Trump is rocking it!

[jamil]

Well here's the question: why not go all in, when we have a president that will do it? I'm about tired of Repubs who promise to support our ****, who then do not support our ****. what the hell do we have to lose? I starting to not give a ****. You want to come at me with your SJW ****, I want to do carnage to your SJW ****; theoretically speaking. There is a way forward, I've just not seen it yet as applies to politicians. And I would not be saying this ****, but I know Jamil likes asterisks ****.

.

Why not? Are we a nation of laws or a nation of people? That answer for the sane right used to be we're a nation of laws. So **** all that now? **** precedent? **** the constitution. **** rule of law? So **** principle itself because we need our ***damn wall? What the hell do we have to lose indeed. I think some people are losing something.

Yes. I like my asterisks.

 

[jamil]

How many Anakins we got on INGO?

[video=youtube;WNSq5wYdwb0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNSq5wYdwb0[/video]

Well, that's horse****.

 

[mmpsteve]

Is that really a question? I mean, seriously you have to understand why this isn't ideal for the future of the nation.

The liberal push recently is what's not good for our nation. I don't agree with unconstitutional methods, and if Trump's methods are unconstitutional, let them be fought out in the courts, but not by some little activist in Hawaii. I'll put my confidence in the SCOTUS on this, and why I voted for Trump. I fully expected it to come down to this, and fully expect to see that 'elections matter' continues. Suck it up, gentlemen, it doesn't serve you well to bellyache the outcome.

.

 

[Mongo59]

Personally, I think we should wait until Mexico bombs Pearl Harbor. Nah, to Asian.

If we want to wait on the Dems to do it then we need a time machine cuz that time came and went.

Maybe after Al Gore makes a better Internet and his personal brand of global warming makes the Rio Grande really grande.

We can't wait until a few DC scarecrows get a brain cuz it just isn't happening.

But if it means giving the whole circus away rather than letting a narcissist make good on a promise...

If he is the only one who has a pair big enough to do what needs to be done, fine. It's the Dimwitocrats that are turning him into some kind of folk hero.

By the time they realize the opportunity they fumbled away by not doing what needed to be done back before it could be used to show them up, it will be too late.

Democrats will neither lead, follow OR get out of the way. They must think posturing is "adequate". If they spent half the effort doing something rather than plotting and scheming, they would look like a fount of humanity rather than a Keystone Cops film clip.

 

[Route 45]

I'll say this about Trump. If he's in such a hurry to get his ***damn wall built, and THIS is his idea of getting it done faster, he's dumber than a bag of ****, because he didn't learn from the "Muslim ban". Just like with the "Muslim ban" some crazy ass judge from the 9th circuit is going to shut it down. And just like with the "Muslim ban", the Supreme court will ***** slap the 9th....again...eventually. Just like the "muslim ban" it'll SCOTUS 18-24 months even to hear the case. Assuming it gets heard and overturned, the election may be over before the wall can get started. But oh, wait. Never fear. Trump is playing 4d chess. I can't believe I agree with Ann Coulter on something. Trump is a moron.

So you are saying that Trump knows that this whole process will take us past the 2020 election before the first shovel strikes dirt? So he gets to campaign for re-election on "getting the job done" on his signature campaign promise, while blaming the obstructionist swamp and not actually having to build the wall in the meantime?

Might work.

 

[jamil]

Is that really a question? I mean, seriously you have to understand why this isn't ideal for the future of the nation.

Oh, why worry? Only Republicans will exploit emergency powers to bypass congress, we promise. Only Republicans can throw precedent out the window to force their pet agenda items. Surely Democrats wouldn't be able to one-up that. Democrats can't possibly use the same mechanism to get what they want. Because we have this magical prophylactic, a giant rubber if you will, against the all evils the Democrats do. Because nothing has ever gone into law that has violated the Trojan. The Trojan is too magical and powerful to get rationalized away by clever lawyers, it's a powerful defender of rule of law (Trojan:an ironic name for a prophylactic). The FDR presidency was really a myth.

 

[jamil]

So you are saying that Trump knows that this whole process will take us past the 2020 election before the first shovel strikes dirt? So he gets to campaign for re-election on "getting the job done" on his signature campaign promise, while blaming the obstructionist swamp and not actually having to build the wall in the meantime?

Might work.

I'm saying he's dumb as a bag of ****. He can't see much past his 3 inch Mushroom head ****.

 

[BugI02]

As to those of you on board with Congress creating Cesar.

Fargo, first let me say this is not playing dialectic bull****. Vis a vis the Scalia Mistretta v US quote you posted - Who stops them? If congress decides to pass a bill giving the president absolute authority and the president signs it, what is the mechanism to derail that train? What if the SCOTUS declines to take up the case? Who actually determines constitutionality? The constitution actually says "... shall not be infringed" but that doesn't seem to stop the chipping away at the 2nd. If enough people no longer hold it in reverence, the constitution is just a piece of paper to those who seek power, and then we arrive at a dark place. I just don't see an enforcement mechanism with real teeth in this discussion

ETA: I hope you realize I'm not advocating for any of this

 

[mmpsteve]

Oh, why worry? Only Republicans will exploit emergency powers to bypass congress, we promise. Only Republicans can throw precedent out the window to force their pet agenda items. Surely Democrats wouldn't be able to one-up that. Democrats can't possibly use the same mechanism to get what they want. Because we have this magical prophylactic, a giant rubber if you will, against the all evils the Democrats do. Because nothing has ever gone into law that has violated the Trojan. The Trojan is too magical and powerful to get rationalized away by clever lawyers, it's a powerful defender of rule of law (Trojan:an ironic name for a prophylactic). The FDR presidency was really a myth.

egads, Jamil ... you forgot the purple. But if Trump spends all the military funds, there'll be none left for the socialists to spend. It really is 3d chess. You're not looking forward enough.

p.s.: do you not see any future benefit to having SCOTUS , possibly on the Americans side?

.

 

[jamil]

The liberal push recently is what's not good for our nation. I don't agree with unconstitutional methods, and if Trump's methods are unconstitutional, let them be fought out in the courts, but not by some little activist in Hawaii. I'll put my confidence in the SCOTUS on this, and why I voted for Trump. I fully expected it to come down to this, and fully expect to see that 'elections matter' continues. Suck it up, gentlemen, it doesn't serve you well to bellyache the outcome.

.

Ooh. I have an idea. Let's throw precedent out the window and just say something is an emergency that's not really an emergency. THAT won't give the Democrats a new tool to progress a "liberal push".

About constitutionality. It's not clear to me that Trump's move is unconstitutional. Congress made it pretty vague on what the president gets to call an emergency. Maybe there's a case to be made against him now that he's pretty much admitted that he's exploiting emergency powers to get his way. It doesn't really matter what people think about the constitutionality of Congress delegating their power to the executive branch. What matters is how the court is likely to rule on stuff today.

It matters what the executive branch can get away with. And it does not appear to me that the constitution gives a lot of protection in that regard. This incremental rationalizing away of constitutional protections establishes precedents that allow further erosion. It's obvious from this conversation that people don't give a **** about that. They give more ****s about getting their way than keeping the Republic the founders gave us. Maybe you think the wall will preserve that, but if you have to erode rule of law to get what you think is rule of law, it's just a matter of time.

 

[jamil]

egads, Jamil ... you forgot the purple. But if Trump spends all the military funds, there'll be none left for the socialists to spend. It really is 3d chess. You're not looking forward enough.

p.s.: do you not see any future benefit to having SCOTUS , possibly on the Americans side?

.

Before answering that I'd be interested to understand why you thought to ask the question.

 

[BugI02]

Oh. So relating to whataboutism? Ddin't see that coming, really.

This is getting to be a lost cause, like any joke that needs to be explained

George H.W. Bush and “the vision thing”...

It’s impossible to predict what quotes will come to be indelibly associated with each president of the United States. However, the famous quotes most presidents are remembered for include some they may regret and be haunted by later.
One of the quotes by George Herbert Walker Bush in that category is his remark about “the vision thing.”

In January 1987, Bush was near the end of his second term as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. It was common knowledge that he planned to run for President in 1988.
However, some critics — including some in Bush’s own Republican Party — viewed Bush as a politician who lacked the ability to clearly articulate his fundamental beliefs and policies, as Reagan did so well.

The January 26, 1987 issue of Time magazine included an article by journalist Robert Ajemian exploring this topic. It was titled “Where Is the Real George Bush?”
One of the anecdotes in that story made “the vision thing” a famous/infamous quotation.

“Colleagues say that while Bush understands thoroughly the complexities of issues, he does not easily fit them into larger themes,” Ajemian wrote. “This has led to the charge that he lacks vision. It rankles him. Recently he asked a friend to help him identify some cutting issues for next year’s campaign. Instead, the friend suggested that Bush go alone to Camp David for a few days to figure out where he wanted to take the country. ‘Oh,’ said Bush in clear exasperation, ‘the vision thing.’ The friend’s advice did not impress him.

I was referencing your opinion that Trump has no larger vision of where he wants to take the country, he merely knows what he wants to do now

To really get out the crayons and draw a picture, you are saying Trump doesn't have 'the vision thing'

 

[Route 45]

It matters what the executive branch can get away with. And it does not appear to me that the constitution gives a lot of protection in that regard. This incremental rationalizing away of constitutional protections establishes precedents that allow further erosion. It's obvious from this conversation that people don't give a **** about that. They give more ****s about getting their way than keeping the Republic the founders gave us. Maybe you think the wall will preserve that, but if you have to erode rule of law to get what you think is rule of law, it's just a matter of time.

 

[jamil]

This is getting to be a lost cause, like any joke that needs to be explained



I was referencing your opinion that Trump has no larger vision of where he wants to take the country, he merely knows what he wants to do now

To really get out the crayons and draw a picture, you are saying Trump doesn't have 'the vision thing'

I haven't heard that story. No crayons necessary.

 

[2A_Tom]

By exploiting powers not intended for the purpose? Nah. **** that.

BAMN is for **********s with questionable gender, blue hair, black masks, and soi boobs. Not principled *rule of law* rational people.

That is your narrative, you must live with it. I do not have to.

 

[jamil]

We've had a republic for 240 years without a wall. We've had a republic for the first two years of Trump's term. You know. The American Republic made great just by virtue of Trump's election alone? So now we suddenly won't have a republic if the wall isn't built [STRIKE]immediately[/STRIKE] in the 18-24 months it'll take to untangle it from the courts...if it makes it that far.

You haven't made the case that the wall is necessary to stop the thing you think makes the borders not secure. A wall may make the border more secure than it is now. But then that's not the standard you're setting, is it.

Memes aren't an argument.

 

[jamil]

That is your narrative, you must live with it. I do not have to.

It's Trump's narrative. I mean, when I first heard he said he didn't need to do the emergency thing, I thought, rationally, that he meant he didn't need to do it because Congress could have funded it. Nope. He meant the irrational meaning. At least he's honest about it.

 

[mmpsteve]

Before answering that I'd be interested to understand why you thought to ask the question.

hmmm, is this a trick question? or do you see a slight bit of intellect in my person? or are you just taunting me? Truthfully, I want a SCOTUS that upholds the constitution, regardless of outcome for any one party (not party, per se). I've seen partisan, and just plain bad opinions offered by the SCOTUS over the years, and it's truly discouraging to normal Americans, who go to work each day, or own small businesses, like myself. I want to see Constitutional judgements, probably just like you. BUT, many Americans are getting tired of always getting the shaft, and eventually, the pendulum is going to change. I suggest that the time to strike for Constitutionalism is now, as opposed to later. You may not like Trump's antics, but if it's Constitutional, I say, go for it, because we've been waiting a long time.

Respectfully,

Steve

.

 

[Ingomike]

So you are saying that Trump knows that this whole process will take us past the 2020 election before the first shovel strikes dirt? So he gets to campaign for re-election on "getting the job done" on his signature campaign promise, while blaming the obstructionist swamp and not actually having to build the wall in the meantime?

Might work.

It just might. Just like the bumpstock issue you all keep bringing up, I disagree with it too. It appears DJT did this to stem the tide of a bipartisan gun control law that weak Republicans were lining up for. I think they are counting on it being overturned in court if not quietly settled.

As as to the dumb or stupid Trump, the entire news and entertainment media, the entire national and international political sphere, and about a third of the population of the country have been trying to shut DJT down. They have thrown everything they can find, have straight out lied about him, and have not come close. Yep, he's a dumb***.

If if we do not stop illegal immigration and get back to assimilation we will not have a republic left to worry about arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...

MM

 

[BugI02]

I haven't heard that story. No crayons necessary.

I must hypothesize that you're younger than I thought. You have a high H.L. Mencken quotient for a grasshopper