weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 16, 2019 16:57:23 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 16, 2019 16:58:55 GMT -5
Or maybe Magma....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2019 10:59:19 GMT -5
Remember what the national emergency declaration is truly about: So the president, by issuing this declaration, has forced his party into what amounts to a loyalty test — will they stand with him, even if it means abandoning some of their long-held concerns about executive overreach? Could Congress Block Trump’s Emergency Declaration? Will this be the event that breaks any remaining restraint on executive power? Standing by to see.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2019 11:53:53 GMT -5
Saw the below quote being passed around Facebook regarding Pelosi and national emergencies. Twisting facts to inflame the gullible: "Just to be clear Pelosi has just threatened to take your Gun rights away if a Democrat President is elected . Let that sink in." What Pelosi actually said: Pelosi, fully aware of the predicament for her Republican colleagues, seemed to relish a few moments goading the party on the very prospect of the tables being turned. In a news conference Thursday afternoon, she warned that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they’re opening” because a Democratic president could call the gun-control epidemic claiming thousands of lives every year an emergency — a pointed threat on an issue Republicans hold dear: gun rights. “You want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the first anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said, referring to the Parkland, Fla., shooting that left more than a dozen high school students dead. “That’s a national emergency . . . A Democratic president could do that.” She added: “So the precedent that the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.” House Democrats to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration; Republicans divided on action
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 12:13:12 GMT -5
Remember what the national emergency declaration is truly about: So the president, by issuing this declaration, has forced his party into what amounts to a loyalty test — will they stand with him, even if it means abandoning some of their long-held concerns about executive overreach? Could Congress Block Trump’s Emergency Declaration? Will this be the event that breaks any remaining restraint on executive power? Standing by to see. So your saying that if the Republicans don't go against Trump it must be loyalty, that it could not be possible they agree with him on the wall and think this is a national emergency
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 12:16:43 GMT -5
Saw the below quote being passed around Facebook regarding Pelosi and national emergencies. Twisting facts to inflame the gullible: "Just to be clear Pelosi has just threatened to take your Gun rights away if a Democrat President is elected . Let that sink in." What Pelosi actually said: Pelosi, fully aware of the predicament for her Republican colleagues, seemed to relish a few moments goading the party on the very prospect of the tables being turned. In a news conference Thursday afternoon, she warned that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they’re opening” because a Democratic president could call the gun-control epidemic claiming thousands of lives every year an emergency — a pointed threat on an issue Republicans hold dear: gun rights. “You want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the first anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said, referring to the Parkland, Fla., shooting that left more than a dozen high school students dead. “That’s a national emergency . . . A Democratic president could do that.” She added: “So the precedent that the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.” House Democrats to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration; Republicans divided on actionThe difference is banning gun rights will lead into court and let's see how far that will go. Hell if congress cannot override Trump sue him I'll be happy with the outcome either way. At least Trump is trying to do something constructive unlike the Obstructionist democrats
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2019 12:19:56 GMT -5
Saw the below quote being passed around Facebook regarding Pelosi and national emergencies. Twisting facts to inflame the gullible: "Just to be clear Pelosi has just threatened to take your Gun rights away if a Democrat President is elected . Let that sink in." What Pelosi actually said: Pelosi, fully aware of the predicament for her Republican colleagues, seemed to relish a few moments goading the party on the very prospect of the tables being turned. In a news conference Thursday afternoon, she warned that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they’re opening” because a Democratic president could call the gun-control epidemic claiming thousands of lives every year an emergency — a pointed threat on an issue Republicans hold dear: gun rights. “You want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the first anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said, referring to the Parkland, Fla., shooting that left more than a dozen high school students dead. “That’s a national emergency . . . A Democratic president could do that.” She added: “So the precedent that the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.” House Democrats to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration; Republicans divided on actionThe difference is banning gun rights will lead into court and let's see how far that will go. Hell if congress cannot override Trump sue him I'll be happy with the outcome either way. At least Trump is trying to do something constructive unlike the Obstructionist democrats
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 12:24:48 GMT -5
The difference is banning gun rights will lead into court and let's see how far that will go. Hell if congress cannot override Trump sue him I'll be happy with the outcome either way. At least Trump is trying to do something constructive unlike the Obstructionist democrats ok lol...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2019 12:26:04 GMT -5
Saw the below quote being passed around Facebook regarding Pelosi and national emergencies. Twisting facts to inflame the gullible: "Just to be clear Pelosi has just threatened to take your Gun rights away if a Democrat President is elected . Let that sink in." What Pelosi actually said: Pelosi, fully aware of the predicament for her Republican colleagues, seemed to relish a few moments goading the party on the very prospect of the tables being turned. In a news conference Thursday afternoon, she warned that Republicans should “have some dismay about the door that they’re opening” because a Democratic president could call the gun-control epidemic claiming thousands of lives every year an emergency — a pointed threat on an issue Republicans hold dear: gun rights. “You want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the first anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said, referring to the Parkland, Fla., shooting that left more than a dozen high school students dead. “That’s a national emergency . . . A Democratic president could do that.” She added: “So the precedent that the president is setting here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.” House Democrats to challenge Trump’s emergency declaration; Republicans divided on actionThe difference is banning gun rights will lead into court and let's see how far that will go. Hell if congress cannot override Trump sue him I'll be happy with the outcome either way. At least Trump is trying to do something constructive unlike the Obstructionist democrats Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”?
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 12:28:51 GMT -5
The difference is banning gun rights will lead into court and let's see how far that will go. Hell if congress cannot override Trump sue him I'll be happy with the outcome either way. At least Trump is trying to do something constructive unlike the Obstructionist democrats Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”? The democrats party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2019 12:29:55 GMT -5
Remember what the national emergency declaration is truly about: So the president, by issuing this declaration, has forced his party into what amounts to a loyalty test — will they stand with him, even if it means abandoning some of their long-held concerns about executive overreach? Could Congress Block Trump’s Emergency Declaration? Will this be the event that breaks any remaining restraint on executive power? Standing by to see. So your saying that if the Republicans don't go against Trump it must be loyalty, that it could not be possible they agree with him on the wall and think this is a national emergency Of course it’s loyaly. No intelligent person actually believes that there is actually an immigration crisis. The facts do not support the assertion.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2019 12:32:46 GMT -5
Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”? The democrats party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall An ad hominem attack does not answer my question.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,307
|
Post by swamp on Feb 18, 2019 12:33:30 GMT -5
Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”? The democrats party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall Please explain to my why a wall is sensible. Most illegals overstay legal entries. A wall won't fix that. Most drugs come through ports of entry in cargo shipments. It won't stop that. We need to put resources where they would be more efficient, tracking those who overstay their visas and better cargo screening. I'm not opposed to a fence in the desert, but a big freaking brick wall is a dumb idea.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 18, 2019 12:47:21 GMT -5
Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”? The democrats party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall It is Donald Trump's statements that are far from sensible. His wall is not a sensible solution.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2019 14:19:53 GMT -5
... they agree with him on the wall and think this is a national emergency Frankly I don't give a shit. Here is what I care about: The Constitution of the United States...
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
...
Section 9
...
7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
...
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
...
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ...President Trump did his Constitutional duty when he recommended funding a wall on the Southern border. The Legislative Branch did their Constitutional duty to consider that request. They rejected that recommendation. That was where we were at through last Friday. Then President Trump determined that he would not accept the Constitutional limit placed on the power of the Executive Branch. He declared a national emergency to circumvent the Constitution of the United States to use money in a way not appropriated by law. It is my expectation that the Legislative Branch not allow that to come to fruition. Legislators who believe a wall is necessary need to convince enough other elected officials to vote for it. President Trump needs to go to the American people and convince them that they need to put pressure on elected officials and, if that fails, encourage that they elect different people in the next election.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2019 16:25:22 GMT -5
"Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said "many of us are concerned about" the declaration. ...
"I wish he wouldn't use it in this case. But again, I understand his frustration." link He doesn't get to violate the Constitution because he is "frustrated".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,401
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 18, 2019 16:34:50 GMT -5
Frustration would have been publicly grumbling about it but not actually declaring it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,216
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Feb 18, 2019 16:44:46 GMT -5
"Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said "many of us are concerned about" the declaration. ...
"I wish he wouldn't use it in this case. But again, I understand his frustration." link He doesn't get to violate the Constitution because he is "frustrated". Amen. So much fuss over Obama using executive orders but when Trump stomps all over the constitution "meh he's just upset it's understandable". WTF? Does he have pee tapes on all the Republicans and that's why they won't do their job? Defenders of the constitution my ass.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2019 18:10:36 GMT -5
Sensible gun regulation does not call for “banning gun rights”. We are required to have a drivers license, pass a driving test, carry auto insurance and license our vehicles. Does that equate “banning driving privileges”? The democrats republican party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall fixed that for you.
if not for the Republicans, there would not even be a DISCUSSION of the wall- let alone an argument.
edit: for the record, I considered every president prior to Trump to be relatively "sensible". so, yeah, I think that Democrats and Republicans can craft sensible legislation. I think that HR9 is sensible (requiring background checks). don't you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2019 18:12:08 GMT -5
So your saying that if the Republicans don't go against Trump it must be loyalty, that it could not be possible they agree with him on the wall and think this is a national emergency Of course it’s loyaly. No intelligent person actually believes that there is actually an immigration crisis. The facts do not support the assertion. Trump's OWN DECLARATION doesn't support the "emergency".
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,873
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 18, 2019 18:16:00 GMT -5
The democrats party of today doesn't know the meaning of the word sensible. If they did we wouldn't be where we are today arguing about a wall Please explain to my why a wall is sensible. Most illegals overstay legal entries. A wall won't fix that. Most drugs come through ports of entry in cargo shipments. It won't stop that. We need to put resources where they would be more efficient, tracking those who overstay their visas and better cargo screening. I'm not opposed to a fence in the desert, but a big freaking brick wall is a dumb idea. You forgot one other fact - illegal immigration over the southern border is at the lowest point it's been since 1971.
If it wasn't a crisis from 1972 through 2018, why is it now, in 2019, a crisis?
I can answer that - because it's not a REAL crisis, it's a wag the dog crisis.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,873
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 18, 2019 18:23:23 GMT -5
Of course it’s loyaly. No intelligent person actually believes that there is actually an immigration crisis. The facts do not support the assertion. Trump's OWN DECLARATION doesn't support the "emergency". Did you see Trump's press conference where he tangled with Bob Acosta from CNN? Acosta kept quoting actual facts about immigration, and Trump got all flustered and kept insisting everything Acosta said was lies. Acosta pointed out the information came from Trump's own government accounting offices, which just made Trump launch into one of his incomprehensible word salads.
Apparently we can't believe government statistics, reporting, eye witness reports, law enforcement reports - nothing is true anymore except what Trump says, based on what his very good brain is telling him.
I would laugh, except so many people are falling for that line of bullshit.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 18:54:47 GMT -5
Please explain to my why a wall is sensible. Most illegals overstay legal entries. A wall won't fix that. Most drugs come through ports of entry in cargo shipments. It won't stop that. We need to put resources where they would be more efficient, tracking those who overstay their visas and better cargo screening. I'm not opposed to a fence in the desert, but a big freaking brick wall is a dumb idea. You forgot one other fact - illegal immigration over the southern border is at the lowest point it's been since 1971.
If it wasn't a crisis from 1972 through 2018, why is it now, in 2019, a crisis?
I can answer that - because it's not a REAL crisis, it's a wag the dog crisis.
41000 apprehended in January....no telling how many were not apprehended....it was always an issue obama, Bush, Clinton also said it was an issue, but Trump is the only one who wants to make a difference. The issue here is the dems are trying to claim false racism to drum up votes...talk about fear mongering
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 19:03:03 GMT -5
... they agree with him on the wall and think this is a national emergency Frankly I don't give a shit. Here is what I care about: The Constitution of the United States...
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
...
Section 9
...
7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
...
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
...
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ...President Trump did his Constitutional duty when he recommended funding a wall on the Southern border. The Legislative Branch did their Constitutional duty to consider that request. They rejected that recommendation. That was where we were at through last Friday. Then President Trump determined that he would not accept the Constitutional limit placed on the power of the Executive Branch. He declared a national emergency to circumvent the Constitution of the United States to use money in a way not appropriated by law. It is my expectation that the Legislative Branch not allow that to come to fruition. Legislators who believe a wall is necessary need to convince enough other elected officials to vote for it. President Trump needs to go to the American people and convince them that they need to put pressure on elected officials and, if that fails, encourage that they elect different people in the next election. Trump asked for the money Congress said no Trump is going to allocate the money thru emergency declaration Congress can override him thru a majority vote if that don't work they can sue him You may not like it but the process is working the way it should. We finally have a president We as in the ones who had the stupid obamacare shoved down our throats, now you get the wall how does it taste. At least this is for a good reason
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,062
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2019 19:10:13 GMT -5
Frankly I don't give a shit. Here is what I care about: The Constitution of the United States...
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
...
Section 9
...
7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
...
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
...
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; ...President Trump did his Constitutional duty when he recommended funding a wall on the Southern border. The Legislative Branch did their Constitutional duty to consider that request. They rejected that recommendation. That was where we were at through last Friday. Then President Trump determined that he would not accept the Constitutional limit placed on the power of the Executive Branch. He declared a national emergency to circumvent the Constitution of the United States to use money in a way not appropriated by law. It is my expectation that the Legislative Branch not allow that to come to fruition. Legislators who believe a wall is necessary need to convince enough other elected officials to vote for it. President Trump needs to go to the American people and convince them that they need to put pressure on elected officials and, if that fails, encourage that they elect different people in the next election. Trump asked for the money Congress said no Trump is going to allocate the money thru emergency declaration Congress can override him thru a majority vote if that don't work they can sue him You may not like it but the process is working the way it should. We finally have a presidentyou do realize that presidents have used emergency provisions 57 times in 43 years, right?
by this standard, we have always had presidents. the average president does this 5 times a term.
what separates Trump from the rest is that he did it for a non-emergent reason. which should be criminal, imo.
we should not HAVE to sue the president to stop him from stealing funds from the DOD. he should just not do it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,873
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 18, 2019 20:45:22 GMT -5
You forgot one other fact - illegal immigration over the southern border is at the lowest point it's been since 1971.
If it wasn't a crisis from 1972 through 2018, why is it now, in 2019, a crisis?
I can answer that - because it's not a REAL crisis, it's a wag the dog crisis.
41000 apprehended in January....no telling how many were not apprehended....it was always an issue obama, Bush, Clinton also said it was an issue, but Trump is the only one who wants to make a difference. The issue here is the dems are trying to claim false racism to drum up votes...talk about fear mongering Are you aware of the difference between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2019 21:18:58 GMT -5
41000 apprehended in January....no telling how many were not apprehended....it was always an issue obama, Bush, Clinton also said it was an issue, but Trump is the only one who wants to make a difference. The issue here is the dems are trying to claim false racism to drum up votes...talk about fear mongering Are you aware of the difference between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers? You do realize they 41k broke the law they were apprehended this was between point of entries. The wall shouldn't affect asylum seekers. They just have to go to a point of entry for asylum. Why are you afraid that will happen?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2019 21:29:56 GMT -5
... You may not like it but the process is working the way it should. We finally have a president We as in the ones who had the stupid obamacare shoved down our throats, now you get the wall how does it taste. At least this is for a good reason Obamacare is a poor thing to note here. It was passed by the legislative branch and signed by the executive branch. Former President Obama's Executive Orders on DACA are true examples of executive overreach. If taking power one should not take is a sign that we "have a president", then we had one with Obama. As far as your claim that "the process is working as it should", I challenge you to explain how that is true. Note that I have cited specific clauses from the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, to support my position. Can you offer an interpretation of those clauses that give the president the power he has assumed? Or are there different clauses you can cite?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,449
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 18, 2019 21:41:24 GMT -5
... Trump is going to allocate the money thru emergency declaration ... I don't think it could be stated any clearer that what he is doing is unconstitutional.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 18, 2019 21:42:14 GMT -5
Kinda funny, Back when Obama was using the Executive Order , We complained to no end, the left thought it was good, now,,, The Right see no wrong with it, and the left complains about it now! That's like the debt,, Back when Obama was spending, the Right complained, The left defended it!! Now, Trump is spending The Left thinks it is terrible, The Right is defending it!!
|
|