Trump is rocking it!

[BugI02]

jamil, my main question is why you think the Democrats would require Trump to set the precedent on the abuse of emergency powers. I think that ship sailed as soon as it was talked about, and a future Democrat president would try to go there if it fit their agenda whether Trump had done this or not [see: initial nuking of the filibuster]

 

[Denny347]

Be careful what we ask for, we might just get it...

 

[bwframe]

We already have got what we asked for. That's what this whole thread is about, right?

[video=youtube;RpsAJQ0iZ2M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpsAJQ0iZ2M&t=21s[/video]

 

[Route 45]

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.

I'm not super sharp on our 240+ year history, but I don't recall reading about hordes of people assaulting our border en masse while the top stars of one of our two major political parties openly advocate to tear down what existing barriers we have and basically dissolve the border. Not sure what value there is in being a citizen of said "republic" if we allow foreigners to flood in and ignore our rule of law and exploit our resources while waving the flags of their home nations.

 

[jamil]

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

.

"do you not see any future benefit to having SCOTUS , possibly on the Americans side?"

Before I answer, I'm going to explain why I asked you to explain why you asked the question. There's a sort of expectation of hegemony among political groups. If you're on the left you have to think the way the left-collective thinks, or you must be a form of the other. If you're on the right, you're supposed to think the way the right-collective thinks, or you must be a form of the other. The problem with that, it manifests assumptions people make when they hear criticism of their side. So if I criticize Trump, I must be one of those "others" who must not agree with all the things a person on the right is supposed to think.

That you asked the question probably means you're at least unsure how I would answer that question. But, based on what? I haven't given any indication that my incredulity about Trump's use of emergency powers affects my opinion about having a less progressive SCOTUS. Both views can coexist if you don't assume the collective's hegemony. So I was asking to see if that's why you asked. If it's "that jamil obviously doesn't like Trump because he called him dump as a bag of ****, therefore he must not see the benefit of Trump's impact on the SCOTUS. I can simultaneously criticize wrong, and praise right. We all have that capacity. But it kinda requires overriding the hegemonic bull****.

Yes, I see the benefit of appointing sane SCOTUS justices, which so far Trump has done (although I worry that Kavanaugh will be too much like his mentor, Justice Kennedy)

 

[jamil]

I'm not super sharp on our 240+ year history, but I don't recall reading about hordes of people assaulting our border en masse while the top stars of one of our two major political parties openly advocate to tear down what existing barriers we have and basically dissolve the border. Not sure what value there is in being a citizen of said "republic" if we allow foreigners to flood in and ignore our rule of law and exploit our resources while waving the flags of their home nations.

I agree that some particularly crazy people are advocating for some Republic-threatening things. So the [STRIKE]immediate[/STRIKE] 18 to 24 months away wall is going to resolve that? That justifies using emergency powers?

 

[jamil]

We already have got what we asked for. That's what this whole thread is about, right?

We.

 

[Fargo]

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

Congress creating a statutory monarch, dictator, or emperor would be the overthrow of our current government. At that point the only enforcement mechanism lies with with we the people.

I worry that at this point a large percentage of the populace would be just fine with it, as long as it was their guy being made king.

I did not mean to imply that you were advocating for a monarch, my comment was in reference to the idea that it could be a legal act of Congress. It cannot, except by constitutional amendment.

 

[two70]

I agree that some particularly crazy people are advocating for some Republic-threatening things. So the [STRIKE]immediate[/STRIKE] 18 to 24 months away wall is going to resolve that? That justifies using emergency powers?

Those particularly crazy people who were advocating for some Republic-threatening things are seemingly the members of Congress that voted to give the president the ability to declare a National Emergency, yet the discussion is not about the law but instead it is about Trump using the law as it was ostensibly intended. It is possible I missed the thread(s) but I don't recall any complaints about the law any of the other numerous times previous presidents have invoked it, all too often for things with a much more tenuous claim to being an emergency let alone actually pertaining to this nation. There are truly valid reasons to oppose the law allowing for the deceleration of a national emergency and the powers it gives to the executive but because... well... Trump, is not among them. It seems that anyone whose concern is accurately targeted at the law instead of the president should welcome the attention Trump has brought to it and the opportunity for the courts to strike the law or significantly curtail the use thereof.

The illegal immigration problem should have been dealt with long ago, that it wasn't is not a valid reason to not do so today nor is the fact that construction cannot be completed immediately a valid reason not to begin today. By any honest observation, the continued, unfettered invasion of this country across the southern border is far more of a national emergency than any other purpose for which the law has previously been used. One could even make a pretty compelling argument that the continued flood of illegals into the country is far more of an immediate and existential threat than the possible, eventual abuse of the National Emergency Act. Ignoring the immediate threat in favor of a future, potential threat really doesn't make much sense.

 

[mmpsteve]

Those particularly crazy people who were advocating for some Republic-threatening things are seemingly the members of Congress that voted to give the president the ability to declare a National Emergency, yet the discussion is not about the law but instead it is about Trump using the law as it was ostensibly intended. It is possible I missed the thread(s) but I don't recall any complaints about the law any of the other numerous times previous presidents have invoked it, all too often for things with a much more tenuous claim to being an emergency let alone actually pertaining to this nation. There are truly valid reasons to oppose the law allowing for the deceleration of a national emergency and the powers it gives to the executive but because... well... Trump, is not among them. It seems that anyone whose concern is accurately targeted at the law instead of the president should welcome the attention Trump has brought to it and the opportunity for the courts to strike the law or significantly curtail the use thereof.

The illegal immigration problem should have been dealt with long ago, that it wasn't is not a valid reason to not do so today nor is the fact that construction cannot be completed immediately a valid reason not to begin today. By any honest observation, the continued, unfettered invasion of this country across the southern border is far more of a national emergency than any other purpose for which the law has previously been used. One could even make a pretty compelling argument that the continued flood of illegals into the country is far more of an immediate and existential threat than the possible, eventual abuse of the National Emergency Act. Ignoring the immediate threat in favor of a future, potential threat really doesn't make much sense.

^^^ THIS RIGHT HERE ^^^

•

 

[jamil]

Those particularly crazy people who were advocating for some Republic-threatening things are seemingly the members of Congress that voted to give the president the ability to declare a National Emergency, yet the discussion is not about the law but instead it is about Trump using the law as it was ostensibly intended. It is possible I missed the thread(s) but I don't recall any complaints about the law any of the other numerous times previous presidents have invoked it, all too often for things with a much more tenuous claim to being an emergency let alone actually pertaining to this nation. There are truly valid reasons to oppose the law allowing for the deceleration of a national emergency and the powers it gives to the executive but because... well... Trump, is not among them. It seems that anyone whose concern is accurately targeted at the law instead of the president should welcome the attention Trump has brought to it and the opportunity for the courts to strike the law or significantly curtail the use thereof.

The illegal immigration problem should have been dealt with long ago, that it wasn't is not a valid reason to not do so today nor is the fact that construction cannot be completed immediately a valid reason not to begin today. By any honest observation, the continued, unfettered invasion of this country across the southern border is far more of a national emergency than any other purpose for which the law has previously been used. One could even make a pretty compelling argument that the continued flood of illegals into the country is far more of an immediate and existential threat than the possible, eventual abuse of the National Emergency Act. Ignoring the immediate threat in favor of a future, potential threat really doesn't make much sense.

By any honest observation, if it were that much of an emergency, and only a wall can resolve it, surely Trump would have tried to get funding when he had the House. Not buying that it's suddenly an emergency now. Trump himself said he didn't have to do it this way. But anyway, the particularly crazy people advocating for some Republic-threatening things are not the people who voted to give the President that power. That was more than 40 years ago. And the people who voted for it were bipartisan.

 

[mmpsteve]

By any honest observation, if it were that much of an emergency, and only a wall can resolve it, surely Trump would have tried to get funding when he had the House. Not buying that it's suddenly an emergency now. Trump himself said he didn't have to do it this way. But anyway, the particularly crazy people advocating for some Republic-threatening things are not the people who voted to give the President that power. That was more than 40 years ago. And the people who voted for it were bipartisan.

I don't believe anybody truly believes that ONLY a wall can resolve it. And Trump never truly had congress (as in the Senate; Flake, McCain, et al). And many people, including myself, do feel, and have felt for awhile, that ILLEGAL immigration is a crisis.

By any honest observation, a wall is not going to hurt the 'fight' against illegal immigration. The wall, combined with other techniques, might actually help the situation, no?

.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Meh, I'll just drop in this thread.

I'd call this a "good trump" move, if carried out correctly and actually succeeds.

Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

 

[BugI02]

Meh, I'll just drop in this thread.

I'd call this a "good trump" move, if carried out correctly and actually succeeds.

Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

When the world sees what a cluster**** that route has become for the US and the west, I predict they will just opt to build more 'high places'

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The comments on Reddit in all the threads about that topic are just ****ing cancer.

These idiots may actually believe that Trump/Pence want gays killed... at least that's how they make it sound with the lazy quips and remarks.

 

[jamil]

I don't believe anybody truly believes that ONLY a wall can resolve it. And Trump never truly had congress (as in the Senate; Flake, McCain, et al). And many people, including myself, do feel, and have felt for awhile, that ILLEGAL immigration is a crisis.

By any honest observation, a wall is not going to hurt the 'fight' against illegal immigration. The wall, combined with other techniques, might actually help the situation, no?

.

I’ve said that maybe the wall will help. But I doubt it’s worth doing it this way.

 

[Mongo59]

I may be wrong but for some time now it would appear the gov is acting under some kind of "Brewster Bill" that requires us to spend money without retaining wealth. Maybe that is what has them pissed about the wall?

 

[BigRed]

I think it is nice that some folks believe the "three branches of the federal government" actually keep each other in check.

For me, any shred of belief they do was erased on June 28, 2012.


Though one can find instances here and there that say the do, the general direction of the trend over the long term has been that they do not; and that the federal government continues on an arc of ever increasing expansion.

 

[Mongo59]

Is "arc of ever increasing expansion" code for "becoming an ever increasing cesspool"?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The comments on Reddit in all the threads about that topic are just ****ing cancer.

These idiots may actually believe that Trump/Pence want gays killed... at least that's how they make it sound with the lazy quips and remarks.

I don't know why I tried at all. No matter how reasonable you look at something, the comments will fill with doomsayers and hate-filled, angry mobs.

I had a sliver of hope that /r/worldnews would be a bit more reasonable... obviously not touching /r/politics.