• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

National Emergency

thaiboxerken said:
This is very threatening for American democracy. Trump and his cult is expecting this to go to the SCOTUS where they expect that they'll rule in Trump's favor. I find it very possible that it could happen, since there are 2 appointed Trump loyalists on the SCOTUS bench and, of the other 3 conservatives, only Roberts has some semblance of a spine to stand up against his own party's authoritarian leanings.
Click to expand...

Even so, such an increase of presidential power might come back and bite them in the ass later on.
 
Toontown said:
Which begs the question: WHY the refusal to understand?

There's gotta be some kind of emotional payoff. That's all I can figure.
Click to expand...

Look buddy, there is little point anymore in even trying to unscrew the unscrutable. For whatever reason, trump aficionados are immune to anything remotely within light years of reality.

Believe me. Bigly. Have a bigger orgasm, why not? Eat these steaks and instantly become a kind of tripod. Trump base is those who consider struggling up to the level of abject failure is some how unattainable.
 
thaiboxerken said:
This is very threatening for American democracy. Trump and his cult is expecting this to go to the SCOTUS where they expect that they'll rule in Trump's favor. I find it very possible that it could happen, since there are 2 appointed Trump loyalists on the SCOTUS bench and, of the other 3 conservatives, only Roberts has some semblance of a spine to stand up against his own party's authoritarian leanings.
Click to expand...

Right now, that's still the thing that scares me the most. That Trump will be able to nominate another SCOTUS judge before whenever and however he leaves office.

As it stands now nothing Trump has done cannot be undone. But another SCOTUS judge (or two shudder to think) he puts on the Bench? We're stuck with that for a long, long, long time. And SCOTUS decisions are arguably a lot more powerful then legislation.

And... yeah Ginsburg health is always in question and none of them are exactly spring chickens. The death or medical disqualification of a SCOTUS member is always a not in the margins possibility.

As it stands now as said the only thing saving us is Roberts deciding to not be crazy roughly half the time for whatever reasons he has.

And it should be this way. SCOTUS has always been the branch of government where the members cross party lines and go against their primary political alignment most often. Both Democrats and Republics have felt the sting of "their" nominees voted against them and the country has been a better place for me in my opinion.

But now we've got two of the same type of political party insiders that have destroyed Congress from ever having a chance of ever being anything other than an impotent waste of oxygen on the bench.
 
Belz... said:
Even so, such an increase of presidential power might come back and bite them in the ass later on.
Click to expand...

But when has that stopped the Republicans? They spent years banging on about the system being broken and that 'Washington insiders' couldn't be trusted and yet they were shocked when it turned out a big part of their base took them at the their word and voted for Trump. Also the embrace of evangelical Christians has made the political divide much worse. After all if you think god is on your side then your opponents aren't merely wrong or misguided, they are evil and there can be no compromise and you must do whatever it takes to defeat them, regardless of the consequences.

abaddon said:
Look buddy, there is little point anymore in even trying to unscrew the unscrutable. For whatever reason, trump aficionados are immune to anything remotely within light years of reality.

Believe me. Bigly. Have a bigger orgasm, why not? Eat these steaks and instantly become a kind of tripod. Trump base is those who consider struggling up to the level of abject failure is some how unattainable.
Click to expand...

They either don't care that he lies or they believe the 'deep state' garbage, or they simply don't care as long as Trump upsets the right people. I suspect the latter is what drives several of his supporters at ISF.
 
Last edited:
And again I don't care which party wins in the end if the country doesn't.

You don't hand a gun to a chimp but argue "Well we can use the gun later to shoot a robber, that will show the chimp."
 
Last edited:
ServiceSoon said:
Do you know the story of Mexican Texas? While I was visiting the Arch in St Louis they had a slide show that taught me all about it.

...historical inaccuracies snipped...
Click to expand...
I am sorry to hear that an exhibit at the Gateway Arch National Park has promulgated so much disinformation about Texas history. I hope ServiceSoon is misremembering, influenced perhaps by his desire to distort Texas history in support of his own beliefs concerning current events.

smartcooky said:
That is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened and why it happened.
Click to expand...
This Texan-by-birth thanks smartcooky for correcting ServiceSoon.

(Texas history is sordid enough; we needn't invent.)

By the way, Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón was the sort of strongman the current POTUS likes to emulate. From that Wikipedia article:

Wikipedia said:
Historians and many Mexicans also rank him as perhaps the principal inhabitant even today of Mexico's pantheon of "those who failed the nation."[10] His centralist rhetoric and military failures resulted in Mexico losing just over half its territory, beginning with the Texas Revolution of 1836, and culminating with the Mexican Cession of 1848 following its defeat by the United States in the Mexican–American War.
Click to expand...
The Wikipedia articles linked in that excerpt will correct ServiceSoon's mistakes.

Foolmewunz said:
But he saw it on a slide show at a tourist attraction in another State. If we can't trust tourist sites who are we left to trust?

(Excellent post, btw.)
Click to expand...
I hope the slide show he saw was not put together by the National Park Service, or did not get so much wrong as he did.
 
The Dems ought to run spots mimicking the Disney World Superbowl commercials.....

Cue seven clips of Donnie Johnny decrying the crisis of humanity and declaring the national emergency (rather nonchalantly), then....

Announcer: Donald Trump, you've just declared a National Emergency, what are you going to do now?

Clip (must be numerous available out there) of Trump saying: We're going to Mar A Lago.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The Dems ought to run spots mimicking the Disney World Superbowl commercials.....

Cue seven clips of Donnie Johnny decrying the crisis of humanity and declaring the national emergency (rather nonchalantly), then....

Announcer: Donald Trump, you've just declared a National Emergency, what are you going to do now?

Clip (must be numerous available out there) of Trump saying: We're going to Mar A Lago.
Click to expand...
Dropping the umbrella? Tossing paper-towel rolls to the media scrum? Wandering off into the distance and getting fetched by a lackey? The ever-popular paper-stuck-to-the-shoe?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and California have sued over Trump's Emergency Declaration.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/18/politics/xavier-becerra-lawsuit-national-emergency/index.html
Click to expand...

I don't understand the argument. By passing the act saying how the president can use funds when he declares an emergency, isn't that Congress using their power of the purse?

It has a similar problem as that argument that the 25th amendment is unconstitutional.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't understand the argument. By passing the act saying how the president can use funds when he declares an emergency, isn't that Congress using their power of the purse?

It has a similar problem as that argument that the 25th amendment is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

you assume that the separation of power is absolute - it isn't.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't understand the argument. By passing the act saying how the president can use funds when he declares an emergency, isn't that Congress using their power of the purse?

It has a similar problem as that argument that the 25th amendment is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No, because if Trump can use the Act the way he is -- for a non-emergency to finance an ego project for political purposes after Congress turned him down -- that would make the Act un-Constitutional.
 
WilliamSeger said:
No, because if Trump can use the Act the way he is -- for a non-emergency to finance an ego project for political purposes after Congress turned him down -- that would make the Act un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

By defining an emergency broadly, Congress authorised the allocation of funds for non-emergencies.
 
BobTheCoward said:
By defining an emergency broadly, Congress authorised the allocation of funds for non-emergencies.
Click to expand...
How broadly?

What if Trump defined his National Emergency as "I need to build a MacDonalds outlet in the White House basement so I can order hamberders 24/7. And a Tiffany's shop for my main squeeze too." Do you think Congress would say payment for that is authorised with no questions asked? Surely there would be some oversight and potential brake-squeals from the Capital. It would be rightly considered a huge misunderstanding of what "National" and "Emergency" really mean. It isn't needed; it's just a personal whim.

Now consider this Wall "National Emergency". Trump has already conceded out loud it isn't even needed, he's just doing it because he wants to. So in what way is this different to the above in-house hamberder joint? Nothing much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom