FINALLY getting The Wall !!!! (?)

13»

Replies

  • Billy_BuddBilly_Budd Posts: 642 Senior Member
    edited February 17 #62
    NPR has been interviewing LEO people along the border all week. All claiming there's no emergency.





    NPR??? The same NPR that worships the Young Turks? Hahahahahahaha!!!

    ETA: Ya might as well have Don Lemonhead or Richard Madcow reporting from the border. Lol!
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,486 Senior Member
    Its not completely objective but its available.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,620 Senior Member
    horselips said:
    President Trump is just spending money already appropriated by the Congress to various departments, to be spent as the need arises. Most of the money is coming from the DOD. It's is entirely within the administration's discretion to spend the money on new tires for army trucks instead of new bunks for army barracks. The Wall is as much of a national security, national defense consideration as spare parts for jets, or new furniture for the Pentagon. Spending however many billions on the Wall is neither illegal, or subversive of Constitutional intent or precedent. 
    If that is the case, there would be no need to declare a national emergency. The rest of your post? You seem to make a lot of general assumptions. If that is how you see the world, good for you. I can't make you open your eyes.
    There are a lot of the usual breathless assertions about people needing to "open their eyes," and that "no president should have that much power," or that this is "an outrageous abuse of presidential power," etc. Those are all well-worn exclamatory phrases that don't really matter, even if they are true. Every president with any balls at all has been accused of it, and most of them were guilty, as charged. This particular one is doing nothing that the last Democrat president did not also do. It may even be why Donald Trump jumped into the presidential race, because he saw Obama getting away with it, and wanted to wield some of that amazing power, himself.

    What it really is, is just another president using every tool at his disposal to overcome a lazy, dishonest, and incompetent Congress that cannot or will not do anything worthwhile. A president may be doing it for the right reasons, or he may be doing it for his own personal reasons. Historians will weigh in with their opinions, eventually, when it doesn't matter...because, after all, people only peruse the parts of history that they like, anyway.

    The anti-Trumpeters conveniently ignored horselips comments on liberal icons that have done much worse. Lincoln did it when he suspended habeas corpus because he thought saving the union was more important than protecting the sovereignty of the individual states. Roosevelt did it when he imprisoned American citizens of Japanese descent, because public opinion seemed to demand it. Obama did it because Congress was gridlocked and wouldn't pass his agenda. Now Trump is doing it for the same reason, but since he is an ****, it has to be terribly wrong.

    Here is a fact - all presidents will do it, if they think they can get away with it, for two reasons. (1) they are sure that the solution they have decided on will succeed, and that their political opposition will wither away, once the public sees that it has succeeded, or (2) the media will protect them by changing the subject before the rhetoric gets out of hand and the lynch mobs start to form.

    If you really think about it, why would anybody want to walk through the fires of hell to get elected president, if they didn't intend to wield the power? We are playing with fire, every time we elect anyone that actually wants this job, in the current environment.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,486 Senior Member
    I didn't ignore those comments. I figured he had this authority as soon as I heard the news.

    Presidential candidates are not characterised in perception with altruistic motives. Its big profitable and powerful business including liberal neocon office holders.

    Realistically, the debate at this point centers not on this being a stratagem of contention. It becomes a question of is this issue worthy of this stratagey and it's future consequences??? Of course the media focus remains on the former, but in my mind its already done.

    Even the back and forth of the necessity of the wall becomes somewhat irrelevant in light of missed opportunity to execute barrier construction without the extravagant show to accompany it.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,669 Senior Member
    Bisley, the point is each successive president moves the goalposts further in terms of executive power. Every time it happens the opposition screams about overreach and how this or that is unconstitutional and then completely forgets about that the next time their guy is in power and cheers the next step they take down that road. Under Obama it was executive orders. Under Trump now it's national emergencies. How many more administrations until we no longer have a president but an emperor? At least some here and  even some in congress  seem to get that. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,585 Senior Member
    NPR has been interviewing LEO people along the border all week. All claiming there's no emergency.

    DW news interviewed some expert yesterday saying illegal immigration actually stimulates portions of the economy.

    I don't advocate those positions or their sources. I know there's as many or more links available in our debates here citing just the opposite.

    If it was up to those in diametric opposition here, we'd have portions of barrier being erected and be back to arguing over what screws are best to use for pegboard in the outhouse.

    The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle. The struggle itself has eclipsed the people's business, and made the halls of legislative policy an arena of contest. We the spectators are egged on to fanatical support of our team and demonized caricature of the opposition. If it goes on long enough, someone will ask about the wall one day and hear a resounding "what?" in response.


    "The President and his antagonists are having a power struggle".

    It is more like a literal "Mexican Standoff"! Compromise is not an option. POTUS not only has legal authority concerning immigration but the responsibility to use it if necessary.

     US CODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,620 Senior Member
    Even the back and forth of the necessity of the wall becomes somewhat irrelevant in light of missed opportunity to execute barrier construction without the extravagant show to accompany it.
    With regard to the "extravagant show," I assume you mean the speech at El Paso, in which Trump made his case for declaring the emergency?

    I am not an authority on how to properly compete against a media whose 'news' reports and comments are over 90% negative about Donald Trump, all day, every day. But I am sure that he uses that venue, as well as social media, to try to offset that. Whether or not that is the reason that he somehow manages to keep his head above water on the 'approval ratings,' I can't say.

    I have already given my opinion on whether declaring an emergency is the correct strategy, and whether the political consequences will be any different because of it. To be more clear about it, I will simply say that I don't think it is the best strategy, but I also don't think it will have dire consequences for Republicans, down the road.

    The reason it was a close call (for me) on whether to do it, is that no border security bill would have been allowed by a Democrat controlled House, without the shutdown threat being present. There will be no further border security bills allowed in the House, from here on out. Basically, this was the last bill of any consequence that will be passed in the House, except for the party line bills like the "New Green Deal," which are DOA when they go to the Senate. The remainder of this Congressional term will be nothing but political posturing on both sides, because neither side will support the other. Surely you will agree on that point.

    If you accept my analysis of that, the emergency declaration does make more sense, from a purely pragmatic (but not political) point of view. Whatever the Supreme Court eventually rules, it will set a standard for the use of that presidential power, and for what tests have to be met by anyone who challenges it.

    In my opinion, it will favor constitutional integrity, whichever way it goes in the SC. Even if the court upholds the order, the next emergency that is declared by any president, will still have to meet the criteria given by the court for upholding this one, and that is a good standard. To me, it means that Democrats will have to prove that man-made global warming is an emergency, or that guns are capable of randomly jumping out of the underwear drawer and killing innocent children.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,486 Senior Member
    The Sunday morning news shows are having a field day with this. If Trump wants some interpretive media influence, he's got it now, even more contrary to him than before.

    It does seem that time will shift the spotlight and diminish this executive action to the scope of a future footnote. We'll see.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,585 Senior Member
    The Sunday morning news shows are having a field day with this. If Trump wants some interpretive media influence, he's got it now, even more contrary to him than before.

    It does seem that time will shift the spotlight and diminish this executive action to the scope of a future footnote. We'll see.


    I watched Fox News Sunday. I found Miller's Tap Dancing routine repetitive and boring. Wallace finally going full rabid liberal was much more entertaining.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/answer-my-question-fox-news-host-grills-defiant-stephen-miller-on-trumps-national-emergency/ar-BBTIRu9?li=BBnb7Kz

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,486 Senior Member
    The courts will ultimately decide the issue of national emergency. Conclusively I hope. Public opinion, and media influence will likely be less clear.

    The time may actually be at hand where some self proclaimed conservatives can postpone committal on this issue until after a check of the wind. Im not a lawyer, but if the precedent is found to be conclusively unconstitutional it will be difficult to reconcile previous support with conservative politics. 
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,620 Senior Member
    Until Obama, presidents used executive orders, which include the declarations of national emergencies, for issues where the public was clearly either in favor of it, or willing to 'let it slide.' They adhered to that criteria because they did not want to be overturned in the court system, for obvious political reasons. Obama pushed the envelope, by signing orders that represented positions that were clearly partisan issues that could not be passed through Congress - like the DACA order, and the executive order that removed the work requirement for welfare recipients.

    By Donald Trump's logic, he is doing nothing different, except that he upped the ante by classifying the border security crisis as an emergency, which is always going to be a subjective term, and it is impossible to know how the Supreme Court will rule. It all depends on what the SC decides the definition of 'emergency' is. He can justify his position, politically, by citing all of the times that Congress approved sending our military abroad to help other countries control their borders, and the fact that Congress has been unwilling to secure the southern border for decades, regardless of national security considerations.

    I think that, legally, the SC has to weigh the 'letter' of the law, which may not allow him to classify a 30 year long crisis as an emergency, or the 'spirit' of the law which would should ultimately support a president's cardinal responsibility to protect the public from foreign invasion.

    Personally, I believe that the state of our border sovereignty is an existential threat to the republic, just as it was to all of those foreign countries we have assisted in maintaining or reclaiming their borders. This is what Abraham Lincoln believed when he bent the Constitution to preserve the Union, and what FDR pretended to believe when he imprisoned Japanese Americans.

    Legally, who knows? It is a difficult proposition that will test the court's adherence to the words written in the Constitution. But, that's why they get the big bucks, and they will earn it on this one, if they are honest.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,486 Senior Member
    edited February 19 #73
    Trump might get away with justifying it no matter what the court rules.

    Conservative legislators put on the spot of having to justify and reconcile their positions after a negative ruling could be severely compromised.

    Another possibility is long delayed adjudication beyond 2020..

    Meanwhile, the 60 minutes interview may wind up supportive of claims of DOJ partisan subterfuge. If substantiation beyond hear say materializes. 

    Interesting times.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,620 Senior Member
    Bisley, the point is each successive president moves the goalposts further in terms of executive power. Every time it happens the opposition screams about overreach and how this or that is unconstitutional and then completely forgets about that the next time their guy is in power and cheers the next step they take down that road. Under Obama it was executive orders. Under Trump now it's national emergencies. How many more administrations until we no longer have a president but an emperor? At least some here and  even some in congress  seem to get that. 
    I don't cheer them on. I lament the fact that our bloated, corrupt government is no longer responsive to the level-headed portion of our population that actually makes things work. The public has become incapable of, or unwilling to process the massive amounts of information and cancel out the BS on each side with the other. Instead, they depend on the summaries that are prepared by specialists in the art of creating the opinions that benefit a particular agenda.

    It is only natural in an environment of aggressive ignorance that the political goal posts will keep moving. No honest person can get elected, and cannot govern if he/she does get elected. In frustration, they issue edicts that please their loudest constituency, so that they can 'truthfully' say that they have done all they could to keep their campaign promises. If the opposition can get away with 'cheating,' the temptation is to 'out cheat them.' It is wrong and it is destructive, and the only thing that can ever prevent the cheating is for the two sides to have the same basic moral underpinning. Without it, it is simply total war, politically at first, but escalating beyond that, eventually. Wars have grown out of such behavior, with the people fighting in them befuddled about the causes and the goals...because the only goal is to be the winner, or maybe just the survivor.

    In the past, the two parties shared common religions, patriotism, and ethics. It was imperfect, and some cheated, and some people still suffered. But the basic tenets of fair play and honesty still provided a structure that was sometimes capable of compromise on the unsolvable disagreements in principal.

    Where we are now is far away from anything that has a chance of survival, over the long term. Compare us to the 'bread and circuses' era of the Roman Empire, and you can see where we are at. They lasted 700 years, and we haven't manged 300, yet. Each political faction thinks that this era of radicalism is necessary to make up the lead that their opposition has won by underhanded means. They think that once they have won, things will settle down and get back to normal. But it won't, because the moral underpinning will be completely gone, replaced by a faux morality that ignores the lessons of the past.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,585 Senior Member
    Our Southern border is by far the most infiltrated. Barriers can help but are not nearly 100% effective. Our Southern land border is 1,954 miles long. Our Northern land border is 5,335 miles long. Our continental shoreline is 12,383 miles long. Our continental borders vulnerable to infiltration by air is 19,672 miles Can we build a wall around that? 
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.