The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
...wasn't she pro-Trump? Or did she switch because he's not conservative enough?
Click to expand...

Her platform is that she wants all the brown people out and a wall put up to keep them there. That said, I don't think she really actually cares about that. I think she cares about being as antagonistic and controversial as possible in order to keep eyes on her.

She's turning on him because she sees through the whole 'wall' charade and is taking advantage of it for her own benefit. Trump doesn't give a crapola about the wall any more than he cared about the 'swamp'. It was just a useful rallying cry for him to generate excitement and support for him, personally, from the plebs who like slogans.
 
newyorkguy said:
In 2016 Ann Coulter said she "worshiped" Trump. She began to bail not long after he got in office. I forget the issue that started the split. It was discussed here but I don't remember what it was.



Now she says Trump's goal is to get his "stupidest voters" to buy in. The coalition the Republicans have has always been pretty cynical. But then blue-collar, working-class folks partnering with the GOP is, on its face, pretty stupid. Rare you hear one of them be so upfront about it.
Click to expand...
It's ok. She didn't call them deplorable.
 
Aridas said:
Alternately, the Democrats challenge it in court. Given that it's regarding a claimed national emergency, however obviously it's not one, the ruling is unlikely to take too long to reach. Which way it goes is somewhat questionable, though, given what specifics are invoked. The ambiguity of what legally constitutes a national emergency can serve as a counter to the simple fact that it simply isn't a national emergency in any meaningful sense and nor has the Trump Administration actually been treating it as such, for example (declaring that you'll declare an emergency and immediately flying off to Mar-a-Largo to play golf isn't especially convincing). Even if it has been employing strategies that can reliably counted on to intentionally worsen the situation overall. There's apparently other, potentially even more viable legal challenges that can be made, though.
Click to expand...

The New York Times says the courts are unlikely to overrule the President on what counts as an emergency, since that is substituting their judgment for his.

I can't find the article in which I read that. It seems to have fallen off the home page. A similar analysis appears in this Post article. Referring to the watered down Muslim ban that passed Supreme Court oversight, they write:

The ruling stressed the “deference” owed the president, particularly in matters involving immigration and claims of national security. Congress “entrusted” the president by statute with the authority to determine when the “entry of aliens would be detrimental” to the national interest, the majority said.​
 
phiwum said:
The New York Times says the courts are unlikely to overrule the President on what counts as an emergency, since that is substituting their judgment for his.

I can't find the article in which I read that. It seems to have fallen off the home page. A similar analysis appears in this Post article. Referring to the watered down Muslim ban that passed Supreme Court oversight, they write:

The ruling stressed the “deference” owed the president, particularly in matters involving immigration and claims of national security. Congress “entrusted” the president by statute with the authority to determine when the “entry of aliens would be detrimental” to the national interest, the majority said.​
Click to expand...

Yeah, but appropriating funds is a different matter. It's explicitly in the purview of Congress to administer funds.

The executive does have very wide latitude when it comes to immigration and national security, but there's I wouldn't assume that the courts would be so ready for rule that the executive can just declare himself whatever funds he wants.
 
phiwum said:
The New York Times says the courts are unlikely to overrule the President on what counts as an emergency, since that is substituting their judgment for his.

I can't find the article in which I read that. It seems to have fallen off the home page. A similar analysis appears in this Post article. Referring to the watered down Muslim ban that passed Supreme Court oversight, they write:

The ruling stressed the “deference” owed the president, particularly in matters involving immigration and claims of national security. Congress “entrusted” the president by statute with the authority to determine when the “entry of aliens would be detrimental” to the national interest, the majority said.​
Click to expand...

And, thus, the democrats have made it clear: be careful what you wish for. As pointed out, you get the Supreme Court to put their stamp of approval, and suddenly it's all fair game for everyone.

Moreover, with the democrats holding the house, they can't just pull a Wisconsin and rewrite all the laws to prevent the democrat elected as president from doing what they just did.
 
Trump's speech, mentioning military funds, proves that we give them too much. Cut military budget 20% and they won't hurt much. Unless they have to reduce headcount. Which also is not bad. Give the ones that want a 4 year stint in military that and then move on. The funds to get education afterward should never be cut.
 
Belz... said:
Isn't that their job?
Click to expand...

Only on constitutional matters. The question here is whether the definition of a national emergency is a constitutional matter. If it's not (and it's certainly not a term from the Constitution, but from a law), then it's plausible that this particular argument will fail and the President can use funds made available by Congress via the National Emergency acts.

There are other challenges to this proposal and I don't pretend to know whether the courts would rule in favor of the President over whether this is a National Emergency or not, but it sure doesn't look like a slam dunk challenge from what I've read.

Obviously, I know damned near doodlysquat about these issues.
 
Tero said:
Trump's speech, mentioning military funds, proves that we give them too much. Cut military budget 20% and they won't hurt much. Unless they have to reduce headcount. Which also is not bad. Give the ones that want a 4 year stint in military that and then move on. The funds to get education afterward should never be cut.
Click to expand...

Er, 20%?

The military budget is around $900 billion, 20% of which is $180 billion. The numbers I've seen at WaPo suggest that Trump will take $6 billion, which is somewhat less than 20%.

ETA: Maybe you just threw out 20% as a cut you'd like to see, rather than as a comparison to Trump's proposed use of military funds for his boondoggle. If so, never mind the above.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
...wasn't she pro-Trump? Or did she switch because he's not conservative enough?
Click to expand...
She's like the Mel Gibson type of Catholic, for whom the Pope isn't Catholic enough.

Seriously, though if that's what she thinks she's right. He's not conservative at all. I don't think he even pretended to be until some Kenyan made fun of him. His only ideology is pure Trumpism.
 
phiwum said:
Er, 20%?

The military budget is around $900 billion, 20% of which is $180 billion. The numbers I've seen at WaPo suggest that Trump will take $6 billion, which is somewhat less than 20%.

ETA: Maybe you just threw out 20% as a cut you'd like to see, rather than as a comparison to Trump's proposed use of military funds for his boondoggle. If so, never mind the above.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my point. Too much fluff in military budget. Too much scrapping of old equipment and getting new as the senators have that industry in their state. I was saying he WILL get the money from the military if allowed, because some 10-20% of the military budget is fluff.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

“After The Flight 93 Election, The Vote That Saved America - And What We Still Have To Lose,” by very talented Michael Anton, is a terrific read. Check it out!
Click to expand...
I had no idea about that book, so I looked it up on Amazon.

Best part: The people who viewed that particular book also viewed a product called a 'tactical spork'.
 

Attachments

  • spork.jpg
    spork.jpg
    27.5 KB · Views: 17
Tero said:
Yes, that was my point. Too much fluff in military budget. Too much scrapping of old equipment and getting new as the senators have that industry in their state. I was saying he WILL get the money from the military if allowed, because some 10-20% of the military budget is fluff.
Click to expand...

So the military says "okay, here's 10 billion for 'the wall'", and then diverts 10 billion from tactical spork development (which I am stealing from now on) into combat post-hole digging equipment, nothing ever gets built, no new money is wasted... win-win?
 
Last edited:
So, a little problem with the U.S. economy right now...

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/us-retail-sales-drop-in-december.html
U.S. retail sales recorded their biggest drop in more than nine years in December as receipts fell across the board, suggesting a sharp slowdown in economic activity at the end of 2018.

They initially predicted this might affect the stock market, but other news (such as the spending bill) might have counteracted the drop in sales.

Still, its not a good sign for the economy, considering how everyone was supposed to have all this extra money after the Republican tax cuts.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
So the military says "okay, here's 10 billion for 'the wall'", and then diverts 10 billion from tactical spork development (which I am stealing from now on) into combat post-hole digging equipment, nothing ever gets built, no new money is wasted... win-win?
Click to expand...
Well, the makers of the Tactical sporks might be a bit miffed. And any soldiers who need the tactical sporks during combat with ISIS or the taliban may not want to be put at a military disadvantage.

In some cases, military money that just seems to be 'sitting there' may actually be earmarked for something important. (Many projects have a long development time... for example, building infrastructure at military base.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom