Democrat debate aka Trump bash fest

[COOPADUP]

300,000,000 Americans and he is going to enrich 10 of them? That is about how socialism works.

In order to enter his little contest, you have to donate to his campaign.
What a scam

 

[Kutnupe14]

The first is apparently within his power to do. Just because you don't like his definition of an emergency, does not mean that anything would qualify. I'm no fan of the wall, but the shear number of people crossing our Southern border is a huge problem.

Bumpstocks is definitely one.

How is this grabbing power? Can you name another President that had such a large company that he controlled when he took office? Divesting from investments is a lot different than selling off your company, which would have been the only way he could have been separated from his business.

You really don't have much to back up your argument on this one

The e-cig decree will probably be a second.

His have so far been relatively minor compared to his predecessors.

Congress is a check on the powers of the president. Congress FIRST denied the president money for a wall, indicative that they don't see the situation quite so dire as the president. The president then declares a National Emergency to obtain the money that congress had denied him. Now, lets look at this logically. The president originally said that Mexico would pay for this wall. If something is an emergency, and of vital interest to you, and you can divert your money from something to that vital interest, do you expect your neighbor to pick up that tab? If the wall was needed due to their being a national emergency, why wasn't it addressed that way in the first place? The fact that congress, as a body, denied the money for that wall means that they didn't quite see it as a national emergency.

And to point it out again, no president has EVER declared a national emergency to fund something that Congress has expressedly forbidden. Trump is the FIRST to do so, and I can only assume that he will not be the last. From this point on, whenever the president asks Congress for money, and congress denies the request, that president can point to Trump, declare a national emergency, and then fund the project that Congress declined to pony up dough for. I have no idea how you can't see that as a power grab. Certainly a bigger power grab that the bumpstock thing.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Congress is a check on the powers of the president. Congress FIRST denied the president money for a wall, indicative that they don't see the situation quite so dire as the president. The president then declares a National Emergency to obtain the money that congress had denied him. Now, lets look at this logically. The president originally said that Mexico would pay for this wall. If something is an emergency, and of vital interest to you, and you can divert your money from something to that vital interest, do you expect your neighbor to pick up that tab? If the wall was needed due to their being a national emergency, why wasn't it addressed that way in the first place? The fact that congress, as a body, denied the money for that wall means that they didn't quite see it as a national emergency.

And to point it out again, no president has EVER declared a national emergency to fund something that Congress has expressedly forbidden. Trump is the FIRST to do so, and I can only assume that he will not be the last. From this point on, whenever the president asks Congress for money, and congress denies the request, that president can point to Trump, declare a national emergency, and then fund the project that Congress declined to pony up dough for. I have no idea how you can't see that as a power grab. Certainly a bigger power grab that the bumpstock thing.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. Change the rules and take his emergency powers away if you don't like it.

I don't like being "taxed" if I don't have insurance. I don't remember another President using that little gem either.

 

[2A_Tom]

The first is apparently within his power to do. Just because you don't like his definition of an emergency, does not mean that anything would qualify. I'm no fan of the wall, but the shear number of people crossing our Southern border is a huge problem.

Bumpstocks is definitely one.

How is this grabbing power? Can you name another President that had such a large company that he controlled when he took office? Divesting from investments is a lot different than selling off your company, which would have been the only way he could have been separated from his business.

You really don't have much to back up your argument on this one

The e-cig decree will probably be a second.

His have so far been relatively minor compared to his predecessors.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. Change the rules and take his emergency powers away if you don't like it.

I don't like being "taxed" if I don't have insurance. I don't remember another President using that little gem either.

You can blame the bump stock ban on him. As said above he can declare an emergency BY LAW and there is NO LAW that says he must divest.

So far -1

 

[Kutnupe14]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. Change the rules and take his emergency powers away if you don't like it.

I don't like being "taxed" if I don't have insurance. I don't remember another President using that little gem either.

Would you call '94 AWB, constitutional or government overreach (i.e. power grab), in your opinion? And if it is the former, is it a hate the game not the player(s) instance, as well?

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Would you call '94 AWB, constitutional or government overreach (i.e. power grab), in your opinion? And if it is the former, is it a hate the game not the player(s) instance, as well?

As much as I detested it, the ban was created within the framework of the system we have in place. It was definitely a hate the game situation.

 

[2A_Tom]

Would you call '94 AWB, constitutional or government overreach (i.e. power grab), in your opinion? And if it is the former, is it a hate the game not the player(s) instance, as well?

talk about deflection!

 

[Kutnupe14]

As much as I detested it, the ban was created within the framework of the system we have in place. It was definitely a hate the game situation.

Consistency, I likes it. Your argument is sound then.

 

[Kutnupe14]

talk about deflection!

Not at all. Dr. Midnight understood the premise, and answered they way that best supported his position. Others would call the AWB unConstitutional and a power grab. If one is willing to recognize that thing that are passed in accordance with standing law (as you are doing with Trump), then there's very few things that are "unConstitutional."

 

[actaeon277]

 

[2A_Tom]

What about NUKES?

 

[bwframe]

Bill Maher, Michael Moore Spar over Democratic Party — ‘If the Election Were Tonight, Trump Would Win’

 

[churchmouse]

And this shows the total disconnect the people we elect have from the people that elect them.

 

[KG1]

Eric “nuk’em” Smalwell is another repressive government toady that just doesn’t get it and never will.

 

[actaeon277]

Yes. He thinks more of "ruler" than "servant".

 

[jamil]

Did he do that? All I can find is that he supports it. How is it his fault.

The fact that he says he supports it may make the dems pass a bill making vaping mandatory'

Wait. Trump is the chief executive of the administrative branch. How is it his fault that his administration banned certain vaping? How are you seriously asking that question? It’s like the captain of a ship saying something his crew did, which he approved of BTW, wasn’t his fault.

You guys tried the same kind of denial about the bump stock ban. That trump didn’t order it because there wasn’t an official executive order. As if the DoJ/BATFEIEIO did it on their own.

C’mon man.You have to accept the bad when it happens along with the good. There are a few ways you (rhetorically “you”) can handle the dissonance. You can deny it’s happening, or you could just decide to agree with it, you know, because Trump is infallible. Or. You could acknowledge that he did something you disagree with.

The latter doesn’t mean you don’t still support him in the things he does that you agree with. It doesn’t mean that if you disagree with some things he does, you can’t vote for him. Of course it might tend to undermine a feeling of identity with him.

Bill Maher said, after the last Dem debate, that the Democrats are crazier than Trump. No one’s perfect. It’s okay to think Trump is closer than the Democrats. It’s a pretty low bar anyway. But he IS fallible. It’s only the faithful Trump supporters that I’ve seen denying obvious faults. I’m saying you don’t have to to still support him.

 

[Expat]

So Swallowell would red flag Jefferson...

 

[jamil]

I found this ironic: Last night while the Democrats held a debate in Houston less than a mile away at the same time the Dems said we don't need our guns for protection (I am paraphrasing) these 4 guys robbed a priest at gunpoint, carjacked a Tahoe, then when it ran out of gas they got in a gunfight with the police and critically wounded a police officer. And we don't need our guns?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/houston-texas-police-shot-priest-assaulted

If we don’t need guns for protection, the neither do they. I’m almost serious in saying I’d like to see a law enacted that says, any person elected to public office who votes for or signs any bills that ban guns, or bureaucrats who draft regulations to facilitate banning guns, or enforce any kind of confiscation, may not themselves own or carry guns personally or in carrying out their duties, or have armed protection for themselves.

 

[jamil]

How about circumventing congress's authority to appropriate money? Trump asked for money, for a wall, and when it was denied, he declared a national emergency, to have the funds diverted. That has never happened in our history (diverting funds to something Congress had already explicitly denied). If you hold that it's the president's right to do so, then you believe that the president, unilaterally, has the power to declare anything, literally anything, a national emergency, and then divert funds from anywhere. Somehow, I don't think the founders had such in mind. That's a power grab.

Bumpstocks? The president, via executive order can direct an agency to "re-evaluate" a previous privilege, no right, with the intent of taking away that right. Via executive order? I would bet the founders would have issues with that too.

Or how about his private interests? The first president in modern times to not divest, or put into a blind trust, his business interests (despite saying he would). From his presidential perch he has been able to plug his properties, and keep track of how they are doing. While that may be within his rights, it something that other president's simply don't do. The presidency is a FULL time job, requiring constant vigilant attention. You'd have a hard time convincing me that the president, even subconsciously, isn't keeping his businesses in mind when he makes decisions. I challenge you to find something the president has rallied behind, as being a benefit for the regular American citizen, that he hasn't also benefitted handsomely from.

That's a start. I'd be interested in you take on it. I noted that you carved out the caveat "not already given to him." Using that litmus, pretty much everything a president has done, and has been allowed to endure, is using a power "given to him." What you need to recognize is that there are long held traditions and customs, associated with the power of the president. The "spirit" of the document, if you will. The spirit of the document has been, long before Trump, repeatedly ignored, in deference to the president. And presidents have taken those powers and ran with them. Trump is no different, and he is further expanding the power of the presidency.

You covered most of it, except I’ll disagree on a few points. His personal financial interests, and whatever conflicts may proceed from that, aren’t part of the context. They’re not examples of overreach of power that are under discussion. Inalso disagree with your acceptance of “not already given him.” The president isn’t a king. By decree he instructed his AG to have the BATFEIEIO redefine bumpstocks themselves as a machine gun. This is power he doesn’t have but the check-and-balancers won’t call him on it because they agree with banning them. This is how the presidency ratchets a de facto power not granted them.

Same with his misuse of the emergency declaration to divert money to the wall. The dems won’t do anything about it because now they can claim that royal power once they’re on the thrown. The Republicans won’t call him on it because they’re of his own party. So he’s getting away with using power not granted, because those who are supposed to check the executive branch, for the sake of expediency, are abdicating that duty.

 

[jamil]

The first is apparently within his power to do. Just because you don't like his definition of an emergency, does not mean that anything would qualify. I'm no fan of the wall, but the shear number of people crossing our Southern border is a huge problem.

Bumpstocks is definitely one.

How is this grabbing power? Can you name another President that had such a large company that he controlled when he took office? Divesting from investments is a lot different than selling off your company, which would have been the only way he could have been separated from his business.

You really don't have much to back up your argument on this one

The e-cig decree will probably be a second.

His have so far been relatively minor compared to his predecessors.

Emergency power executed should have an emergent action. The wall is years away. That’s not an emergent action. That’s just trump abusing authority to fulfill a campaign promise. I would support Trump using that power to order the military to the border to help, or some other action that has a more immediate impact. I can’t wait to see what the Democrats use this new power for when they take the throne.