Graham: Trump says GOP senators opposing him are ‘playing with fire’

[Warlord]

President Donald Trump said Senate Republicans considering opposition to his emergency declaration on the border are "playing with fire," according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, who met with the president on Tuesday morning.

The South Carolina Republican said his meeting with the president focused mostly on the border and the number of illegal crossings as Trump faces certain bipartisan defeat on his emergency declaration in the Senate later this month.

Four Republican senators have said they will join 47 Senate Democrats in voting to block the national emergency declaration, though Trump will veto it and Congress likely won't be able to muster the votes to override it. And though Trump is not waging a massive campaign to convert Republicans to his side, he's acutely aware of the politics of the issue.

"He says he thinks Republicans are playing with fire here because most Republicans, anyway, most people I hope, will see that the border is in a state of crisis," Graham said, adding that Trump believes GOP senators that defy him are likely to face a political backlash. "That's his observation, but he's not out there calling people out or anything."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...senate-1205426

[enhanced_deficit]

Sen. Graham: If Trump caves, it's the end of his presidency

[Anti Globalist]

Like how Graham was opposing him when he was running for President.

[jkr]

SPEAKING of FLAMMING

[jmdrake]

So....Lindsey Pansy Graham has thrown down the gauntlet. Will the Trumpskiites #StandWithRand or #LieWithGraham?

[shakey1]

He's so full of it.

[kahless]

It is all one big sham the whole thing. Graham suddenly making sense every so often this last year only proves it. Just like the labeled libertarian politicians making every attempt to destroy the ability to grow a libertarian society within the borders of the US while virtue signalling or blatantly giving aid and comfort to the authoritarian left that wishes to destroy the ideology.

Well, if social media is any indication it sure looks like the libertarian wing is complete toast in the future due to their love for either or both of open borders, foreign citizens over our own, immigrants, and betraying Americans for cheap labor.

[acptulsa]

Well, if social media is any indication...

LOL

Shills telling people to heed shills.

[Zippyjuan]

Conservative National Review agrees with Rand: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...y-declaration/

If you’re a huge fan of the wall, that’s fine. If you — like Paul himself — wanted Congress to secure more funding for it, then that’s fine, too. But the thing is, if you were railing against President Obama’s tendency to want to get things done himself that he couldn’t get done through Congress, then you simply cannot support this emergency declaration without being a complete hypocrite. In fact, supporting it would prove that you never really cared about Obama’s use of executive power at all in the first place; you were only using that argument as an excuse to detest, on partisan grounds, what was being done. (It’s also worth noting that it seems difficult to justify the idea that illegal immigration has somehow suddenly reached “emergency” status when the fact is that it’s already dropping on its own, and that it’s expected to continue to do so.)

Much to my displeasure, it seems as though the government is getting bigger and bigger each day. Conservatives always like to say that they oppose this along with me, but you’ll have to excuse me for saying that I’m starting to have a difficult time believing that. I’m definitely thankful for the consistent small-government conservatism that’s being displayed by Senator Paul here; I only wish that more people who use that political label could understand how generally limiting the scope of executive power is far more pivotal in ensuring a bright, prosperous, and free future for our country than any one specific issue — no matter what that issue may be.

[kahless]

Conservative National Review agrees with Rand: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...y-declaration/

I am so surprised the Globalist Neocon magazine that promotes the polices of international corporations over own own soviegnty, open borders and shills for foreign citizens over our own would support this. /s

It is not the Conservative National Review it is the Neoconservative National Review. Two entirely different ideologies.

Scumbag traitors to our people.

[acptulsa]

I am so surprised the Globalist Neocon magazine that promotes the polices of international corporations over own own soviegnty, open borders and shills for foreign citizens over our own would support this. /s

It is not the Conservative National Review it is the Neoconservative National Review. Two entirely different ideologies.

Scumbag traitors to our people.

That must be why they said...

If you’re a huge fan of the wall, that’s fine. If you — like Paul himself — wanted Congress to secure more funding for it, then that’s fine, too. But the thing is, if you were railing against President Obama’s tendency to want to get things done himself that he couldn’t get done through Congress, then you simply cannot support this emergency declaration without being a complete hypocrite.

Doesn't look like they're promoting open borders to me. If its unAmerican to call hypocrites hypocrites, then something went terribly wrong with America somewhere down the line.

[Zippyjuan]

I am so surprised the Globalist Neocon magazine that promotes the polices of international corporations over own own soviegnty, open borders and shills for foreign citizens over our own would support this. /s

It is not the Conservative National Review it is the Neoconservative National Review. Two entirely different ideologies.

Scumbag traitors to our people.

So Rand Paul- the subject of the article- is a "globalist neocon" for opposing Trump's attempted power grab and a "traitor to 'our' people". (Which people are "us"? -is that some sort of "code")?


https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...declaration-to

Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Trump's emergency declaration to fund wall


About six in 10 Americans in a new poll oppose President Trump's national emergency declaration to fund a wall along the southern border.

Sixty percent of respondents voiced disapproval to the move Trump made last month, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The survey found that 53 percent strongly disapproved of using a national emergency to divert military funds for construction of a border while 7 percent said they "somewhat" disapprove.

Meanwhile, 39 percent of respondents said they did support a national emergency to fund a border wall. Just 1 percent of Americans polled were unsure.

More at link.

[euphemia]

Lamar Alexander needs to watch out. Voters in this state are not happy with him.

[kahless]

That must be why they said...

Doesn't look like they're promoting open borders to me. If its unAmerican to call hypocrites hypocrites, then something went terribly wrong with America somewhere down the line.

In this case they are comparing two entirely different things, the Obama EO's vs Trump EO on the emergency at the border.

They are not a credible source and I am surprised we have come this far on this site that the Neocon National Review which was once laughed at here is now a trustworthy source of opinion. This considering their history of promoting foreign intervention, Neo-Conservatism, globalism and open borders.

They may get a few facts or articles right once in awhile but so does Lindsey Graham. But maybe I should not be surprised if we start seeing articles from his Senate website promoted here at this point as some gold standard.

[acptulsa]

They are not a credible source and I am surprised we have come this far on this site that the Neocon National Review which was once laughed at here is now a trustworthy source of opinion.

Who said that?

I was just reading what that passage said, since you seemed to be having difficulty grasping it. I didn't see anyone pass judgment on the publication as a whole.

[kahless]

So Rand Paul- the subject of the article- is a "globalist neocon" for opposing Trump's attempted power grab and a "traitor to 'our' people". (Which people are "us"? -is that some sort of "code")?

That mag is shill for foreign citizens and others countries over our own people. Since this is an American forum of course "our people" or "us" in the context I am referring to is Americans. I get that some people here do not think that way or think the country should not exist at all and want open borders.

I am fine with a limited night watchman state and just defending the borders so we can live under a limited government society. That is impossible with an open border and not defending that border.

Rand does believe in securing the border. I just disagree with his handling on this aspect. That does not make him a "globalist neocon" traitor, that is ridiculous.

[acptulsa]

They may get a few facts or articles right once in awhile [sic]

And that was one of them.

[Zippyjuan]

That mag is shill for foreign citizens and others countries over our own people. Since this is an American forum of course "our people" or "us" in the context I am referring to is Americans. I get that some people here do not think that way or think the country should not exist at all and want open borders.

I am fine with a limited night watchman state and just defending the borders so we can live under a limited government society. That is impossible with an open border and not defending that border.

Rand does believe in securing the border. I just disagree with his handling on this aspect. That does not make him a "globalist neocon" traitor, that is ridiculous.

We don't have an "open border".

[kahless]

We don't have an "open border".

A porous border is bad enough considering the numbers were are seeing coming across. You are well aware there are people that want to keep it that way and/or no border or border controls.

[kahless]

And that was one of them.

In your opinion.

[acptulsa]

In your opinion.

The only thing you could find wrong with it is its location. That article ain't real estate.

[Zippyjuan]

A porous border is bad enough considering the numbers were are seeing coming across. You are well aware there are people that want to keep it that way and/or no border or border controls.

People like Ron Paul? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/texas...143600792.html