Trump caves

[jamil]

So Trump is now our emperor?


If these people were truly invaders set on plunder and mayhem, sure, call out the Nat Guard. But, when it's mom with two toddlers looking for the nearest border guard to turn themselves in and claim amnesty, that's not really a military function.

The mob descending on our border is more of a grey area. They're not coming here for asylum. It's clear this mob march was organized, likely for political purposes, and that purpose seems likely that it's to destabilize the border. I think it's fine to use the military to help keep the border peace in that case. But to use them as a permanent addition to border patrol agents, I'd say absolutely not to that. If we need more border agents, fine. Fund them. Do that art of the deal thing.

 

[jamil]

Wasn't the villian from Octo***** named Kamala?

No, that was Kamal. Similar. But different.

 

[Leadeye]

Assuming Kamala Harris would play the national health emergency card on gun ownership, how far can she go and how fast?

 

[jamil]

Assuming Kamala Harris would play the national health emergency card on gun ownership, how far can she go and how fast?

However far she or whomever the next bat-****-crazy democrat POTUS goes, it'll be a ratchet step up from how far Trump goes.

 

[d.kaufman]

The mob descending on our border is more of a grey area. They're not coming here for asylum. It's clear this mob march was organized, likely for political purposes, and that purpose seems likely that it's to destabilize the border. I think it's fine to use the military to help keep the border peace in that case. But to use them as a permanent addition to border patrol agents, I'd say absolutely not to that. If we need more border agents, fine. Fund them. Do that art of the deal thing.

Im fine with using are service men and women to protect the border. As a matter of fact, bring all our troops home and let these countries protect themselves. I for one am tired of the USA being the world police, and spending taxpayer money on foriegn soil.
Military is to defend our country, which is our borders, not other countries borders.
I know it will never happen due to all the special interests between politicians and foriegn governments but i would love to see it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Im fine with using are service men and women to protect the border. As a matter of fact, bring all our troops home and let these countries protect themselves. I for one am tired of the USA being the world police, and spending taxpayer money on foriegn soil.
Military is to defend our country, which is our borders, not other countries borders.
I know it will never happen due to all the special interests between politicians and foriegn governments but i would love to see it.

While, I agree somewhat. It's not that simple. We purposefully interjected ourselves into the affairs of the world to expand influence. Now that we have that influence, and countries rely heavily on us, we can't just pull the rug out from under them. Do so would create a MASSIVE power vacuum that China, Russia, India, and Brazil would most certainly exploit, ultimately leaving us in a bad position. To do it the right way, I imagine would take well after we're dead.

 

[d.kaufman]

While, I agree somewhat. It's not that simple. We purposefully interjected ourselves into the affairs of the world to expand influence. Now that we have that influence, and countries rely heavily on us, we can't just pull the rug out from under them. Do so would create a MASSIVE power vacuum that China, Russia, India, and Brazil would most certainly exploit, ultimately leaving us in a bad position. To do it the right way, I imagine would take well after we're dead.

I do know its not as simple as that, but something that should be done over time. Mostly wishful thinking as i doubt it will ever happen

 

[bwframe]

IF Kamala could actually get elected, why would she or any other lib loon follow any of Trump's leads, if he chooses not to go the emergency route?

The answer is, just like Obama, they wouldn't. They'll use anything in their power to accomplish their goals, regardless of what Trump does now.

 

[JettaKnight]

IF Kamala could actually get elected,

I'm not laughing - people said Trump could never get elected.

why would she or any other lib loon follow any of Trump's leads, if he chooses not to go the emergency route?

The answer is, just like Obama, they wouldn't. They'll use anything in their power to accomplish their goals, regardless of what Trump does now.

So why make any path easier?


Are you simultaneously criticizing democrats for, "[using] anything in their power to accomplish their goals", while saying Trump should, "use anything in their power to accomplish [his] goal" regardless of the long term political consequences?


Are you actually doing that?

 

[BugI02]

While, I agree somewhat. It's not that simple. We purposefully interjected ourselves into the affairs of the world to expand influence. Now that we have that influence, and countries rely heavily on us, we can't just pull the rug out from under them. Do so would create a MASSIVE power vacuum that China, Russia, India, and Brazil would most certainly exploit, ultimately leaving us in a bad position. To do it the right way, I imagine would take well after we're dead.

Odd. The way I remember it, we were dragged kicking and screaming into the 'affairs of the world' by a cowardly sneak attack on 7 Dec 41. Other countries came to 'rely heavily on us' because we mobilized our willpower, manpower and latent industrial power to crush the Axis regardless of the cost to ourselves. Then, in a show of our real intent, which had no element of empire building entrained; we picked up our erstwhile enemies, dusted them off, and rebuilt them into free capitalist societies - historically some of the least violent (comparatively) and least dangerous to their neighbors.

With little respite, we then undertook to help as much of the world as we could to resist the gangrenous spread of communism. We didn't start the fights, but we certainly did finish them

Prior to the 40's we were essentially proto-isolationist and consumed with our own problems. Our founding fathers were also isolationist when they established the republic. It seems disingenuous to revere the founding fathers/constitution out of one side while being interventionist out of the other. I, for one, think that quite a few countries would prefer that we weren't quite as confrontational on the world stage. Solutions imposed by us/US will never have as much authenticity as regional solutions worked out by the regional players. We can serve as a referee without needing to lace up and put on pads

 

[BugI02]

Should Trump establish a precedent of using Presidential emergency powers to bypass the inaction of congress, a newly minted President Kamala Harris would likely be very quick to abuse the precedent and impose gun controls on law abiding citizens via emergency powers.

If Trump uses this power to fund the border wall I hope the courts ***** slaps him back into 2015. The president doesn't get to just decree his whims into law when congress doesn't go along. The thing that prevents Trump from having his way unfettered, also protects us from an out of control unhinged Kamala Harris or other bat **** crazy Democrat's whims. I WANT those to be fettered by checks and balances.

This is a multi-pronged problem J.Mill. If we value the rule of law, should we not be seeking to keep Trump and McConnell in their current positions for as long as possible so that as high a percentage of the judiciary as possible end up being constitutionalist/originalist at all levels?

Should you disagree with that, would you not then be advocating for as many Obama appointed judges as possible to be left as our recourse to restrict the postulated overreach of a president Harris? How did that work out during the Obama years?
It's all interconnected, you have to take the bad with the good; and one path is obviously 'more gooder'

 

[CampingJosh]

Odd. The way I remember it, we were dragged kicking and screaming into the 'affairs of the world' by a cowardly sneak attack on 7 Dec 41. Other countries came to 'rely heavily on us' because we mobilized our willpower, manpower and latent industrial power to crush the Axis regardless of the cost to ourselves. Then, in a show of our real intent, which had no element of empire building entrained; we picked up our erstwhile enemies, dusted them off, and rebuilt them into free capitalist societies - historically some of the least violent (comparatively) and least dangerous to their neighbors.

Odd. I seem to remember significant U.S. involvement in some previous world-wide conflict. Sometime in the late nineteen-teens, perhaps. What could that have been?

The Spanish-American War was far from isolationist. Theodore Roosevelt certainly couldn't be accurately described as an isolationist. How about Manifest Destiny? Or our squabbles with Mexico, both in the 19th and 20th centuries?

Sure, the US was basically isolationist during the era of Reconstruction, but that was more from necessity than desire.

There was a significant bit of an isolationist backlash in this country following the Great War, but it's certainly not true to claim that such was always U.S. policy prior to 1941.

With little respite, we then undertook to help as much of the world as we could to resist the gangrenous spread of communism. We didn't start the fights, but we certainly did finish them

I wouldn't say we "certainly did finish" Korea or Vietnam. Korea still isn't over.

Prior to the 40's we were essentially proto-isolationist and consumed with our own problems. Our founding fathers were also isolationist when they established the republic. It seems disingenuous to revere the founding fathers/constitution out of one side while being interventionist out of the other. I, for one, think that quite a few countries would prefer that we weren't quite as confrontational on the world stage. Solutions imposed by us/US will never have as much authenticity as regional solutions worked out by the regional players. We can serve as a referee without needing to lace up and put on pads

Have you ever read of James Monroe? I don't think that his namesake doctrine is particularly isolationist.


I agree that the US doesn't need to be involved in nearly as much of the world as we are. But I don't think we're well-served by pretending that the situation we're in now is radically new in the last 80 years.

 

[bwframe]

I'm not laughing - people said Trump could never get elected.



So why make any path easier?


Are you simultaneously criticizing democrats for, "[using] anything in their power to accomplish their goals", while saying Trump should, "use anything in their power to accomplish [his] goal" regardless of the long term political consequences?


Are you actually doing that?

Kamala won't be the dems nominee. She's for single payer healthcare. Trump was elected on repealing Obamacare, so going deeper into that abys will never fly.

Regardless, whatever dem we get whenever we get them, WILL use everything in their power to get their agenda accomplished. SO should we.

If using the emergency provision causes huge outrage, so be it. Congress can remove that power, so it will never be "abused" again.

If the dems and TDSers want to rave about what the next guy'll do when in power, so be that too. All the more reason to highlight why we shouldn't allow them to get elected.

We do have an emergency on our southern border. We have invaders cross into out country every day. So may invaders that they are now organized in waves.

 

[BugI02]

Odd. I seem to remember significant U.S. involvement in some previous world-wide conflict. Sometime in the late nineteen-teens, perhaps. What could that have been?

The Spanish-American War was far from isolationist. Theodore Roosevelt certainly couldn't be accurately described as an isolationist. How about Manifest Destiny? Or our squabbles with Mexico, both in the 19th and 20th centuries?

Sure, the US was basically isolationist during the era of Reconstruction, but that was more from necessity than desire.

There was a significant bit of an isolationist backlash in this country following the Great War, but it's certainly not true to claim that such was always U.S. policy prior to 1941.


I wouldn't say we "certainly did finish" Korea or Vietnam. Korea still isn't over.


Have you ever read of James Monroe? I don't think that his namesake doctrine is particularly isolationist.


Have you ever read George Washington?

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ...

I agree that the US doesn't need to be involved in nearly as much of the world as we are. But I don't think we're well-served by pretending that the situation we're in now is radically new in the last 80 years.

​.

 

[PaulF]

Kamala won't be the dems nominee. She's for single payer healthcare. Trump was elected on repealing Obamacare, so going deeper into that abys will never fly.

Regardless, whatever dem we get whenever we get them, WILL use everything in their power to get their agenda accomplished. SO should we.

If using the emergency provision causes huge outrage, so be it. Congress can remove that power, so it will never be "abused" again.

If the dems and TDSers want to rave about what the next guy'll do when in power, so be that too. All the more reason to highlight why we shouldn't allow them to get elected.

We do have an emergency on our southern border. We have invaders cross into out country every day. So may invaders that they are now organized in waves.

You don't get it do you?

Take the guns first, go through due process second...

What's the next "emergency"? Lets hope it isn't a school shooting, or a truck bomb at a federal building full of children and FBI agents, or the maiming of a cabinet member...the USAPATRIOT act will look amateur by comparison to what the Statists that fill our "ruling class" will put in front of our barely literate president.

And he'll sign it...He'll sign it because he is desperate for anything resembling a "win".

And you'll cheer him on...because the right-wing media, fed by the very would-be autocrats and oligarchs that prop up this insane divide in American politics, will show you photos of your "enemies" crying in the streets.

 

[bwframe]

 

[CampingJosh]

Have you ever read George Washington?

Yes, I know Washington's farewell address.

You made a sweeping statement that the founding fathers were isolationist. I provided evidence that at least some were not. You can't then provide evidence that some were as though that supports your broad claim that they all were.

 

[BugI02]

You don't get it do you?



What's the next "emergency"? Lets hope it isn't a school shooting, or a truck bomb at a federal building full of children and FBI agents, or the maiming of a cabinet member...the USAPATRIOT act will look amateur by comparison to what the Statists that fill our "ruling class" will put in front of our barely literate president.

And he'll sign it...He'll sign it because he is desperate for anything resembling a "win".

And you'll cheer him on...because the right-wing media, fed by the very would-be autocrats and oligarchs that prop up this insane divide in American politics, will show you photos of your "enemies" crying in the streets.

Kut? Is that you?

 

[BugI02]

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

I'll take isolationist founding fathers for $400, Alex

 

[CampingJosh]

I'll take isolationist founding fathers for $400, Alex

Your initial claim--a blanket statement that the founding fathers were isolationist--doesn't hold up. You can keep quoting as much as you like. Your claim is still going to be incorrect.