to set it up.

And frankly, he thinks the wall is more important than his haters' tongue clicking.
I think he is going to pull the rug out from under them and refuse to sign the bill after making them think he was going to.

What do you think?

RonZeplin
02-15-2019, 12:36 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/6b/2f/6b/6b2f6bee2020b59f7666fab80fd6471b.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/30/9f/83/309f8349d247f7ddee258a291052faa3.jpg

UWDude
02-15-2019, 12:43 AM
I think he is going to pull the rug out from under them and refuse to sign the bill after making them think he was going to.

What do you think?

Nope. His game plan all along was to gather strength, and get his way.
He will not shut down the government now. All he wanted was the wall.
He didn't care how he got it, but he knew to get it, he had to set up the optics first.

And to a ton of people that hate him, aka government workers... they feel a sigh of relief.
They may still hate him, but, they still feel like it's not the end of the world, "just give him the damn $8 B" they think, "I care about him not getting his stupid wall, because I hate him, but I don't care enough to risk my job"

If Nancy fights him, and they are again furloughed, and that axe hangs above their head, they turn on Nancy. They will not blame Trump. She knows it, he knows it, they all know it. His so-called surrender to "re-open the government" was his final move. Although, he can still use the threat again, if he does, it is new issue, and he gets blame again. But, clearly, the deal is done.

Nancy showed resistance, Trump ran roughshod over her, therefore, not her fault... .. the ol', "I know you think it's unfair, but that's what the regionals told me" schtick.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 12:47 AM
Nope. His game plan all along was to gather strength, and get his way.
He will not shut down the government now. All he wanted was the wall.
He didn't care how he got it, but he knew to get it, he had to set up the optics first.

And to a ton of people that hate him, aka government workers... they feel a sigh of relief.
They may still hate him, but, they still feel like it's not the end of the world, "just give him the damn $8 B" they think, "I care about him not getting his stupid wall, because I hate him, but I don't care enough to risk my job"

If Nancy fights him, and they are again furloughed, and that axe hangs above their head, they turn on Nancy. They will not blame Trump. She knows it, he knows it, they all know it. His so-called surrender to "re-open the government" was his final move. Although, he can still use the threat again, if he does, it is new issue, and he gets blame again. But, clearly, the deal is done.

Nancy showed resistance, Trump ran roughshod over her, therefore, not her fault... .. the ol', "I know you think it's unfair, but that's what the regionals told me" schtick.
The only problem with that is all of the garbage in the bill, if he signs it it will be a victory for Nancy even if he builds the wall, especially since he can build the wall without it.

UWDude
02-15-2019, 12:53 AM
The only problem with that is all of the garbage in the bill, if he signs it it will be a victory for Nancy even if he builds the wall, especially since he can build the wall without it.

No, he can't build it without Nancy getting something.
He isn't stupid, he knows he has to work with the Democrats.
He knows about deals, he knows about power, leverage, and in the end, everybody getting what they want.
So yes, he has to give Nancy her "victory", to get that wall. He knew that all along.
He doesn't care about all that pork. Government is gonna government.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 12:55 AM
No, he can't build it without Nancy getting something.
He isn't stupid, he knows he has to work with the Democrats.
He knows about deals, he knows about power, leverage, and in the end, everybody getting what they want.
So yes, he has to give Nancy her "victory", to get that wall. He knew that all along.
He doesn't care about all that pork. Government is gonna government.
It's not just pork, there are things in there to give partial amnesty to some illegals and to provide more resources the give them help and handouts to facilitate the invasion etc.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 01:01 AM
The government won't let us do the job ourselves and stopping invasions is one of the basic legitimate jobs government is supposed to do for everyone else who can't necessarily drop their other obligations and go to the border.

Division of labor is the basis of civilization.
If they shut down, who knows, you might be allowed to establish and enforce Property Rights. He's signing that, isn't he?

Do you think the Poles had time to consider the division of labor whilst being invaded?

For the government to restrict and evict people, it must be a societal panopticon.You're welcoming RealID and facial recognition, not to mention Constitutional free zones where they Backscatter everyone, steal property and molest people, sometimes raping them. Not even mentioning the robbery or theft through inflation the ineffective boondoggle is going to cost.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 01:09 AM
If they shut down, who knows, you might be allowed to establish and enforce Property Rights. He's signing that, isn't he?

Do you think the Poles had time to consider the division of labor whilst being invaded?
You first, let me know how it goes when you try to personally repel the invaders, the Poles didn't have their own government against them.


For the government to restrict and evict people, it must be a societal panopticon.You're welcoming RealID and facial recognition, not to mention Constitutional free zones where they Backscatter everyone, steal property and molest people, sometimes raping them. Not even mentioning the robbery or theft through inflation the ineffective boondoggle is going to cost.
I'm not welcoming those and they are not required to secure the border and control immigration.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 01:27 AM
You first, let me know how it goes when you try to personally repel the invaders, the Poles didn't have their own government against them.
While the government does love their monopoly on violence there are private groups that do patrol the border, albeit with some interference from the professionals.

Are you on the southwest?



I'm not welcoming those and they are not required to secure the border and control immigration.
I need painting done, going to hire the cheapest and most proficient one. Can I hire who I want to or do they need to be licensed and everified? Is paying cash okay in your vision of America?

In other words, do you support I-9s?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 01:36 AM
While the government does love their monopoly on violence there are private groups that do patrol the border, albeit with some interference from the professionals.

I know but their impact is minimal, if they ever grew large enough to actually repel the invaders, the government would crack down hard.


Are you on the southwest?
No, My family used to live in Arizona but I now live far from the border.



I need painting done, going to hire the cheapest and most proficient one. Can I hire who I want to or do they need to be licensed and everified? Is paying cash okay in your vision of America?

In other words, do you support I-9s?
I do not support mandatory e-verify and paying in cash is just fine with me, requiring corporations to get I-9s is a different question because corporations get special benefits but it would probably be best to get rid of those AFTER we have stopped the invasion and expelled those invaders that are already here.

kona
02-15-2019, 03:39 AM
If Trump doesn't sign, will the veto-proof majorities hold?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 03:52 AM
If Trump doesn't sign, will the veto-proof majorities hold?
A good question.

If Trump knows they will then he will probably sign in order to avoid the perception of defeat that would come from being overridden.
If they won't then he may not sign.

kona
02-15-2019, 03:56 AM
A good question.

If Trump knows they will then he will probably sign in order to avoid the perception of defeat that would come from being overridden.
If they won't then he may not sign.
“If the president were to veto it, we would sustain his veto,” Brooks said. “I would certainly hope that the president will veto because it’s really bad for America. Whether he will or not, I can’t say.”

...Brooks again urged the president to veto the bill, even if his veto is overturned:

If President Trump can hear my voice, I ask him to veto it. If he’s going to get run over, let him be run over after having fought the good fight. Don’t agree to bad legislation. It might take him a few months, but in my judgement, give it three or four months of passage, and he’s going to be very upset that this legislation passed just like that out of control spending bill in the spring of 2018. He felt coerced into signing it, he did sign it, and he regretted it shortly there after. And I hope he learns from the mistake that was made. [Emphasis added]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/14/exclusive-mo-brooks-if-trump-is-interested-in-protecting-americans-he-will-veto-gop-dem-spending-bill/

kona
02-15-2019, 04:02 AM
We are getting murdered with this bill. This is a Destroy America bill, nothing less.

Trump swore to never again do a spending bill like last year. This year is 100x worse.

One has to wonder whether Trump is compromised at this point. He's clearly not stupid, so is he compromised? That is the only answer for why he would sign this.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 07:13 AM
If they could do that they would have done it already, no new precedent is being set.

Has a national emergency of this sort been declared before?

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 07:14 AM
One has to wonder whether Trump is compromised at this point. He's clearly not stupid, so is he compromised? That is the only answer for why he would sign this.

Or he never stood for what you thought in the first place and his promises are and always have been utterly empty?

The word "compromise" implies some resolute stand previously taken that could be compromised.

EBounding
02-15-2019, 07:45 AM
lol he's not going to veto this.

kona
02-15-2019, 08:01 AM
If Hillary was prez and Trump never once brought up the wall during the campaign, do you think out border would be more secure, given that Democrats wouldn't be trying to destroy it explicitly in these bills?

Cap
02-15-2019, 08:08 AM
Looking at who Trump has surrounded himself with and appointed, it looks Trump supporters have been sold a neo-conservative bill of goods. Seriously how can anyone not see this? Cognitive dissonance? Partial list off the top of my head.

Mike Pence
John Bolton
Rudy Giuliani
James Woolsey
Nikki Haley
Mike Pompeo
Samantha Ravitch
Elliott Abrams
H.R. McMaster
James Mattis
John Kelly
Brett Kavanaugh
ETA: William Barr

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 08:19 AM
Looking at who Trump has surrounded himself with and appointed, it looks Trump supporters have been sold a neo-conservative bill of goods. Seriously how can anyone not see this? Cognitive dissonance? Partial list off the top of my head.

Mike Pence
John Bolton
Rudy Giuliani
James Woolsey
Nikki Haley
Mike Pompeo
Samantha Ravitch
Elliott Abrams
H.R. McMaster
James Mattis
John Kelly
Brett Kavanaugh
ETA: William Barr


Multi-Dimensional Dark Matter Wormhole Chess.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 08:20 AM
Looking at who Trump has surrounded himself with and appointed, it looks Trump supporters have been sold a neo-conservative bill of goods.

Generally speaking Trump supporters are Limbaugh and Hannity fans who have never had a problem with neo-conservatism. For most of them, that list of names is not a bill of goods, but a reassurance that the parts about Trump that scared them a little weren't so bad after all.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 08:29 AM
Remember the basics. Deficit spending=always bad.

Fixed.

Whether spending is deficit spending or not is unimportant. Government spending is government spending, which is bad. Raising more revenue so that it's not deficit spending wouldn't make it less bad.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 08:33 AM
I don't know if anyone has posted the roll-calls on this ombibus yet. But here they are. In the House it's mainly Democrats who voted for it and Republicans who voted against it. In the Senate there were only 16 nay votes in total, only 11 of which were Republicans. The Senate Dems who opposed it were mainly the ones running for President.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/116-2019/h87
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=1&vote=00026

Origanalist
02-15-2019, 09:13 AM
LIVE: President Donald Trump DECLARES National Emergency and Signs Funding Bill


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3WgtllgzU

juleswin
02-15-2019, 09:27 AM
Looking at who Trump has surrounded himself with and appointed, it looks Trump supporters have been sold a neo-conservative bill of goods. Seriously how can anyone not see this? Cognitive dissonance? Partial list off the top of my head.

Mike Pence
John Bolton
Rudy Giuliani
James Woolsey
Nikki Haley
Mike Pompeo
Samantha Ravitch
Elliott Abrams
H.R. McMaster
James Mattis
John Kelly
Brett Kavanaugh
ETA: William Barr

Some people say that Rand is also on the list. So maybe the list is not all that bad :rolleyes:

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 09:35 AM
LIVE: President Donald Trump DECLARES National Emergency and Signs Funding Bill


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO3WgtllgzU


And here we go again. I can't wait for the next round of delusional excuses. At least we'll get some entertainment value out of all this.

Cap
02-15-2019, 09:36 AM
For the Magatarians


https://i.imgur.com/aC6VeIT.jpg

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 09:45 AM
Couldn't be more simple.

https://i0.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/bpfb/168_0-50061400-1488398895_c5y_soku8aazl0k.jpg


(Cue the SS Troll to tell us how Ron Paul is wrong again)

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 09:49 AM
For the Magatarians


https://i.imgur.com/aC6VeIT.jpg


ROTFLMAO! " MAGAtarians! Brilliant.

"You must spread some Reputation around..."

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 09:56 AM
Couldn't be more simple.

https://i0.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/bpfb/168_0-50061400-1488398895_c5y_soku8aazl0k.jpg


(Cue the SS Troll to tell us how Ron Paul is wrong again)


Haven't you been listening? Swordy only disagrees with Ron on a "few" things. In this case, Ron is probably being unduely influenced by that commie sympathiser Daniel McAdams, cause, like, everybody knows Ron is so wimpy and weak-willed that he can't possibly be thinking for himself in those instances where Swordy disagrees with him. Get with the program, man.

shakey1
02-15-2019, 10:11 AM
Couldn't be more simple.

https://i0.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/bpfb/168_0-50061400-1488398895_c5y_soku8aazl0k.jpg




... if just 1 or 2 of those things could happen... would solve alotta problems.:questionsmerk:

Warlord
02-15-2019, 10:23 AM
it's time to repel the f***king invasion

kahless
02-15-2019, 10:59 AM
Generally speaking Trump supporters are Limbaugh and Hannity fans who have never had a problem with neo-conservatism. For most of them, that list of names is not a bill of goods, but a reassurance that the parts about Trump that scared them a little weren't so bad after all.

Sadly, probably about half. The rest woke up but whatever lunatic the Dems put in 2020 they will all hold their nose and vote for him since there is no where else to go. Unless...

This would be a good time for a Constitution Party candidates. The Trump campaign on immigration was inline with their platform and there are more people awake on the immigration problem than ever before.

Chester Copperpot
02-15-2019, 11:10 AM
This will make #32 on the active “emergency” list. And it will be the first “national emergency” opposed by the swamp.

is there a site that has a list of all those or the history of the "continuing emergency" thats been going on since 1933

Brian4Liberty
02-15-2019, 11:14 AM
is there a site that has a list of all those or the history of the "continuing emergency" thats been going on since 1933

I've just seen some news stories that detailed a few of them.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 11:19 AM
is there a site that has a list of all those or the history of the "continuing emergency" thats been going on since 1933

This one looks pretty good. I don't know how accurate and up-to-date it is. But it has good references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

It seems like there should be a list on a .gov website somewhere, but I can't find one.

enhanced_deficit
02-15-2019, 11:40 AM
Former House Intel chair: McConnell eating 'manure sandwich' with Trump's national emergency (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531565-Former-House-Intel-chair-McConnell-eating-manure-sandwich-with-Trump-s-national-emergency&)

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 12:06 PM
https://i0.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/bpfb/168_0-71261400-1486757277_c4oxirbuoaetqfl.jpg


Oh, but that would be too hard! I mean, history has proven that growing government now and then shrinking it later is MUCH easier!

dannno
02-15-2019, 12:12 PM
Oh, but that would be too hard! I mean, history has proven that growing government now and then shrinking it later is MUCH easier!

How is Trump growing government? He is taking funding for military construction and drug enforcement and diverting it to the wall.. which will result in less people voting for bigger government (forget right/left, we have stats on who votes for big govt. vs. small govt.), which will result in less welfare than we would otherwise have, thus is the most logical way to get to the goal that you want of not having welfare.

Can you provide a logical argument for how what I said doesn't follow?? None of us here are against ending the welfare state. I don't know why you are preaching to the choir..

I mean, this is basic logic that a Kindergartner should be able to understand.

kahless
02-15-2019, 12:17 PM
How is Trump growing government? He is taking funding for military construction and drug enforcement and diverting it to the wall.. which will result in less people voting for bigger government (forget right/left, we have stats on who votes for big govt. vs. small govt.), which will result in less welfare than we would otherwise have, thus is the most logical way to get to the goal that you want of not having welfare.

Can you provide a logical argument for how what I said doesn't follow?? None of us here are against ending the welfare state. I don't know why you are preaching to the choir..

I mean, this is basic logic that a Kindergartner should be able to understand.

If he declared an emergency prior to signing the open borders bill you would right but signing the bill legally nullifies a near future emergency declaration.

It's over Danno, unless the Republican congress has something else up their sleeve but that is doubtful.

Superfluous Man
02-15-2019, 12:19 PM
How is Trump growing government?

By signing this omnibus that just got passed.

If he's going to declare a national emergency anyway, why do that?

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 12:20 PM
https://scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/a9749f9b2609073e24c688536e289b24/5CBB7205/t51.2885-15/e35/46893293_616107582153215_6928705455963242496_n.jpg ?_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.cdninstagram.com&ig_cache_key=MTk0MTkxNDA5Mjc5NzM0MzQ3MQ%3D%3D.2

EBounding
02-15-2019, 12:28 PM
It was an awesome press conference. his admiration for how China just kills off drug dealers was great.

enhanced_deficit
02-15-2019, 12:32 PM
Rright wing conservative Coulter croses the line again.
h/t danno:

Coulter: The only national emergency is that the president is an idiot (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531566-Trump-Fires-Back-at-Ann-Coulter-Taunts-I-Like-Her-But-%91She%92s-Off-Reservation%92&p=6753078&viewfull=1#post6753078)

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 12:33 PM
How is Trump growing government? He is taking funding for military construction and drug enforcement and diverting it to the wall.. which will result in less people voting for bigger government (forget right/left, we have stats on who votes for big govt. vs. small govt.), which will result in less welfare than we would otherwise have, thus is the most logical way to get to the goal that you want of not having welfare.

Can you provide a logical argument for how what I said doesn't follow?? None of us here are against ending the welfare state. I don't know why you are preaching to the choir..

I mean, this is basic logic that a Kindergartner should be able to understand.


I'm soory. Did I miss where this massive omnibus spending bill dramatically slashes govt spending? I mean in REAL terms, not the bullshit "we didn't increase it as much as we initially intended" DC doublespeak terms. No?

Well then here's some logic for you: More spending = bigger government.

Even a Kindergartner should be able to understand that.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 12:39 PM
How is Trump growing government?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/37/37aa868c0d78c5e3fbf6d3309e2d613d90ac6a08fcc05036b0 3ddf059e6225e7.jpg

dannno
02-15-2019, 12:41 PM
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/37/37aa868c0d78c5e3fbf6d3309e2d613d90ac6a08fcc05036b0 3ddf059e6225e7.jpg

Why don't you just continue reading what I wrote so I don't have to fucking type it again??

Yes, with the national emergency, he is diverting funds from federal military construction and drug enforcement to build the wall. How is that growing government?

Dammit, man..

dannno
02-15-2019, 12:42 PM
I'm soory. Did I miss where this massive omnibus spending bill dramatically slashes govt spending? I mean in REAL terms, not the bullshit "we didn't increase it as much as we initially intended" DC doublespeak terms. No?

Well then here's some logic for you: More spending = bigger government.

Even a Kindergartner should be able to understand that.


A Kindergartner also understands this thread is about the national emergency, and thus that is what I was talking about.

kahless
02-15-2019, 12:53 PM
...with the national emergency, he is diverting funds from federal military construction and drug enforcement to build the wall. How is that growing government?

How will a national emergency even be legally valid since he only recently signed the bill?

Still waiting for someone to calculate the cost of open borders with the signing of this bill. But to start there is this.

https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/whats-good-bad-and-ok-the-omnibus-bill

The omnibus includes a 1.9 percent pay raise for federal employees, costing roughly $3.3 billion in 2019, and more than $40 billion over the next 10 years.

This would overturn a December 2018 executive order from President Donald Trump freezing federal pay. And, for more than half of federal workers, it will serve as their second pay raise in 2019 because federal workers receive both cost-of-living increases as well as step increases based on tenure.

More money for government employees, not only one pay raise but two.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 12:57 PM
Why don't you just continue reading what I wrote so I don't have to fucking type it again??

Yes, with the national emergency, he is diverting funds from federal military construction and drug enforcement to build the wall. How is that growing government?

Dammit, man..

Ok, you want to ignore the entire omnibus bill. Ignore Ron Paul's suggestion of "instead of building a wall". Ignore the major land grab associated with this "emergency". Ignore the precedent for future Executives. Ignore the ridiculous price tag and government contracts associated with this "emergency". Ignore the fact that part of the money he's using comes from asset forfeiture.

I mean, yeah - if you want to ignore everything about a growing government, I suppose you could say he's shrinking it! Yay Trump! Now, pass me that bowl.

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 12:59 PM
Ok, you want to ignore the entire omnibus bill. Ignore Ron Paul's suggestion of "instead of building a wall". Ignore the major land grab associated with this "emergency". Ignore the precedent for future Executives. Ignore the ridiculous price tag and government contracts associated with this "emergency". Ignore the fact that part of the money he's using comes from asset forfeiture.

I mean, yeah - if you want to ignore everything about a growing government, I suppose you could say he's shrinking it! Yay Trump! Now, pass me that bowl.


The delusion is strong in that one.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 01:02 PM
The delusion is strong in that one.

Meh. At least he's real. Can't same the same for others.

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 01:05 PM
Meh. At least he's real. Can't same the same for others.


Are you so sure? Anymore, I don't know what to think wrt that topic.

angelatc
02-15-2019, 01:17 PM
How is Trump growing government? He is taking funding for military construction and drug enforcement and diverting it to the wall.. which will result in less people voting for bigger government (forget right/left, we have stats on who votes for big govt. vs. small govt.), which will result in less welfare than we would otherwise have, thus is the most logical way to get to the goal that you want of not having welfare.

Can you provide a logical argument for how what I said doesn't follow?? None of us here are against ending the welfare state. I don't know why you are preaching to the choir..

I mean, this is basic logic that a Kindergartner should be able to understand.


Wow. So the constitution doesn't mean anything to you any more, I guess.

Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House.

The end.

dannno
02-15-2019, 01:20 PM
Wow. So the constitution doesn't mean anything to you any more, I guess.

Constitutionally, all spending bills must originate in the House.

The end.

The Constitution means a lot to me.. so much I'm willing to defend the borders against the hordes of people who don't give a rats ass about it, want to destroy it and are only coming here for welfare.

Trump is diverting spending from unconstitutional activities, such as drug enforcement, and directing it toward Constitutional duties, such as securing our border against invasion..

Sooo I'll give him a pass..

angelatc
02-15-2019, 01:23 PM
The Constitution means a lot to me.. so much I'm willing to defend the borders against the hordes of people who don't give a rats ass about it, want to destroy it and are only coming here for welfare.

Trump is diverting spending from unconstitutional activities, such as drug enforcement, and directing it toward Constitutional duties, such as securing our border against invasion..

Sooo I'll give him a pass..

I can respect that. But in my mind, Congress gave him money to accomplish tasks A and B. He said screw it, I am spending it on C. That's a dangerous precedent.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 01:28 PM
The Constitution means a lot to me.. so much I'm willing to defend the borders against the hordes of people who don't give a rats ass about it, want to destroy it and are only coming here for welfare.

Trump is diverting spending from unconstitutional activities, such as drug enforcement, and directing it toward Constitutional duties, such as securing our border against invasion..

Sooo I'll give him a pass..

Every Obama supporter:

"Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but he's doing it for a reason I like!"

:rolleyes:

(did you miss post #108, or is that too inconvenient to respond to?? I mean, you asked and I answered.)

dannno
02-15-2019, 01:33 PM
Every Obama supporter:

"Yeah, it's unconstitutional, but he's doing it for a reason I like!"

:rolleyes:

(did you miss post #108, or is that too inconvenient to respond to?? I mean, you asked and I answered.)


Obama supporters do not say that Obama is justified in doing X because he is taking funding away from unconstitutional activities and directing them toward Constitutional activities.. and if they did say that, they were probably wrong about what duties are Constitutional and which are not.

I've already responded a hundred times to questions like why did Trump sign some omnibus bill or some shit.. I don't like it, Trump doesn't like it, nobody except the deep state likes it.

I would love for Trump to shut the government down, bring the troops home, reducing spending.. but he is just one branch of government. He can only do what he can do. Neither of us have any idea exactly what he is up against. All we can do is be glad that is the master and negotiating, and he is on our side. He can't win every battle, but he is our best shot at winning the war.

kahless
02-15-2019, 01:40 PM
The Constitution means a lot to me.. so much I'm willing to defend the borders against the hordes of people who don't give a rats ass about it, want to destroy it and are only coming here for welfare.

Trump is diverting spending from unconstitutional activities, such as drug enforcement, and directing it toward Constitutional duties, such as securing our border against invasion..

Sooo I'll give him a pass..

How do you explain him signing an open borders bill that would prevent him from legally succeeding with an emergency declaration?

Did I miss something here?

dannno
02-15-2019, 01:47 PM
How do you explain him signing an open borders bill that would prevent him from legally succeeding with an emergency declaration?

Did I miss something here?

If you look at everything through the filter of the mainstream media, you are going to miss a lot.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 01:52 PM
If you look at everything through the filter of the mainstream media, you are going to miss a lot.

Same goes for those orange-colored glasses, it seems.

PursuePeace
02-15-2019, 02:00 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096485376087097344

Cap
02-15-2019, 02:13 PM
Same goes for those orange-colored glasses, it seems.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4_0kBoUEAEtugs.jpg:large

Sam I am
02-15-2019, 02:23 PM
I'm surprised that anyone at all here is defending this declaration of National Emergency.

The Ron Paul Forums of 2012 would have been opposed to the President using National Emergency powers to override the congress for any reason.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 02:27 PM
I'm surprised that anyone at all here is defending this declaration of National Emergency.

The Ron Paul Forums of 2012 would have been opposed to the President using National Emergency powers to override the congress for any reason.

Well, maybe not for "any" reason. I mean, the Federal Debt is a ticking time bomb... If there was ever a real "national emergency", that is it!

Cap
02-15-2019, 02:37 PM
Well, maybe not for "any" reason. I mean, the Federal Debt is a ticking time bomb... If there was ever a real "national emergency", that is it!
A thousand times yeas! Out of rep.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 02:37 PM
Somewhere, TheTexan, is ejaculating.

TheCount
02-15-2019, 02:57 PM
How is Trump growing government?

Every budget and spending bill he has signed has been larger than the last.



I mean, this is basic logic that a Kindergartner should be able to understand.

Agreed.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 03:36 PM
Somewhere, TheTexan, is ejaculating.

This isn't something to joke about. It's a super serious national emergency. Many lives and walls are in danger.

dannno
02-15-2019, 03:41 PM
Every budget and spending bill he has signed has been larger than the last.




Agreed.


This thread is about the national emergency.. I asked how Trump's national emergency was growing government. You are like the fifth person to respond incorrectly and out of context.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 03:58 PM
it's time to repel the f***king invasion

This x1000!!! We need to repel the bastards that have taken our liberties and threatened our freedom!

We need to take this fight to these bastards! Let's all go to Home Depot and find them, there's usually a few of them there!!!

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 04:02 PM
This thread is about the national emergency.. I asked how Trump's national emergency was growing government. You are like the fifth person to respond incorrectly and out of context.

It's almost as if noone here is taking the national emergency seriously. (besides us)

dannno
02-15-2019, 04:12 PM
It's almost as if noone here is taking the national emergency seriously. (besides us)

I'm not taking the national emergency seriously, all Trump is doing is moving money that would be spent on drug enforcement and is using it to build a wall. One of those things is Constitutional (the wall) and one is not (drug enforcement).

It's those guys who are taking it seriously, like it is going to be some horrible thing, another big mistake by Trump.. how exactly is that?

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 04:13 PM
This isn't something to joke about. It's a super serious national emergency. Many lives and walls are in danger.
What truly grinds my gears is that all of these shit hole country migrants are making a mockery of the sanctity of our voting systems.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 04:17 PM
What truly grinds my gears is that all of these shit hole country migrants are making a mockery of the sanctity of our voting systems.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

Yes it's absolutely ridiculous, that these illegal immigrants are allowed to vote for all these socialist policies.

Only Americans should be allowed to do that.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 04:18 PM
Welfare is for Americans!! Donald Trump's government is creating thousands of welfare jobs, adding billions of dollars to the GDP. Don't people realize that when these construction workers start spending that money we will all be rich?

The usual pessimists on RPF can't even be bothered to see God's Work. Sad!

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 04:23 PM
Yes it's absolutely ridiculous, that these illegal immigrants are allowed to vote for all these socialist policies.

Only Americans should be allowed to do that.
I don't know if you're joking or not but Donald Trump has campaigned on being the last blockade of socialism.

I, for one, take him super serious and I am proud that we have such a free market capitalist in the White House.

Could you imagine the socialist boondoggles this country would be undertaking if Hilary Clinton had been elected? She would have bankrupted this country.

Donald Trump isn't perfect but at least he, as a businessman, understands assets and liabilities and he is working to get this ship back on track.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 04:29 PM
He needs to declare a National Emergency on jobs. I went to use my food card the other day and there were only two cashiers working.

I felt like I was in Venezuela.

RonZeplin
02-15-2019, 04:36 PM
This x1000!!! We need to repel the bastards that have taken our liberties and threatened our freedom!

We need to take this fight to these bastards! Let's all go to Home Depot and find them, there's usually a few of them there!!!

https://gdb.voanews.com/DC85A53E-08C2-419E-8486-E7DBB3C50F2A_w1023_r1_s.jpg
FILE - Authorities stand near a damaged Home Depot truck after a motorist drove onto a bike path near the World Trade Center memorial, striking and killing several people in New York, Oct. 31, 2017.

An Uzbek national is accused of using a rented truck to mow down pedestrians on a bike path Tuesday in New York City, killing at least eight and injuring 12, in what Police Commissioner James O'Neill called "the worst terror attack in New York City since Sept. 11, 2001."

According to NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller, the suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, left handwritten notes pledging his support for the Islamic State group.

It's not uncommon following mass-casualty events like the Tuesday attack in New York City that people become confused about whether the incidents amount to terrorism. The U.S. government has a strict legal definition of terrorism, which the FBI describes as an attack motivated by "political, religious, social, racial or environmental" beliefs.

Due to Saipov's Islamic radicalization and his support for IS, authorities quickly labeled his attack as terrorism. After he used his truck to run over pedestrians, authorities say Saipov began shouting "Allahu Akbar," which means "God is great" in Arabic, and is commonly uttered by Islamic terrorists.

https://www.voanews.com/a/difference-terrorism-mass-murder/4095806.html

dannno
02-15-2019, 04:44 PM
Well, maybe not for "any" reason. I mean, the Federal Debt is a ticking time bomb... If there was ever a real "national emergency", that is it!


Yes it's absolutely ridiculous, that these illegal immigrants are allowed to vote for all these socialist policies.

Only Americans should be allowed to do that.

Immigrants vote for bigger government at twice the rate of citizens. We are giving away welfare to illegal immigrants to come here, then only to vote for bigger government.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 04:51 PM
Immigrants vote for bigger government at twice the rate of citizens. We are giving away welfare to illegal immigrants to come here, then only to vote for bigger government.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

You know who also votes for bigger government at twice the rate of everyone else?

Black people.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 04:55 PM
You know who also votes for bigger government at twice the rate of everyone else?

Black people.
We can't do anything about the ones born here.

dannno
02-15-2019, 04:55 PM
You know who also votes for bigger government at twice the rate of everyone else?

Black people.

Surprisingly, they are a bit better, actually closer to asians.

http://i2.wp.com/thealternativehypothesis.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bigger-vs-Smaller-Government.png?resize=678%2C375

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 04:57 PM
We can't do anything about the ones born here.

Can we at least put it to a vote?

....or are you too PC for that?

TheCount
02-15-2019, 05:02 PM
This thread is about the national emergency.. I asked how Trump's national emergency was growing government. You are like the fifth person to respond incorrectly and out of context.

Trump to declare national emergency for border wall after signing spending bill



Yes, I know that a trumpkin hid the lede in the title, but it's still there.

CaptUSA
02-15-2019, 05:21 PM
Immigrants vote for bigger government at twice the rate of citizens. We are giving away welfare to illegal immigrants to come here, then only to vote for bigger government.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Well then call it a national emergency to end welfare. And end big government. That’s the real problem right?

Origanalist
02-15-2019, 05:31 PM
Somewhere, TheTexan, is ejaculating.

http://i.imgur.com/5KGgu.gif

dannno
02-15-2019, 05:34 PM
Well then call it a national emergency to end welfare. And end big government. That’s the real problem right?

Run on that platform, get elected and say it is the will of the people. I would frame it as giving welfare back to the states to run, though.. with all the people dependent on welfare, it is probably something that needs to be scaled back over time.

Trump didn't run on that. Trump did win, though, and the result will be less people voting for big government in the future than if he lost. Because he is fulfilling his campaign promises.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 05:39 PM
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/do-the-wall-and-government-shutdown-justify-a-national-emergency


Do The Wall And Government Shutdown Justify A National Emergency?

The words "National Emergency" should send shivers down the spine of anyone that values their liberty. At the same time, these words are music to the ears of those who lust after power. President Trump's threats to rule by fiat should not be taken lightly. Ron Paul discuses on today's Liberty Report.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMXYgQhFS5k

TheCount
02-15-2019, 05:44 PM
Run on that platform, get elected and say it is the will of the people.

And run the country by executive fiat. The battle cry of the populist.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 05:49 PM
And run the country by executive fiat. The battle cry of the populist.
Everything Trump is doing is legal, when we have set things right we can change that but there is no reason to fight with both hands tied behind our backs.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-15-2019, 05:58 PM
And run the country by executive fiat. The battle cry of the populist.



FDR and some other past presidents actually bypassed congress much more. Clinton and Trump are virtually tied with executive orders per year, at 45.5 versus 46.


https://thumbs.mic.com/MmQxMDdhMDAwNiMvbUlOR0ZEbkVLeXoyWDczVzZGTV9KNVBmZV hRPS8weDA6ODk5eDU2Ny8xNjAweDkwMC9maWx0ZXJzOmZvcm1h dChqcGVnKTpxdWFsaXR5KDgwKS9odHRwczovL3MzLmFtYXpvbm F3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy8wYTUzZDFiYThiMGZj MjJjZDNiMzgxMGZlNGZhNDVmOWI4ZjBiN2VmZTVlZjA2MTI1YW Q2YzliODdmYjY4MzQxLmpwZw.jpg

dannno
02-15-2019, 05:58 PM
And run the country by executive fiat. The battle cry of the populist.

If it's for freedom, I have no problem with it.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 05:59 PM
Everything Trump is doing is legal, when we have set things right we can change that but there is no reason to fight with both hands tied behind our backs.

If Clinton was trying to circumvent Congress via Executive Orders and Fiat and emergency declarations would you be applauding her actions? There was a workplace shooting today. What if she declared a national emergency to institute gun restrictions? It would be legal for her to do so. Congress is supposed to determine spending- not the President.

535441553079431168

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 06:02 PM
If Clinton was trying to circumvent Congress via Executive Orders and Fiat and emergency declarations would you be applauding her actions? There was a workplace shooting today. What if she declared a national emergency to institute gun restrictions? It would be legal for her to do so. Congress is supposed to determine spending- not the President.
It would NOT be legal for her to do so, Congress has not passed laws giving the President power over guns and the Constitution forbids any branch of government from taking them and Congress did determine this spending when it passed laws giving the President the power to do this.

TheCount
02-15-2019, 06:09 PM
If it's for freedom, I have no problem with it.

Yes, the freedom of dictatorship. We know.

dannno
02-15-2019, 06:11 PM
Yes, the freedom of dictatorship. We know.

Uh, no the freedom from living under socialism. Derrrrr.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 06:15 PM
Yes, the freedom of dictatorship. We know.
That's what the open borders crowd wants.

TheCount
02-15-2019, 06:27 PM
That's what the open borders crowd wants.

How very Orwellian of you.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 06:27 PM
How very Orwellian of you.
How very Orwellian of you.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-15-2019, 06:28 PM
We know.

Who is "we?"

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 06:32 PM
Who is "we?"
The open borders mafia that wants the freedom to live under tyranny, zippy actually made that argument recently.

timosman
02-15-2019, 06:46 PM
https://www.modbee.com/news/state/california/article226333740.html





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb-f5lgYs8M

California plans to sue over President Donald Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the Mexico border, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday.

If filed, the lawsuit would mark the state’s 46th legal challenge to Trump administration policies. This time, Newsom said, the state intends to contest Trump’s use of executive power for what the governor calls a manufactured crisis at the border.

“Our message back to the White House is simple and clear: California will see you in court,” Newsom said.


In a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Donald Trump announced the emergency declaration to build a wall along the border. He described illegal immigration over the border as “an invasion of our country.”

An emergency declaration lets the White House pay for the wall by repurposing money Congress previously allocated for military construction and counterdrug operations, aides said in a briefing with reporters Friday morning.


Trump has been unable to get that money from Congress. Democrats have refused to provide the $5.7 billion he requested in December spending negotiations. The disagreement led to a 35-day partial government shutdown, which ended in late January.

Administration officials told reporters they have identified as much as $8 billion they believe they can redirect to wall construction under the emergency declaration.

That includes $3.6 billion allocated for military construction and $2.5 billion from a counternarcotics account that funds National Guard efforts to stop drugs from flowing across the border, among other activities.

Instead, the administration wants to add about 200 miles of barriers along the border, augmenting the roughly 650 miles of border that already have some kind of wall.

A senior White House official told reporters the administration does not plan to redirect money from flood-control projects in the Sacramento region.

Reports last month that the White House could tap those civil works funds prompted Democratic Rep. John Garamendi and fellow California Democrats in the House to introduce legislation to block such a move.

Those projects are “not on the table currently,” the White House official said.

Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Beccera at a joint news conference declined to say when they would file the lawsuit they are preparing.

Becerra said he needs to review the text of the president’s declaration before he can say exactly what his office will do. He said he anticipates California will join several other states in suing over the declaration.

“President Trump got one thing right this morning about his declaration, when he said ‘I didn’t have to do this,’” Becerra said, referring to Trump’s remarks at the White House. “In fact, he can’t do this… This is a president showing his disdain for the rule of law and our U.S. Constitution.”

The president has argued the country needs physical barriers on the border to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Democrats have countered that most of the drugs coming over the Southwest border are brought in through ports of entry.

A spending deal Congress passed on Thursday includes an increase in funding for new screening equipment and 600 new customs officers at border crossings, including California’s five busy land ports of entry. That legislation, which the president signed to prevent another partial government shutdown, also provides $191 million for infrastructure improvements at the Calexico border crossing.

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Vice President Paola Avila said “the new federal funding will help improve ports of entry efficiency and security.” That will have an economic impact, Avila said, because 90 percent “of California’s exports to Mexico are processed through our land ports of entry.”

Newsom’s announcement about the pending lawsuit caps a week in which he and Trump repeatedly tested each other. On Monday, Newsom announced that he’d scale down a California National Guard deployment that Trump requested a year ago. Newsom wanted to reassign the troops to other priorities, such as preparing for wildfires and seizing illegal drugs.

On Wednesday, Trump declared in a Twitter message that he’d demand California return $3.5 billion to the federal government after Newsom put the brakes on costly legs of the state’s $77 billion high speed rail project.

Newsom on Friday repeated language he used in his State of the State speech earlier this week, arguing that the border wall Trump wants is a “vanity project” that distracts from more pressing challenges, such as delivering assistance to Californians who lost homes in wildfires.

Newsom on Thursday met with victims of the Camp Fire, which killed 86 people in November.


“I cannot impress upon the president more than at this moment not to play politics with any emergency declarations that would somehow impact the efforts here,” the Democrat said Thursday while meeting with Camp Fire victims in Northern California. “This is an area where politics has no place.”

Pauls' Revere
02-15-2019, 06:47 PM
Multi-Dimensional Dark Matter Wormhole Chess.
:up::eek:

kahless
02-15-2019, 07:04 PM
This was really a defining moment in the future direction of the country and I do not see how the right can come back from this. Conservatives barely had the numbers as it is and Trump was and is the last chance to stop it all. Any gains made in the last few years will simply be rolled back with the Democratic Socialist majorities due to the massive legal and illegal immigration.

If something does not turn this around history will likely view the Trump's in this period sort of like the Romanov's without meeting the same fate. Simply the last family before the political shift away from a country that once represented Capitalism and majority white Christian European culture.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 07:12 PM
FDR and some other past presidents actually bypassed congress much more. Clinton and Trump are virtually tied with executive orders per year, at 45.5 versus 46.


https://thumbs.mic.com/MmQxMDdhMDAwNiMvbUlOR0ZEbkVLeXoyWDczVzZGTV9KNVBmZV hRPS8weDA6ODk5eDU2Ny8xNjAweDkwMC9maWx0ZXJzOmZvcm1h dChqcGVnKTpxdWFsaXR5KDgwKS9odHRwczovL3MzLmFtYXpvbm F3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy8wYTUzZDFiYThiMGZj MjJjZDNiMzgxMGZlNGZhNDVmOWI4ZjBiN2VmZTVlZjA2MTI1YW Q2YzliODdmYjY4MzQxLmpwZw.jpg
Oh okay. Here I thought he was expanding executive powers faster than Clinton. Here Trump is scaling back executive overreach in the same sense that proposed budget increase decreases constitute slashing spending.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 07:23 PM
This was really a defining moment in the future direction of the country and I do not see how the right can come back from this. Conservatives barely had the numbers as it is and Trump was and is the last chance to stop it all. Any gains made in the last few years will simply be rolled back with the Democratic Socialist majorities due to the massive legal and illegal immigration.

If something does not turn this around history will likely view the Trump's in this period sort of like the Romanov's without meeting the same fate. Simply the last family before the political shift away from a country that once represented Capitalism and majority white Christian European culture.
Only Q or a civil war will save us, Trump has been doing the best possible job considering the RINOs and the courts and now the Demoncrats in the House.

Hopefully Q is part of his efforts and will actually payoff.

The last time we actually had a chance with anything other than Q or a civil war was Pat Buchanan but we we got the Shrubs and Clinton instead.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 07:25 PM
Only Q or a civil war will save us, Trump has been doing the best possible job considering the RINOs and the courts and now the Demoncrats in the House.

Hopefully Q is part of his efforts and will actually payoff.

The last time we actually had a chance with anything other than Q or a civil war was Pat Buchanan but we we got the Shrubs and Clinton instead.

What is Q going to do besides post weird things on the internet to drive people crazy and distract them?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 07:26 PM
Oh okay. Here I thought he was expanding executive powers faster than Clinton. Here Trump is scaling back executive overreach in the same sense that proposed budget increase decreases constitute slashing spending.
But is he using the executive powers for things that will result in less government in the long run or for things that will result in more government in the long term?

If the previous drivers used 4WD to get us way off track it may be necessary to use 4WD to get back on track.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 07:41 PM
But is he using the executive powers for things that will result in less government in the long run or for things that will result in more government in the long term?

If the previous drivers used 4WD to get us way off track it may be necessary to use 4WD to get back on track.
He's abandoned free market principles to save the free market.

Jeep style.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 07:42 PM
He's abandoned free market principles to save the free market.

Jeep style.
You can't abandon something that was never there since long before you took over.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 07:55 PM
Only Q or a civil war will save us, Trump has been doing the best possible job considering the RINOs and the courts and now the Demoncrats in the House.

Hopefully Q is part of his efforts and will actually payoff.

The last time we actually had a chance with anything other than Q or a civil war was Pat Buchanan but we we got the Shrubs and Clinton instead.

I don't know if I really actually trust Q. I'm glad that he's now in America and he's working on our side, but I don't like that he used to work for the British government in their R&D division. He could still be loyal to Britain.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 08:13 PM
You can't abandon something that was never there since long before you took over.

Government spending and overreach has gotten out of control in recent decades. But I think it will be a lot better after we spend 6+ billion dollars to make sure people can't walk over an invisible line.

I can feel the freedom already.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 08:17 PM
Government spending and overreach has gotten out of control in recent decades. But I think it will be a lot better after we spend 6+ billion dollars to make sure people can't walk over an invisible line.

I can feel the freedom already.
It will save much more than that in welfare, socialism, incarceration and property damage costs.

I would still prefer massive patrols but that might actually cost more in the long run.

You can't put a price on freedom and independence.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 08:31 PM
It will save much more than that in welfare, socialism, incarceration and property damage costs.

I would still prefer massive patrols but that might actually cost more in the long run.

You can't put a price on freedom and independence.

Massive patrols of police? That sounds awesome!

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 08:37 PM
Massive patrols of police? That sounds awesome!
Massive patrols of the military or the Border Patrol.

It would be awesome.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 08:42 PM
Immigrants vote for bigger government at twice the rate of citizens. We are giving away welfare to illegal immigrants to come here, then only to vote for bigger government.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

Well, if I put my 4D chess hat on, they may have a point. Think about it - Trump ran on an anti-immigration platform and it's a huge reason why he got elected. Trump's policies are way deeper than that though - he supports free markets, non-interventionism, and small government. These are all great but the average American doesn't care - they only care about immigration.

If Trump solves the immigration issue in 2019, where does that leave us in 2020? Or 2024? If we truly fix immigration, and deport all the Mexicans, then 10 years down the road all these Trump voters who supported Trump because of immigration issues might go back to being Democrat liberal voters.

But if immigration stays a problem and never gets fixed, then Trump can run on that platform again in 2020 and easily win, and similarly other liberty candidates can also run on anti-immigration platforms and sneak into office the same way Trump did, all the while secretly advancing the pro-free-market pro-liberty agenda.

This may be why Trump signed the spending bill - he knew it was a bad bill and wouldn't fix immigration but maybe that's the point. It sounds counter intuitive but if you've read Art of the Deal you know it makes sense.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 08:43 PM
Massive patrols of the military or the Border Patrol.

It would be awesome.

So military police basically. In the US! So awesome!

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 08:43 PM
So military police basically. Serving domestically. Even better!
The border isn't domestic, it is the border.

TheTexan
02-15-2019, 08:47 PM
The border isn't domestic, it is the border.

I wonder how many bases we can fit on a 1 dimensional line. Probably a lot!

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 09:38 PM
Statement by the President

Today, I have signed into law H.J. Res. 31, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019” (the “Act”), which authorizes appropriations to fund the operation of a number of agencies in the Federal Government through September 30, 2019.

Certain provisions of the Act (such as Division F, under the heading “Contribution for International Peacekeeping Activities”) would require advance notice to the Congress before the President may direct certain military actions or provide certain forms of military assistance. In signing the Act, I reiterate the well-established understanding of the executive branch that these types of provisions encompass only military actions for which providing advance notice is feasible and consistent with the President’s constitutional authority and duty as Commander in Chief to ensure national security. In addition, Division C, section 527, and Division A, section 516, both restrict the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. I will treat these, and similar provisions, consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
Numerous provisions could, in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of the President’s constitutional authorities to negotiate international agreements (such as Division C, sections 509, 518, and 530; and Division F, sections 7010(c) and 7013(a)), to articulate the position of the United States in international fora (such as Division F, sections 7025(c), 7029(a), (b)(1), 7031(d)(2), 7042(h)(1), 7043(g)(1), 7047(b)(3), 7054(b), and 7060(c)(2)(D), (3)), to receive ambassadors (such as Division F, section 7031(c)), and to recognize foreign governments (such as Division F, section 7047(b)(2)(A)). My Administration will treat each of these provisions consistent with the President’s constitutional authorities with respect to foreign relations.
Division C, section 537, provides that the Department of Justice may not use any funds to prevent implementation of medical marijuana laws by various States and territories. I will treat this provision consistent with the President’s constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
Certain provisions within Division D, title II, under the heading “Office of Management and Budget — Salaries and Expenses” impose restrictions on supervision by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of work performed by executive departments and agencies, including provisos that no funds made available to OMB “may be expended for the altering of the annual work plan developed by the Corps of Engineers for submission to the Committees on Appropriations”; that “none of the funds provided in this or prior Acts shall be used, directly or indirectly, by the Office of Management and Budget, for evaluating or determining if water resource project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers acting through the Secretary of the Army are in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant to the Civil Works water resource planning process”; and that “none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).” The President has well-established authority to supervise and oversee the executive branch and to rely on subordinates, including aides within the Executive Office of the President, to assist in supervising the executive branch. Legislation that significantly impedes the President’s ability to supervise the executive branch or obtain the assistance of aides in this function violates the separation of powers by undermining the President’s ability to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, including the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. My Administration will, therefore, construe these restrictions in Division C, title II consistent with these Presidential duties.
Several provisions (such as Division F, section 7041(b)(3)) mandate or regulate the submission of certain executive branch information to the Congress. I will treat these provisions in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information that could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the executive branch, or the performance of the President’s constitutional duties. In particular, Division D, section 713, prohibits the use of appropriations to pay the salary of any Federal officer or employee who interferes with or prohibits certain official communications between Federal employees and Members of Congress or of any Federal officer or employee who takes adverse action against an officer or employee because of such communications. I will construe these provisions not to apply to circumstances that would detract from my authority to supervise, control, and correct communications by Federal officers and employees with the Congress related to their official duties, including in cases where such communications would be unlawful or could reveal confidential information protected by executive privilege.
Certain provisions (such as Division F, section 7064; and Division G, section 418) prohibit the use of funds to deny an Inspector General access to agency records or documents. I will construe these, and similar provisions, consistent with my authority to control the dissemination of information protected by executive privilege.
Certain provisions prohibit the use of funds to recommend certain legislation to the Congress (Division B, section 715), or require recommendations of certain legislation to the Congress (Division A, section 537). Because the Constitution gives the President the authority to recommend “such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”, my Administration will continue the practice of treating provisions like these as advisory and non-binding.
Numerous provisions purport, in certain circumstances, to condition the authority of officers to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees (Division B, sections 702, 706, and 716(a), (b); Division E, sections 403 and 409; Division G, sections 188, 405, and 406). These are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws other than by the enactment of statutes. My Administration will make appropriate efforts to notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions and will accord the recommendations of such committees all appropriate and serious consideration, but it will not treat spending decisions as dependent on the approval of congressional committees.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-28/

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 09:38 PM
I wonder how many bases we can fit on a 1 dimensional line. Probably a lot!
Bases may be built anywhere in the United States.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 09:39 PM
The border isn't domestic, it is the border.

Unless they are outside the US (across that border) they are domestic. Will they be stationed in Mexico?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 09:40 PM
Unless they are outside the US (across that border) they are domestic. Will they be stationed in Mexico?
Domestic is inside the border, foreign is outside the border, the border is the border.

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 09:44 PM
I wonder how many bases we can fit on a 1 dimensional line. Probably a lot!

We're going to need more than 2D bases. To avoid violating the posse comitatus and simultaneously avoid invading Mexico, we're going to need 2D soldiers and weapons too.

I'm sure the military industrial complex is all over it. In fact, I feel confident they've already figured out how to charge $27,000 each for cardboard cutouts.

See how brilliant Trump is? Who else can play 2D chess?

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 09:49 PM
Domestic is inside the border, foreign is outside the border, the border is the border.

How wide is the border? Are they going to stand on top of the wall? (if the wall is on our side of the border I guess they will have to be on the other side of it).

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 09:50 PM
We're going to need more than 2D bases. To avoid violating the posse comitatus and simultaneously avoid invading Mexico, we're going to need 2D soldiers and weapons too.

I'm sure the military industrial complex is all over it. In fact, I feel confident they've already figured out how to charge $27,000 each for cardboard cutouts.

See how brilliant Trump is? Who else can play 2D chess?
:rolleyes:

The border is a 3D zone and if necessary we can patrol on the Mexican side, they are a hostile foreign state that facilitates the invasion of the US, they wouldn't dare go to war with us and if they did we could thrash them until they agreed to let us patrol on their side.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 09:56 PM
We're going to need more than 2D bases. To avoid violating the posse comitatus and simultaneously avoid invading Mexico, we're going to need 2D soldiers and weapons too.

I'm sure the military industrial complex is all over it. In fact, I feel confident they've already figured out how to charge $27,000 each for cardboard cutouts.

See how brilliant Trump is? Who else can play 2D chess?

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59b3122c25d70e5281a9c806/master/w_727,c_limit/Schwartz-As-Told-To-JR-installation.jpg

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 09:59 PM
:rolleyes:

The border is a 3D zone and if necessary we can patrol on the Mexican side, they are a hostile foreign state that facilitates the invasion of the US, they wouldn't dare go to war with us and if they did we could thrash them until they agreed to let us patrol on their side.
This.

A wall, a confrontation with Mexico, and the military stationed on the border is the only way this crisis will be solved.

And RealID, Everify, I-9s, land grabs, and taking money from those who have too much.

It's the only way to stop the socialist horde from turning America into a shit hole, socialist country.

It's why I say the Pledge of Allegiance twice each day- once before I wake up and once before I go to bed. It's the only thing stopping this country from slipping into the abyss of socialist nonsense.

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 09:59 PM
:rolleyes:

The border is a 3D zone and if necessary we can patrol on the Mexican side, they are a hostile foreign state that facilitates the invasion of the US, they wouldn't dare go to war with us and if they did we could thrash them until they agreed to let us patrol on their side.

Su tierra es mi tierra.

The neocons would be so proud.

Origanalist
02-15-2019, 10:02 PM
This.

A wall, a confrontation with Mexico, and the military stationed on the border is the only way this crisis will be solved.

And RealID, Everify, I-9s, land grabs, and taking money from those who have too much.

It's the only way to stop the socialist horde from turning America into a shit hole, socialist country.

It's why I say the Pledge of Allegiance twice each day- once before I wake up and once before I go to bed. It's the only thing stopping this country from slipping into the abyss of socialist nonsense.

Stop it, I'm getting tingly feelings in the no go zone.

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 10:03 PM
Stop it, I'm getting tingly feelings in the no go zone.
I'm so pumped up. The man who doesn't live on the border is itching for a hot conflict- division of labor and day jobs, fuck yeah!

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:03 PM
This.

A wall, a confrontation with Mexico, and the military stationed on the border is the only way this crisis will be solved.
The wall is not required and there would be no confrontation with Mexico because the troops (or the Border Patrol) don't have to step into Mexico and if they did Mexico would fold like a cheap suit.


And RealID, Everify, I-9s, land grabs, and taking money from those who have too much.
None of those are required if we stop the invasion and expel the invaders.


It's the only way to stop the socialist horde from turning America into a $#@! hole, socialist country.
Yup.


It's why I say the Pledge of Allegiance twice each day- once before I wake up and once before I go to bed. It's the only thing stopping this country from slipping into the abyss of socialist nonsense.

:rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:05 PM
Su tierra es mi tierra.

The neocons would be so proud.
I didn't say to take any part of Mexico.
If their people are free to enter our territory why aren't we free to enter theirs?

Or is Mexico's independence more valuable to you than America's?

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 10:09 PM
I didn't say to take any part of Mexico.
If their people are free to enter our territory why aren't we free to enter theirs?

Or is Mexico's independence more valuable to you than America's?

Oh, of course. The Mexican Army is all over Arizona. And nobody makes the slightest distinction between a few lawbreaking civilians acting alone and an armed contingent sent by government decree.

I'm not sure it makes sense yet, but after you repeat yourself a few times I'm sure it'll all fall into place. Nothing makes a line if shit less stinky than saying it over and over and over. And over. And over and over.

Did Trump's national emergency declaration include a Romulan Neutral Zone? Maybe we can create a Korea-style demilitarized zone just for the military. Oh, wait...

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 10:13 PM
The wall is not required and there would be no confrontation with Mexico because the troops (or the Border Patrol) don't have to step into Mexico and if they did Mexico would fold like a cheap suit.

That's what I keep telling people. Mexico would be a cake walk- 3 maybe 4 months max. Then we bring the troops home (they'll fold up before then).



None of those are required if we stop the invasion and expel the invaders.
We'll attack them there so that they don't come here. This is high level shit you're bringing up. Thank you for having the [far away] balls needed to look past some of this century's previous mistakes in the interest of saving America.

You are a patriot.



:rolleyes:
You don't?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:15 PM
Oh, of course. The Mexican Army is all over Arizona. And nobody makes the slightest distinction between a few lawbreaking civilians acting alone and an armed contingent sent by government decree.
The Mexican army violates our border all the time and the Mexican government facilitates the demographic/political invasion.
They are waging a low intensity war against us.

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 10:17 PM
The Mexican army violates our border all the time and the Mexican government facilitates the demographic/political invasion.
They are waging a low intensity war against us.

Care to back that up? Or is that just more crap that sounded good at the time?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:18 PM
That's what I keep telling people. Mexico would be a cake walk- 3 maybe 4 months max. Then we bring the troops home (they'll fold up before then).
We don't have to invade, we can just sit a few feet inside their border and atomize anything they send to attack us.
Not that they would actually be so stupid.



We'll attack them there so that they don't come here. This is high level $#@! you're bringing up. Thank you for having the [far away] balls needed to look past some of this century's previous mistakes in the interest of saving America.
We wouldn't have to attack them at all, just patrol on their side of the border and repel any attacks.


You are a patriot.

I am, you are [mod edit, guidelines]

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:21 PM
Care to back that up? Or is that just more crap that sounded good at the time?
Mexican military incursions into U.S. inflame border . (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11226144/ns/us_news-security/t/mexican-incursions-inflame-border-situation/)



DHS Covers Up Another Mexican Military Incursion Into U.S .. (https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/04/dhs-covers-another-mexican-military-incursion-u-s/)
Mexican military incursions reported - Washington Times (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/17/20060117-121930-3169r/)
Mexican Incursions - Judicial Watch (https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/mexican-incursions/)
Mexican military border incursions on the rise - RenewAmerica (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/100623)
Mexican military incursions: Chertoff downplays, excuses ... (https://24ahead.com/blog/archives/004540.html)
I could go on and on and on..................................

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 10:23 PM
We don't have to invade, we can just sit a few feet inside their border and atomize anything they send to attack us.
Not that they would actually be so stupid.


We wouldn't have to attack them at all, just patrol on their side of the border and repel any attacks.


I am, you are [mod edit, guidelines]

Nuclear weapons, eh? Talk about overkill to try to solve a tiny problem!

dannno
02-15-2019, 10:26 PM
NATIONAL EMERGENCY

34:00 - 37:30


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu4D65df5OY

jmdrake
02-15-2019, 10:30 PM
If they could do that they would have done it already, no new precedent is being set.

Trump already made precedent on gun control with his bumpfire stock ban by executive order. So far Trump has been worse on gun control than Obama. On top of banning a gun accessory by executive order, he hinted that he would support a new assault weapons ban. Obama never did that. Oh and we also have the face scanning cameras at airports and at the border with Mexico by executive order too. Not gun control, but totalitarian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html

https://71republic.com/2019/01/11/trump-stop-assault-weapons-ban/

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/593989347/facial-scanning-now-arriving-at-u-s-airports

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/05/facial-recognition-us-mexico-border-crossing

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:31 PM
Nuclear weapons, eh? Talk about overkill to try to solve a tiny problem!
One can "atomize" things without nuclear weapons.

An atomizer:

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. 5oRJNE-L1I0yFYEAGKVlzAHaLu%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 10:32 PM
Trump already made precedent on gun control with his bumpfire stock ban by executive order. So far Trump has been worse on gun control than Obama. On top of banning a gun accessory by executive order, he hinted that he would support a new assault weapons ban. Obama never did that. Oh and we also have the face scanning cameras at airports and at the border with Mexico by executive order too. Not gun control, but totalitarian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html

https://71republic.com/2019/01/11/trump-stop-assault-weapons-ban/

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/593989347/facial-scanning-now-arriving-at-u-s-airports

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/05/facial-recognition-us-mexico-border-crossing

Gotta stop them rapist terrorist immigrants wherever they lurk! It could be you! We gotta check out EVERYBODY!

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 10:33 PM
One can "atomize" things without nuclear weapons.

An atomizer:

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. 5oRJNE-L1I0yFYEAGKVlzAHaLu%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

I bet that will scare the terrorists and drug dealers walking freely across our borders!

kcchiefs6465
02-15-2019, 10:33 PM
We don't have to invade, we can just sit a few feet inside their border and atomize anything they send to attack us.
Not that they would actually be so stupid.
Three words- GENIUS!!!

I hadn't even realized that indefinitely occupying three to five feet across the Mexican border was an option. Worst case scenario we'll just keep occupying three more feet at a time until the war is won. Our boys aren't no bitches. If that's the Mission, they'll get it done.



We wouldn't have to attack them at all, just patrol on their side of the border and repel any attacks.
Fuck yes. We'd just have to have everyone stand around in the open and patrol. The cartels wouldn't dare take pot shots at government agents.


I am, you are [mod edit, guidelines]
This hurts. I piss red, white, and blue- cuck.

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 10:34 PM
Mexican military incursions into U.S. inflame border . (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11226144/ns/us_news-security/t/mexican-incursions-inflame-border-situation/)


On Jan. 23, a group of Texas deputy sheriffs, acting on a tip, intercepted a group of drug smugglers and were surprised to find what they believed to be Mexican soldiers with automatic weapons and a military vehicle providing armed security.

When confronted by the deputies, the drug smugglers raced back across the border while men in Mexican military uniforms, driving a Humvee, “took up a defensive position” that Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West described as a "military maneuver."

When one of the vehicles carrying drugs got stuck in the river, the uniformed men fanned out and took up protective positions as others unloaded the marijuana, West testified. When the drugs were unloaded, the truck was set on fire “and still sits in the river where it burned,” West said.

Mexican officials said Friday that, after an initial investigation, none of its military were involved in the episode. A State Department official testifying Tuesday said that a separate U.S. investigation is still being conducted.

Nothing unusual
Mexican soldiers caught inside U.S. boundaries “isn’t a new phenomenon,” said David Aguilar, chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. Although the Mexican military has an “internal policy” that states they won’t operate within about two miles of the U.S., that policy is routinely violated or simply ignored, he said. “We often spot them” near or inside U.S. borders, Aguilar said.

Hummers are built in the U.S. AM General/GM presumably fits them with VINs on metal plates, and keeps records of whom they sell them to. Yet despite this thing sitting in the Rio Grande, we have no proof the Mexican Army has assisted any smugglers.

Which means that was not a Mexican Army Hummer. Doesn't it?



I am, you are [mod edit, guidelines]

Am I the only one who remembers when this forum had guidelines, Bryan ?

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:36 PM
Trump already made precedent on gun control with his bumpfire stock ban by executive order.
That has nothing to do with this emergency, he didn't declare an emergency to do it and it was designed to be overturned in court.
No new precedent was set with this emergency and it was entirely legal.


So far Trump has been worse on gun control than Obama. On top of banning a gun accessory by executive order, he hinted that he would support a new assault weapons ban. Obama never did that.
What he says and what he does are often two different things and the subject of this thread.


Oh and we also have the face scanning cameras at airports and at the border with Mexico by executive order too. Not gun control, but totalitarian.
And that was not done with an emergency either.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:37 PM
Hummers are built in the U.S. AM General/GM presumably fits them with VINs on metal plates, and keeps records of whom they sell them to. Yet despite this thing sitting in the Rio Grande, we have no proof the Mexican Army has assisted any smugglers.

Which means that was not a Mexican Army Hummer. Doesn't it?
There are many other examples, it doesn't matter if you are right about that one or not.

jmdrake
02-15-2019, 10:38 PM
That has nothing to do with this emergency, he didn't declare an emergency to do it and it was designed to be overturned in court. No new precedent was set with this emergency and it was entirely legal.


Overturned in court? I'll believe that when I see it.


What he says and what he does are often two different things and the subject of this thread.

Yeah. He said he'd build a wall across the entire southern border and that Mexico would pay for it.



And that was not done with an emergency either.

Which makes it even worse. That said, face scanning cameras are part of the "border security package" that Trump is seeking the emergency to fund. So fail on your part.

dannno
02-15-2019, 10:39 PM
Trump already made precedent on gun control with his bumpfire stock ban by executive order. So far Trump has been worse on gun control than Obama. On top of banning a gun accessory by executive order, he hinted that he would support a new assault weapons ban. Obama never did that. Oh and we also have the face scanning cameras at airports and at the border with Mexico by executive order too. Not gun control, but totalitarian.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks-ban.html

https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-feinstein-reacts-with-glee-after-trump-1519859544-htmlstory.html

https://71republic.com/2019/01/11/trump-stop-assault-weapons-ban/

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/16/593989347/facial-scanning-now-arriving-at-u-s-airports

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/05/facial-recognition-us-mexico-border-crossing

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/799983253

acptulsa
02-15-2019, 10:40 PM
There are many other examples, it doesn't matter if you are right about that one or not.

Because there's a rule that only one group of drug smugglers can masquerade as army units.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 10:43 PM
Hummers are built in the U.S. AM General/GM presumably fits them with VINs on metal plates, and keeps records of whom they sell them to. Yet despite this thing sitting in the Rio Grande, we have no proof the Mexican Army has assisted any smugglers.

Which means that was not a Mexican Army Hummer. Doesn't it?



Am I the only one who remembers when this forum had guidelines, Bryan ?

Ahnold drives a Hummer.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/fp/Arnold+Schwarzenegger+Arnold+Schwarzenegger+wdq1rS __NlBl.jpg

That is his puny girly one. Check this one out:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/12/11/352C3F4400000578-3637457-He_s_back_Former_Governor_of_California_Arnold_Sch warzenegger_wa-m-15_1465727026659.jpg

jmdrake
02-15-2019, 10:45 PM
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/799983253

And I can link you to an escort site too. Just because the gubmint ain't taken your site down yet doesn't mean what you're doing is legal.

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 10:45 PM
This thread gets more disgusting as time goes by. Sickening.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:47 PM
Because there's a rule that only one group of drug smugglers can masquerade as army units.
:rolleyes:

There have been many cases where it was definitely the Mexican army but even if they were all smugglers that would mean that Mexico was facilitating them by failing to control out of control criminal activity on the border, if our criminals masqueraded as US military and invaded them on a regular basis they would hold us responsible and be absolutely right to do so.

They also directly aid the "migrants" coming to invade us.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:48 PM
This thread gets more disgusting as time goes by. Sickening.
It sure does.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 10:50 PM
That has nothing to do with this emergency, he didn't declare an emergency to do it and it was designed to be overturned in court.
No new precedent was set with this emergency and it was entirely legal.


What he says and what he does are often two different things and the subject of this thread.


And that was not done with an emergency either.

Neither is the current situation. Trump has admitted so. Besides tweets like the one in my sig where he declares the border secure, he said so earlier today when he said there was an emergency. Then said there wasn't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430215-trump-says-he-didnt-need-to-declare-emergency-but-wanted-faster




President Trump said on Friday that he "didn't need to" declare a national emergency but did it to speed up construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

"I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster," Trump said during a press conference at the Rose Garden in the White House.

RonZeplin
02-15-2019, 10:50 PM
How wide is the border? Are they going to stand on top of the wall? (if the wall is on our side of the border I guess they will have to be on the other side of it).

The border wall is entirely in the USA. The old Monument markers are usually on the Mexican side of the wall. The actual border is usually about 3 feet from the wall.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/84/ae/d9/84aed90bf862ef99e531b6046521e5f4.jpg
Monument Marker at the Pacific Ocean, Tijuana Mexico.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:51 PM
Which makes it even worse. That said, face scanning cameras are part of the "border security package" that Trump is seeking the emergency to fund. So fail on your part.
You are changing the subject, this isn't about face scanning cameras, we were talking about whether Trump's emergency declaration set some kind of dangerous new precedent. It didn't.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:53 PM
Neither is the current situation. Trump has admitted so. Besides tweets like the one in my sig where he declares the border secure, he said so earlier today when he said there was an emergency. Then said there wasn't.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/430215-trump-says-he-didnt-need-to-declare-emergency-but-wanted-faster
That is Fake News, he was referring to signing the bill NOT to declaring the emergency.

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 10:56 PM
It sure does.


Seek help.

Origanalist
02-15-2019, 10:56 PM
This thread gets more disgusting as time goes by. Sickening.

Watchu talkin bout Willis? This is some 3D shit goin on heah.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 10:58 PM
Seek help.
Physician heal thyself.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:00 PM
Am I the only one who remembers when this forum had guidelines, @Bryan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=2) ?
I have had much worse and less accurate insults hurled at me and nothing happened, none of the usual suspects who whine about civility when the leftists get a taste of their own medicine said a word either.

CCTelander
02-15-2019, 11:01 PM
Watchu talkin bout Willis? This is some 3D shit goin on heah.


Invade, occupy and patrol yet another country? If the defend themselves "vaporize" them? That's some bloodthirsty, morally bankrupt "might makes right" shit right there. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want to be associated with it.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 11:02 PM
That is Fake News, he was referring to signing the bill NOT to declaring the emergency.

So you agree, Trump's words can be fake news.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:04 PM
Invade, occupy and patrol yet another country? If the defend themselves "vaporize" them? That's some bloodthirsty, morally bankrupt "might makes right" $#@! right there. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want to be associated with it.
They are invading and conquering us, stepping a few feet into their territory to stop it isn't some kind of crime.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 11:04 PM
Invade, occupy and patrol yet another country? If the defend themselves "vaporize" them? That's some bloodthirsty, morally bankrupt "might makes right" $#@! right there. I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't want to be associated with it.

He has different sides depending on the situation. Syria? US should get out of there! No military actions in other countries! (Putin's take). On the border? Send in millions of military and spend $ billions!

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:04 PM
So you agree, Trump's words can be fake news.
:rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:04 PM
He has different sides depending on the situation. Syria? US should get out of there! No military actions in other countries! (Putin's take). On the border? Send in millions of military and spend $ billions!
Syria isn't invading us.

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 11:06 PM
Syria isn't invading us.

Neither is Mexico.

jmdrake
02-15-2019, 11:09 PM
You are changing the subject, this isn't about face scanning cameras, we were talking about whether Trump's emergency declaration set some kind of dangerous new precedent. It didn't.

Face scanning cameras are part of the "emergency funding." So.....do you even have a point? You don't.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:10 PM
Neither is Mexico.
Yes they are and they are aiding other countries to invade us as well.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:11 PM
Face scanning cameras are part of the "emergency funding." So.....do you even have a point? You don't.
You are changing the subject, we were talking about whether Trump set some kind of new dangerous precedent.

He did not.

jmdrake
02-15-2019, 11:12 PM
You are changing the subject, we were talking about whether Trump set some kind of new dangerous precedent.

He did not.

Face scanning cameras are not a dangerous precedent to you. Got it.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:14 PM
Face scanning cameras are not a dangerous precedent to you. Got it.
He already set that before this emergency, can't you remember what the subject is for two minutes at a time or is this just some stupid attempt to distract from the fact that you are wrong?

Zippyjuan
02-15-2019, 11:14 PM
Yes they are and they are aiding other countries to invade us as well.

Textbook key words you are supposed to use but not true.

Swordsmyth
02-15-2019, 11:16 PM
Textbook key words you are supposed to use but not true.
It is totally true and your attempt to deny it is ridiculous.

Origanalist
02-16-2019, 05:09 AM
https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/943452492650590208

DamianTV
02-16-2019, 05:18 AM
Because there's a rule that only one group of drug smugglers can masquerade as army units.

Something something dont break the law, the govt hates competition?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
02-16-2019, 05:29 AM
Oh okay. Here I thought he was expanding executive powers faster than Clinton. Here Trump is scaling back executive overreach in the same sense that proposed budget increase decreases constitute slashing spending.



I'm not sure what you're saying when you're comparing Trump to Clinton, but it sounds like a money comparison.
Either way, I would still guess that the largest percentage debt and deficit were under FDR.

jmdrake
02-16-2019, 07:42 AM
He already set that before this emergency, can't you remember what the subject is for two minutes at a time or is this just some stupid attempt to distract from the fact that you are wrong?

And when he did that before it was a bad precedent. He's expanding on the bad precedent. I'm not wrong. You're just retarded. But that is nothing new to me. Also you don't even understand the meaning of the word "precedent." When courts refer to precedent they don't just talk about the first time something happens but all of the precedent.

acptulsa
02-16-2019, 07:55 AM
You are changing the subject, this isn't about face scanning cameras, we were talking about whether Trump's emergency declaration set some kind of dangerous new precedent. It didn't.

Look at the thread title. Of course Trump's invasive domestic spy gear is germane to the topic. Your attempt to censor us is childish, churlish and ineffective.

Get over it.


https://cdn.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/943489477646041088

And he gets neither.

Brian4Liberty
02-16-2019, 03:15 PM
I’m sure I’ve missed all kinds of stimulating debate on the subject, but these “National Emergencies” declared by the President should be unconstitutional. When we have these edicts outstanding for decades, they are not emergencies in any sense of the word. They are policy with the weight of law. True emergencies should be like war, with a declaration from Congress.

If this goes to the Supreme Court, the best outcome would be to rule the entire concept unconstitutional, and declare all outstanding POTUS declared “national emergencies” null and void.

How much leeway the executive branch has to move around funds and fulfill it’s duty as the executive branch may be debatable, but this “emergency declaration” power should definitely lie with Congress, not the POTUS.

Zippyjuan
02-16-2019, 03:32 PM
Trump worried about unconstitutional power grabs as he tries to seize the power of spending from Congress to build his wall. "So Third World!
You have to obey the law!"

1096246820097966080

535441553079431168

Zippyjuan
02-16-2019, 04:16 PM
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-declaration-of-national-emergency-was-unnecessarily-dramatic-victor-davis-hanson


Messina pointed out that during his news conference, President Trump admitted that he “didn’t need” to declare a national emergency but that he did so to expedite funding for the wall, which Messina concluded made the event the “definition of not an emergency.”

“This is a troubling move by a president. The framers put together a Constitution to make sure that there was separation of powers and not to have kings. And I think the president is right, he’s going to spend a lot of time in court,” Messina said.

Benson seemed to agree with the sentiment, calling Trump’s decision “politically questionable” and “legally dubious.”

“Frankly, as a conservative, I hope he loses in court on this because I do not want a precedent where presidents can get rejected or stymied by Congress and go ahead and do what they want anyhow."

Fox Poll: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-2-13-19


If Congress does not approve funding for a wall, would you support or oppose the president bypassing Congress and declaring a national emergency on the nation’s southern border that would give him the executive power to construct a border wall without congressional approval?

Favor: 38%
Oppose: 56%
Don't Know: 6

Swordsmyth
02-16-2019, 04:40 PM
Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-declaration-of-national-emergency-was-unnecessarily-dramatic-victor-davis-hanson



Fox Poll: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-2-13-19

He said he didn't need to sign the bill, he didn't say he didn't need to declare the emergency.

Zippyjuan
02-16-2019, 04:45 PM
He said he didn't need to sign the bill, he didn't say he didn't need to declare the emergency.

Context:


"I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this," Trump told reporters gathered in the White House Rose Garden on Friday, shortly before he signed a proclamation declaring the emergency. "But I'd rather do it much faster."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/02/16/border-emergency-donald-trump-quote-undercuts-move-critics-says/2881619002/

Swordsmyth
02-16-2019, 04:46 PM
Context:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/02/16/border-emergency-donald-trump-quote-undercuts-move-critics-says/2881619002/
It was also shortly AFTER he signed the bill.

Zippyjuan
02-16-2019, 04:49 PM
It was also shortly AFTER he signed the bill.

Signing the bill doesn't "build the wall much faster" but signing the State of Emergency does.


"But I'd rather do it much faster."