Trump caves

[actaeon277]

Trump- the punisher
https://youtu.be/YrRPH4gpKw0

Except, now the Punisher is woke and fighting the "alt-right".

 

[churchmouse]

Were we at a table together, I think that we would have been on the same page long ago. Sometimes it just takes longer and seems more adversarial when we're typing. But if BugI02 were in town, he (at least, I think "he") would be welcome in my home. As would most of you all.

I am actually learning some things. Having a few things I thought were right not be.
Civil discourse. Amazing.

 

[Trigger Time]

Democrats say they want to secure our borders and make our country safe, then in the next press conference they want to eliminate ICE.
Liars. I hope the president knows who he is dealing with. Scum of the earth. Traitors to America.
Build the Wall with the military

I'm not always looking to hear some lawyer or legal eagle give me a breakdown or translation on everything the Democrats say or do. No. I'm a regular working class American. Tell it to me straight. The Democrats never do. They are slimeballs. When it takes lawyers to go to court and fight against your own laws because you want a new set of laws and a new type of government then that's when enough is enough.

I am truly starting to know how the colonist felt with the British. They loved their country but their government was making them victims and slaves. Scare tactics and double standards. When the government can lie to you all they want and it's legal and just, but if you lie to the government it's a felony, something is WRONG !!! Just one of a million examples.

 

[KG1]

I thought this thread was “Trump Caves”...

Trump went spelunking.

 

[jamil]

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'

I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.

The wall isn’t worth the cost of giving the President that power. If he can claim emergency powers to build his wall, then it’s also reasonably within the executive’s emergency power to impose some kind of gun control.

By any means necessary style of Populism is retarded. It makes you give up some of the things which truly makes America great in the hopes of winning back an image of other things you think made America great. Oh. And it’s jamil.

 

[mmpsteve]

I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.

The wall isn’t worth the cost of giving the President that power. If he can claim emergency powers to build his wall, then it’s also reasonably within the executive’s emergency power to impose some kind of gun control.

By any means necessary style of Populism is retarded. It makes you give up some of the things which truly makes America great in the hopes of winning back an image of other things you think made America great. Oh. And it’s jamil.

But what if you truly believe it's an emergency? Is it not right, then, to fix the problem, using any powers at your disposal? I suggest that it's a lot easier to make the argument that lack of border security, and all the ills that come with it, is much closer to an emergency than gun control, when we know that legal gun owners are, by and large, law abiding citizens. The key words being legal gun owners. Sure, if you want to declare an emergency against gang violence, go for it; kill every one of them; but don't make the mistake of equating legal activity with illegal border activity: false premise.


.

 

[traderdan]

Been watching politics for many years. I know this. If you will be honest though....those checks and balances have been bypassed by every president in history, and every congress in history. The creation of the swamp of departments and bureaucracies has bypassed the original intent of the Founders of our nation. This is a national crisis beyond the scope of the knowledge of most Americans. Build a wall Mr President!

 

[CampingJosh]

But what if you truly believe it's an emergency? Is it not right, then, to fix the problem, using any powers at your disposal? I suggest that it's a lot easier to make the argument that lack of border security, and all the ills that come with it, is much closer to an emergency than gun control, when we know that legal gun owners are, by and large, law abiding citizens. The key words being legal gun owners. Sure, if you want to declare an emergency against gang violence, go for it; kill every one of them; but don't make the mistake of equating legal activity with illegal border activity: false premise.

.

We've lived with the current situation for far too long--several decades now--for the urgency of an "emergency." Especially since the rate of illegal immigration is already falling and the total number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is dropping.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

 

[mmpsteve]

We've lived with the current situation for far too long--several decades now--for the urgency of an "emergency." Especially since the rate of illegal immigration is already falling and the total number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is dropping.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

So the caravans of 1000's, purposely designed to overwhelm our systems, don't change that scenario?

.

 

[JettaKnight]

But what if you truly believe it's an emergency? Is it not right, then, to fix the problem, using any powers at your disposal? I suggest that it's a lot easier to make the argument that lack of border security, and all the ills that come with it, is much closer to an emergency than gun control, when we know that legal gun owners are, by and large, law abiding citizens. The key words being legal gun owners. Sure, if you want to declare an emergency against gang violence, go for it; kill every one of them; but don't make the mistake of equating legal activity with illegal border activity: false premise.

This is strictly a POV thing. We, as conservative gun owners, think it's obvious that border security is an emergency. Liberals, as gun fearing nutters, think that gun violence is a national emergency.

Who's right? Fortunately, there's a boundaries in the Constitution to prevent one branch from overstepping. As a lover of the Constitution, I think it's best that they be respected.

Been watching politics for many years. I know this. If you will be honest though....those checks and balances have been bypassed by every president in history, and every congress in history. The creation of the swamp of departments and bureaucracies has bypassed the original intent of the Founders of our nation.

Ah yes, the old, "They break the law and walk on the Constitution, so we should too." That runs afoul of everything my father (and mentors) taught me.

This is a national crisis beyond the scope of the knowledge of most Americans. Build a wall Mr President!

You say that, but how is that if "most Americans" can't comprehend it, how do you have a lock on the truth? Serious question - how exactly do you know the truth that so many Americans are oblivious to?

What is the crisis as you see it?

Is it illegal immigrants taking jobs? Because the truth is there's plenty of work for everyone.
Is it that they get free healthcare? Then why not solve that issue directly - a new wall won't get rid of the 11 million already here.
Is it crime? What's the statistics on rates between legal and illegal citizens?
Is it terrorist? More were caught coming over the border from the North.


I think illegal immigration is a problem, but there's no quick fix. And just like illegal drugs, part of the solution is going to be a demand-side fix.

My worry is the wall will go up, the problem will still exist, but no Republicans will acknowledge it exists because Trump will have already had his "Mission Complete" carrier moment.


Last thought: when has anything be done under an "emergency situation", been done the right way? Most things end up costing way more, get done half-assed, last a way shorter time...

 

[CampingJosh]

So the caravans of 1000's, purposely designed to overwhelm our systems, don't change that scenario?

.

No, they really don't.

We have 1,500,000 fewer illegal immigrants now than the number that George W. Bush didn't think was an emergency.

And I will say again that the caravans of Honduran refugees are the legacy of the Obama administration. Secretary of State Clinton used our tax dollars to make these people into refugees.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I wouldn't say he caved.. not his style... hes more of a poker player, I would say he has called their bluff just so there is no question that he gave them(congress) every opportunity to do the right thing. It will make the law suits that are going to attempt to stop him from having ACOE build it less meaningful because he will have the valid ground of "look, I gave them every opportunity to act on this emergency/crisis" and we have a supreme court that if appeals go that far will likely find the president does have the right and responsibility to defend our borders. Hes not declaring war so he does not need Congress approval. Dont count him out.. look at his record as a business man
.. he doesnt like to lose, doesnt accept loss and gets back up and keeps going till he wins.. just my 10 cents worth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

The bottom line is there will be no wall without the Democrats getting on board and that just ain’t gonna happen while they control the purse strings in the House.

Trump won’t get anywhere with the national emergency thing so it’s pretty much dead in the water.

Reality sucks sometimes.

I have to respectfully disagree.. the president has a constitutional right to defend our borders. Hes not declaring war so it does not require a congressional vote. Dont count him out.. he does not accept loss and even as a business man found ways to turn apparent loss into wins.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BugI02]

Were we at a table together, I think that we would have been on the same page long ago. Sometimes it just takes longer and seems more adversarial when we're typing. But if BugI02 were in town, he (at least, I think "he") would be welcome in my home. As would most of you all.

The obverse would also be true, as long as CampingJosh doesn't mind being stared at by dogs who believe all humans exist primarily to give them the treats hidden in their pockets

 

[BugI02]

And Josh, I didn't ignore Monroe; I posted that I think he bolsters my case

The Monroe Doctrine was arguably isolationist (remember we're mostly concerned with entanglements with what were first world powers at the time). Telling the warring powers in Europe that we would not tolerate proxy governments in our sphere of influence (but asserting no right to evict those already in existence) does not seem to be engaging in any sort of relationship with the European powers but instead keeping them at arms length. It was not a treaty, it was a statement of principle; like "54 40 or fight"

I have to wonder, do you think the Soviets/East Germans forced the Berlin Airlift and built their wall because they were not isolationists?

Less scholarly but hopefully less contentious source?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/isolationism-foreign-policy
Isolationism
FOREIGN POLICY

Isolationism, National policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries. Isolationism has been a recurrent theme in U.S. history. It was given expression in the Farewell Address of Pres. George Washington and in the early 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. The term is most often applied to the political atmosphere in the U.S. in the 1930s. The failure of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the rigours of the Great Depression were among the reasons for Americans’ reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of fascism in Europe. The Johnson Act (1934) and the Neutrality acts (1935) effectively prevented economic or military aid to any country involved in the European disputes that were to escalate into World War II. U.S. isolationism encouraged the British in their policy of appeasement and contributed to French paralysis in the face of the growing threat posed by Nazi Germany. See also neutrality.

 

[oldsecuritydogmike]

One, Trump did not cave. he knew americans were the ones suffering. Two, He played ole Chuck and Nancy like a fiddle. Three, we need a wall. Anyone else have a better plan let us know. Four, welfare state is a little overboard. a) Socialsecurity was put in for those who did not a pension, and not for everyone. I had to apply for social security disability and had to prove that i had not other source of income and i was not able to work to support my self. I feel social security should be the same. There are to many folks collecting it that really dont need it. Bet you Chuck and Nancy will collect there"s. Any no collecting it is not a right. USSC ruling 1960, it is a tax folks. now there was a problem that americans saw and went to congress to and they came up with medicaid and food stamps to help folks . This was done by both parties. problem is ,is that there are folks who are on both that do not need them. But those down in the swamp let them have it to control them. We need the wall. Need to change a lot of things with programs that we set in place to help others. But after the wall, we need to worry about Se. Warren wanting to Nationalize all big businesses under the federal government control(money would go to them, not the people) And the push of Medicare for all. This folks is called communism. Read up on it by Pres. Ronold Ragan. he knew the effects of how the control of every aspect of peoples lives started this way.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

And Josh, I didn't ignore Monroe; I posted that I think he bolsters my case

The Monroe Doctrine was arguably isolationist (remember we're mostly concerned with entanglements with what were first world powers at the time). Telling the warring powers in Europe that we would not tolerate proxy governments in our sphere of influence (but asserting no right to evict those already in existence) does not seem to be engaging in any sort of relationship with the European powers but instead keeping them at arms length. It was not a treaty, it was a statement of principle; like "54 40 or fight"

I have to wonder, do you think the Soviets/East Germans forced the Berlin Airlift and built their wall because they were not isolationists?

Less scholarly but hopefully less contentious source?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/isolationism-foreign-policy
Isolationism
FOREIGN POLICY

America's policy should be isolationism. We should slowly start building back towards 100% self sufficiency. Our attitude towards the rest of the world should be do whatever you want to do but if you dragged us into it it's going to be extremely devastating for you so you're best to leave us alone

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

There are verifiable payments and very large payments at that two offshore accounts that can verifiably be traced back 2 prominent Democrat holders. The bottom line is the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels own the Democrat Party that is why they are so opposed to the wall. Think this sounds like conspiracy theory well research it first before you make that judgment

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BugI02]

I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.

The wall isn’t worth the cost of giving the President that power. If he can claim emergency powers to build his wall, then it’s also reasonably within the executive’s emergency power to impose some kind of gun control.

By any means necessary style of Populism is retarded. It makes you give up some of the things which truly makes America great in the hopes of winning back an image of other things you think made America great. Oh. And it’s jamil.

My point (and their was one) is that the inculcation of Constitutionalism/originalism into the judiciary at all levels is arguably the single most important thing Trump is/has been doing and should be continued. To that end, I am willing to tolerate a lot about Trump that I don't like. I encourage people to give equal weight to the good things he is accomplishing, but they seem stuck in the Trump as idiot theme where whatever good he does is purely accidental (except when they are attributing Machiavellian cleverness to some bad thing he does). I encourage people to lighten up on the time spent adding their voice to the greek chorus

But on this specific issue, accomplishing the wall via emergency action, I believe two things

One, that the 'Trump will encourage the next president to do things like gun control the same way' argument is a canard. That genie is out of the bottle. Regardless of what Trump does, it will not change the calculus of some future president much - most especially a socialist/progressive

Two, the judiciary is the best hope to rein in presidential overreach; but the current activist makeup of the judiciary in many court circuits, IMO, will only serve adequately to rein in Trump - not a future president on what they see as 'the right side of history'. By appointing Federalist Society vetted judges at all levels to the Federal judiciary, Trump in no way weakens (and likely strengthens) the likelihood of that judiciary slapping down his own overreach. More importantly, when it comes to slapping down some future progressive president's attempted overreach or affirming that a president is within his legal authority on some action taken; those same appointments make it more likely - because they were made based on a candidate's fealty to the Constitution rather than support for some progressive utopian vision (or populist distopian vision)

Thus, this consideration alone is enough for me to want him re-elected in 2020 (and McConnell too). For all the cases of the vapors that his actions have triggered, he has never failed to obey the courts nor received any credit for same

 

[CampingJosh]

And Josh, I didn't ignore Monroe; I posted that I think he bolsters my case

The Monroe Doctrine was arguably isolationist (remember we're mostly concerned with entanglements with what were first world powers at the time). Telling the warring powers in Europe that we would not tolerate proxy governments in our sphere of influence (but asserting no right to evict those already in existence) does not seem to be engaging in any sort of relationship with the European powers but instead keeping them at arms length. It was not a treaty, it was a statement of principle; like "54 40 or fight"

I think that the Monroe Doctrine is at best non-interventionist. It tells the European powers that we would stay out of their business so long as they stayed out of ours. But it draws a line in the sand far, far beyond our own borders, and that was intentional because we hadn't yet decided how much of the New World we planned to claim as our own. Were it truly isolationist, that line in the sand would have been at our own borders.

Remember, this was the time of Manifest Destiny, when Americans were certain that it was God's will for us to conquer the "savages." That has to be understood as conquest rather than isolationist. Manifest Destiny is the implicit corollary of the Monroe Doctrine. It wasn't telling the Europeans to stay out of the New World because we like everything just as it is; it was telling the Europeans that we've claimed "dibs" on the whole of the New World.

Just like today's politicians, you can't just listen to what they say. You have to watch what they do. And what the U.S. did from the Louisiana Purchase through the Civil War was not isolationism.

I have to wonder, do you think the Soviets/East Germans forced the Berlin Airlift and built their wall because they were not isolationists?

The Soviets, Chinese, and their communist puppet governments were certainly not isolationists. (We thought during most of the Cold War that China was itself one of the Soviet puppet states, but that seems not to have been true.)

The Berlin Wall was about conquest--trying to starve out and force the surrender of the people of West Berlin. Korea was about conquest. Vietnam was about conquest. Afghanistan was about conquest. Honestly, the last year or so of WWII for the Soviets was about conquest.