# Trump to declare fake national emergency



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2019)

Democrats and Republicans have finally reached a compromise for the spending bill in order to keep the government open and functioning.  Thing is, it only includes $1.7 billion for segments of fencing, and so of course Trump is mad that he's the biggest loser in all this.  Even though he still plans to sign the spending bill, he also plans to declare a national emergency in order to siphon more wall funds from disaster relief and the military:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47247726

https://apnews.com/24d64c6848864248afb4260cbec499fd

We can likely expect a federal judge to challenge this, but if not, I'm quite amused by the precedent it sets.  The next Democratic president will have the authority to declare a national emergency over climate change and the opioid epidemic, which is appropriate because those are _real_ emergencies.

The spending bill is going to be signed this weekend (possibly tomorrow), and Trump is set to declare a national emergency around the same time.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 14, 2019)

Erm... To whom does Trump lose face, really? The camp that thinks he's a moron haven't changed their view on him (you can only say 'he's even worse than I anticipated' for so long) and the one 's supporting him have long forgiven him that Mexico is invincible to his superior negotiation skill (1).

But meanwhile he managed to get 1.7 billion bucks for a project that's proven to be useless. I mean .. I can laugh at his antics all day, but I don't get that sort of shit for. So really...who is really the one looking bad in this situation? 


(1): no  I don't know how his supporters wrap their heads around that. This theory is as likely as any other


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> But meanwhile he managed to get 1.7 billion bucks for a project that's proven to be useless. I mean .. I can laugh at his antics all day, but I don't get that sort of shit for. So really...who is really the one looking bad in this situation?


The thing is, Democrats had previously (prior to the December shutdown) offered $5.7 billion for the wall in exchange for full DACA funding, which is also in the current spending bill.  Trump refused to take it and now it's down to $1.7 billion.  Art of the deal indeed.


----------



## yusuo (Feb 14, 2019)

He loses face with himself, it sad really two of the world super powers (US and UK) both have leaders at the moment whose egos prevent them making the right choice for the people they serve and rather choose options that insure they have legacy to their names.

The truth of the matter is Trump can run a business and despite popular belief is actually pretty good at it, however a country isn't a company and as such a different mind set needs to be taken, although he is unable to differentiate between the two and its harming the US public in turn. 

Christ think of what he could do if he commits that 1.7 billion to say healthcare or commiting to the homeless, just sad really.


----------



## PrincessLillie (Feb 14, 2019)

Sometimes I wonder why and how Donald Trump is still our president.
Meme related by the way
Apparently Trump wants to declare a national emergency to get funding for the border wall pic.twitter.com/KcUszCdZiO— Princess Lillie of the Stars - @[email protected] (@Lillie2523) February 14, 2019


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2019)

yusuo said:


> The truth of the matter is Trump can run a business and despite popular belief is actually pretty good at it, however a country isn't a company and as such a different mind set needs to be taken, although he is unable to differentiate between the two and its harming the US public in turn.


I wouldn't say he's particularly good at it after bankrupting several casinos and welching on all his debts to the point that no US bank would lend to him any more.  I don't think Trump really has any liquid assets whatsoever, all his money is tied up in loans from foreign banks.  It's obvious there's a reason he doesn't want the public to see his tax returns.

I'm fairly confident that if Trump had just taken all the free money his daddy gave him and stuck it in a savings account, he would've ended up making more profit from that than from all his failed business ventures combined.


----------



## yusuo (Feb 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I wouldn't say he's particularly good at it after bankrupting several casinos and welching on all his debts to the point that no US bank would lend to him any more.  I don't think Trump really has any liquid assets whatsoever, all his money is tied up in loans from foreign banks.  It's obvious there's a reason he doesn't want the public to see his tax returns.


OK, fair point however what I meant is that he is a professional legal con man, he can talk a deal out of most people and similar to the kardashians he knows how to keep himself relevant in the eyes of the public.

It's because of the above that he become president, well that and the infatuation the American public have with celebrity. Its how Schwarzenegger became governor and how most children's life goal is to wind up on a reality show.

Anyway back on topic, humility seems to be a quality this man is lacking, he's unprofessional, condescending and doesn't have the dignity the office he holds dictates he should have.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2019)

Yeah, one thing is certain: he is running the country like one of his businesses.  Straight into the ground.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 14, 2019)

Welcome to banana land!!!
So nostalgic!
Makes me remember the quirks of my olden South American homeland politicians declaring a fake state of emergency every year to gain some temporary super powers. Ah, the olden times!


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 14, 2019)

There's an irony to the people complaining about the face of the country..

...and before any of you assume my political stance.. No, I'm not a Trump sympathizer. He's a tool, nothing more.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 14, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Welcome to banana land!!!
> So nostalgic!
> Makes me remember the quirks of my olden South American homeland politicians declaring a fake state of emergency every year to gain some temporary super powers. Ah, the olden times!


> TFW you downgrade from a Democratic Republic to a Banana Republic in order to "own the libs."


----------



## supermist (Feb 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The next Democratic president will have the authority to declare a national emergency over climate change and the opioid epidemic, which is appropriate because those are _real_ emergencies.



And gun violence


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We can likely expect a federal judge to challenge this, but if not, I'm quite amused by the precedent it sets.  The next Democratic president will have the authority to declare a national emergency over climate change and the opioid epidemic ....




It sets no precedent. The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976 and since then US Presidents have declared 58 national emergencies, 31 of which are still 'active' and just get renewed every year. This will just be one more in a long list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/





supermist said:


> And gun violence




Yeah, I saw where Pelosi made that threat. Problem is, what would you with national emergency powers to 'solve' that problem that can't already be accomplished by enforcing the laws we have??? If you want to be practical about it, you'd end the 'war on drugs,' deport all MS13 and cartel-affiliated types, secure the border, and institute much longer prison sentences _without the possibility of parole_ for crimes committed with a gun. If you want to be stupid about it, you'd enact a bunch of emergency orders that reflect so-called 'common sense' gun control, which just restricts what law-abiding people can do, not criminals. In either case, one thing a state of emergency does not do is give the President or government the power to circumvent the Constitution, which currently guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. There's really only one path for you if you think the people of the United States shouldn't have the right to own firearms, and good luck with it.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> It sets no precedent. The National Emergencies Act was passed in 1976 and since then US Presidents have declared 58 national emergencies, 31 of which are still 'active' and just get renewed every year. This will just be one more in a long list.


It sets the precedent that emergencies can be declared when there is indeed no pressing emergency.  Same reason it's likely to be overturned by a federal judge.  Judges along the border be like:


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It sets the precedent that emergencies can be declared when there is indeed no pressing emergency.  Same reason it's likely to be overturned by a federal judge.  Judges along the border be like:




I guess that would depend on whether you think all of the other 58 were 'pressing emergencies' vital to the domestic security of the United States, or not. But the legislation does give the President the authority to invoke it, and they haven't been lax about using it, going back to Carter.

I'm not arguing Trump's right or wrong, just that Pelosi's representation (and yours) that this would be "unprecedented" needs a giant asterisk next to it.

Also, since the National Emergencies Act contains a procedure for Congress to reverse & nullify the President's declaration of an emergency, it seems that's how this should be resisted by those who oppose, not litigation.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Trump is just a spoiled child breaking his toys because he was told "no." At this point, I am not shocked by him doing something childish and stupid. Just like how I am not shocked that his supporters will still somehow moronically support him.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not arguing Trump's right or wrong, just that Pelosi's representation (and yours) that this would be "unprecedented" needs a giant asterisk next to it.


Rofl no, this is absolutely unprecedented.  No president is known to have planned out an 'emergency' for months beforehand.  Even if they had, they wouldn't have done it publicly, as Trump has done.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

I want to get off Mr. Bones' Trump's Wild Ride.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl no, this is absolutely unprecedented.  *No president is known to have planned out an 'emergency' for months beforehand.*  Even if they had, they wouldn't have done it publicly as Trump has done.




Gonna need a cite for that claim lol. I'll give ya the sentence that follows though ... but Trump's style of communicating with the public is rather unprecedented (Twitter) ... last time a President rocked the boat of how to reach the common man this much was FDR's radio "Fireside Chats."

But the other thing I said is still true ... the law does give any President the power to invoke this, and the authority and jurisdiction to revoke it is with Congress, not the Courts. That won't stop the lawsuits from flying anyway, of course.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 15, 2019)

Already got my candidate picked out. Hint: It's not Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Gonna need a cite for that claim lol.


Seriously, you think other presidents have just pulled some imaginary emergency situation from their ass?  In any other administration, that would've resulted in the 25th amendment being used to remove the president from office immediately, Trump is the only one who could've possibly lowered the bar this far.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Seriously, you think other presidents have just pulled some imaginary emergency situation from their ass?  In any other administration, that would've resulted in the 25th amendment being used to remove the president from office immediately, Trump is the only one who could've possibly lowered the bar this far.




All I'm saying is the law gives the President the authority to declare it, and it gives Congress the authority to say, "No, that's bullshit." If Congress can't vote to rescind, it can only be because not enough of them agree it's bullshit.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> All I'm saying is the law gives the President the authority to declare it, and it gives Congress the authority to say, "No, that's bullshit." If Congress can't vote to rescind, it can only be because not enough of them agree it's bullshit.


True, makes you wonder why he even bothers to try for this stunt in the first place.  There's no chance in hell the Democratic congress approves this after handing him his own ass on a platter during the shutdown and budget negotiations.  Desperation I guess.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> True, makes you wonder why he even bothers to try for this stunt in the first place.  There's no chance in hell the Democratic congress approves this after handing him his own ass on a platter during the shutdown and budget negotiations.  Desperation I guess.




Requires a veto-proof majority from both Houses.


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not arguing Trump's right or wrong, just that Pelosi's representation (and yours) that this would be "unprecedented" needs a giant asterisk next to it.


43 of the 58 emergencies can be categorized as sanctions (26 still in effect). 6 were export limits (1 in effect), 4 as weapons proliferation (1 in effect), and 5 are misc (3 in effect).

This is not normal.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 15, 2019)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> 43 of the 58 emergencies can be categorized as sanctions (26 still in effect). 6 were export limits (1 in effect), 4 as weapons proliferation (1 in effect), and 5 are misc (3 in effect).
> 
> This is not normal.



The counter-argument to that would be emergencies are never normal. That's why they're emergencies.

Whether this _is_ a national emergency though, falls on Congress to decide.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Requires a veto-proof majority from both Houses.


Well back to a federal judge striking it down it is, then, because everybody else in charge of the Republican party are spineless sycophants that put party before country.  They'll pretend to see any national emergency that Mr. Orange Magoo insists they see.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well back to a federal judge striking it down it is, then, because everybody else in charge of the Republican party are spineless sycophants that put party before country.  They'll pretend to see any national emergency that Mr. Orange Magoo insists they see.


But they rule the courts too now


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 15, 2019)

They are just going to go judge shopping in the ninth circuit, where it will get kicked to the appeals then the supreme court which is currently favorable to republicans right now, ginsburg still might not even be present when they rule on it.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> They are just going to go judge shopping in the ninth circuit, where it will get kicked to the appeals then the supreme court which is currently favorable to republicans right now, ginsburg still might not even be present when they rule on it.


So we're in a place where Republicans are cheering for the supreme court to rule against the reality of what we can see and hear with our own eyes and ears.  I think anti-intellectualism has peaked, ladies and gentlemen.



IncredulousP said:


> But they rule the courts too now


We've seen even Republican judges rule against Trump, though.  Most judges take their oath to uphold the law and constitution seriously.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We've seen even Republican judges rule against Trump, though.  Most judges take their oath to uphold the law and constitution seriously.


I would have more faith in the judges if having multiple sexual assult accusations, committing perjury, and flipping your shit in court were grounds for disqualification from the most powerful branch of government requiring impartiality and levelheadedness in ruling exactly what rights a citizen is granted via Constitution and law. Rights that include, you know, how much say a woman has with her own body and the legality and definition of sexual consent.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I would have more faith in the judges if having multiple sexual assult accusations, committing perjury, and flipping your shit in court were grounds for disqualification from the most powerful branch of government requiring impartiality and levelheadedness in ruling exactly what rights a citizen is granted via Constitution and law. Rights that include, you know, how much say a woman has with her own body and the legality and definition of sexual consent.


Yeah, Kavanaugh is a real POS and I hope there's some way to recall him after it turns out he committed perjury multiple times.  I kinda doubt this issue is going to see the supreme court, though.  If a federal judge strikes it down, that's the end of that, but if not I think it'll get tied up in legal challenges until Trump is out of office.


----------



## supermist (Feb 15, 2019)

Emergency were declared


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 15, 2019)

Well fellow Americans, wear your sombreros and get a Taco, because the emergency money is coming out your taxes and you are going to pretend to be Mexicans or Mr. Orange will go into a tantrum.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well fellow Americans, wear your sombreros and get a Taco, because the emergency money is coming out your taxes and you are going to pretend to be Mexicans or Mr. Orange will go into a tantrum.


Jokes on him, I'm already of Mexican decent.


----------



## supermist (Feb 15, 2019)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well fellow Americans, wear your sombreros and get a Taco, because the emergency money is coming out your taxes and you are going to pretend to be Mexicans or Mr. Orange will go into a tantrum.



Well, I already received far less back for 2018's tax returns.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 15, 2019)

I guess Trump is afraid of the 25th amendment being used against him after all.  Here's a brilliant tweet in which he calls the use of the constitution unconstitutional:

“Trying to use the 25th Amendment to try and circumvent the Election is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing...which happens in third world countries. You have to obey the law. This is an attack on our system & Constitution.” Alan Dershowitz. @TuckerCarlson— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2019


This is almost as brilliant as when he said, "one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water" during hurricane Florence.  Honestly never thought we'd see dumber quotes than the ones we got from GWB, but this is the type of shit that lowers your IQ just from reading/listening to it.


----------



## IncredulousP (Feb 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I guess Trump is afraid of the 25th amendment being used against him after all.  Here's a brilliant tweet in which he calls the use of the constitution unconstitutional:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1096246820097966080
> 
> This is almost as brilliant as when he said, "one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water" during hurricane Florence.  Honestly never thought we'd see dumber quotes than the ones we got from GWB, but this is the type of shit that lowers your IQ just from reading/listening to it.


The constitution is very dangerous for our democracy. The media is all fake, and science is lying. There is no collusion, and if there is, it's not illegal. I am a good president.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 15, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not arguing Trump's right or wrong, just that Pelosi's representation (and yours) that this would be "unprecedented" needs a giant asterisk next to it.



In keeping with SomeKindOfUsername's follow up comment, it's pretty clear that money reallocation for other purposes than original spelled out by Congress--substantially subverting "the power of the purse"--was done either in lead up to WW2, in response to 9/11, or in coordination with Congressional approved hostilities of the Second Iraq War.  So, it's really unclear to me what the justification is especially when Congress was quite clear how much money they were willing to spend on a border wall.  Really, this sounds more like Iran-Contra except out in the open.

The one part I would agree with is under normal standards, Congress would immediate get involved to condemn a President's actions in such an area precisely because it so underscores their power.  Yet, the fact that we're here debating it is precisely that one house of Congress controlled by one party seems willing to be complicit in serving the Executive Branch, if their party, first before their own constituents--you know, that job of being a Congressman.  It's like those in Congress have totally forgotten the concept of "separation of powers".  It's little wonder that there is such a complaint about "Judicial Activism". :/


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I guess Trump is afraid of the 25th amendment being used against him after all.  Here's a brilliant tweet in which he calls the use of the constitution unconstitutional:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1096246820097966080
> 
> This is almost as brilliant as when he said, "one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water" during hurricane Florence.  Honestly never thought we'd see dumber quotes than the ones we got from GWB, but this is the type of shit that lowers your IQ just from reading/listening to it.


That's .. Indeed a pretty weird reaction. Then again : more proof of incompetence doesn't hurt.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 16, 2019)

this shit is scarier than  just a wall he're a article on what he could do left unchecked https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/


----------



## SLiV3R (Feb 16, 2019)

I understand him. We have a lot of problems of immigrants in Europe.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 16, 2019)

dude i have a feeling the wall is a lie at this point to gain emergency powers such as deploy the military to detain (or even kill) rebels i knew day 1 this would happen


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> That's .. Indeed a pretty weird reaction. Then again : more proof of incompetence doesn't hurt.


Perhaps even more ridiculous is that he said, "I didn't need to do this," during his declaration of national emergency.  Completely undermined his own messaging.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> That's .. Indeed a pretty weird reaction. Then again : more proof of incompetence doesn't hurt.



I wouldn't call it a weird reaction.  Donald Trump is engaging in Executive Activism*.  He doesn't want Congress to respond with Legislative Activism*.  Too bad for Trump, if Congress were to act it'd all be very, very legal.  Perhaps Trump is not used to that?

* Like Judicial Activism, when the Executive Branch ignores the spirit/intent/letter of the law and engages in activities it wants to because it think it's right.  Usually these are outright crimes.

* Like Judicial Activism, except in this case Congress specifically was granted powers in the Constitution to impeach, convict, or declare incapacitated the President or many other officials.  Where it'd be actual Legislative Activism would be declaring by law someone guilty of a crime or trying to remove someone from the Supreme Court--the very few areas where the Congress specifically has no power.  Also included would be all the unconstitutional laws that have been written that the courts have struct down, although some would argue on how much that's actually Judicial Activism.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Perhaps even more ridiculous is that he said, "I didn't need to do this," during his declaration of national emergency.  Completely undermined his own messaging.


OH, that sort of thing I can believe  It's just the short of thing he says all the time  It's the sort of hidden victim game  'I didn't need to do this but democrats pushed me in this position'. He also crammed a 'I'm proud to do this'  in it, didn't he? To a normal person, that would further signal malice, but in the short of reasoning fox uses you have to get the idea that he's talking about boycotting the 'evil' opposition. And ignore the fact that the opposition is now both democrats and Republicans (they just signed an agreement  Heck .. Trump signed that agreement as well).

@kuwanger of course he doesn't want to be impeached. Being mad about it is to be expected. But surely downright pissing on the constitution isn't going to change anyone's mind, right?


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2019)

SLiV3R said:


> I understand him. We have a lot of problems of immigrants in Europe.


So true... 
But a wall wont change it. ^^ imagine a wall around Europe. That s a waste of resources and it is useless ... even the Berlin wall was useless and that one was way smaller


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 17, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> @kuwanger of course he doesn't want to be impeached. Being mad about it is to be expected. But surely downright pissing on the constitution isn't going to change anyone's mind, right?



Two things.  One, I don't think Trump even begins to understand the Constitution so he doesn't understand that his actions are downright pissing on it nor would I believe that Trump actually cares per se if he was downright pissing on it; he's hardly the first President to be that way.  Two, he's not interested in changing anyone's mind but merely preventing his base from drifting away because it would appear that's the only thing keeping him in office with his otherwise gross incompetence and considering the pretty horrific, by Presidential standards, allegations.

Trump is almost exclusively based upon taking two unrelated things that some people might have some feeling have a relationship and then coming up with a small slogan.  It helps feed into the conspiracy mindedness of his base.  Anything that doesn't stick, he just stops talking about.  His market strategy works really well because he keeps having separate rallies where he can tell each group slightly different material.  In short, he's a conspirean--a conspiracy comedian--trying out new material for his act.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 17, 2019)

This is dumb. Mr. Orangatan messed up.



sarkwalvein said:


> Well fellow Americans, wear your sombreros and get a Taco, because the emergency money is coming out your taxes and you are going to pretend to be Mexicans or Mr. Orange will go into a tantrum.


#notmypresident
#Orangeisn’tthenewblack
#Drumpfisnotmysenpai


----------



## Longshot56 (Feb 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Democrats and Republicans have finally reached a compromise for the spending bill in order to keep the government open and functioning.  Thing is, it only includes $1.7 billion for segments of fencing, and so of course Trump is mad that he's the biggest loser in all this.  Even though he still plans to sign the spending bill, he also plans to declare a national emergency in order to siphon more wall funds from disaster relief and the military:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47247726
> 
> ...


A 70 something year old man acts like a toddler, if he doesn´t get his way, shut down the government. Sorry we aren´t stupid and want you fix opioids and other internal problems


----------



## SG854 (Feb 19, 2019)

Declaring National Emergencies isn’t all too uncommon. For comparison Obama declared 12 national emergencies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

It depends on what you define as fake. To some people they don’t see the border issue as an emergency. To others they see it as a big problem that the previous presidents failed to address.

We need not only better border patrol, but also a way to enforce people that over stay after their visa has expired. 

Maybe Trump should’ve stopped after the compromise and not declare a national emergency. 

People from both sides tend to talk past each other since they don’t address the same thing. One side keeps on saying immigration, while the other is only specifically talking about illegal immigration.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It depends on what you define as fake. To some people they don’t see the border issue as an emergency. To others they see it as a big problem that the previous presidents failed to address.


C'mon SG, when you declare an emergency and then go golfing the next three days in a row, it's a fake emergency.  The border is as quiet as it's ever been, and even Republicans along the border don't want the wall.  Texas landowners were the first to sue after the emergency declaration.  Trump thought calling it an emergency would be the end of it, but he still has to use eminent domain to seize over 1,000 properties.  The legal challenges to this may take a decade to resolve, and I assume a different president will have canceled the project by then.


----------



## Longshot56 (Feb 20, 2019)

This is basically Cold War 2. We´re scared of commies and Nazis, and constantly staring at Russia and China with nukes. But they´ll never shoot off.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Declaring National Emergencies isn’t all too uncommon. For comparison Obama declared 12 national emergencies.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


He went golfing for a weekend, because this man is always golfing and not working like he needs to.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> C'mon SG, when you declare an emergency and then go golfing the next three days in a row, it's a fake emergency.  The border is as quiet as it's ever been, and even Republicans along the border don't want the wall.  Texas landowners were the first to sue after the emergency declaration.  Trump thought calling it an emergency would be the end of it, but he still has to use eminent domain to seize over 1,000 properties.  The legal challenges to this may take a decade to resolve, and I assume a different president will have canceled the project by then.


You forgot to mention the fact that none of Trump's intelligence officials mentioned illegal border crossings during their recent testimony about current security issues.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 15, 2019)

It's time to necrobump this thread a bit: the senate voted to nullify the declaration of an emergency.

I guess this isn't much of a surprise, as one would think that "an emergency" should be about a situation that is in any way dire or pressing for time. Which was never the case for this border situation, as - ironically - even downright admitted by Trump himself.

Unfortunately, it is within the president's power to determine what constituted to being "an emergency", so despite himself saying that he only did it to get around not receiving funds, it was declared as such. It is now rejected...but it wasn't with such a clear margin to stop out the next step in this process. Meaning:

VETO TIME!!!! Wheeeeee!!!!!! 


...because what's the point of being the president if you can't overrule everything that others put in your way? 


On a more serious note: nothing really out of the ordinary. Sure, some republicans voted along with the democrats, but I doubt a major change will happen on that front.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> It's time to necrobump this thread a bit: the senate voted to nullify the declaration of an emergency.
> 
> I guess this isn't much of a surprise, as one would think that "an emergency" should be about a situation that is in any way dire or pressing for time. Which was never the case for this border situation, as - ironically - even downright admitted by Trump himself.
> 
> ...


Absolutely fucking insane that the president has the power to veto a check on his own power.  Between that and his threat against American citizens yesterday, we're definitely witnessing the slow death of Democracy in favor of authoritarianism.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 16, 2019)

you're right a president should be limited on his vetoing powers (this is an example) btw what threat do you mean @ Xzi the only other thing i heard in the news was the NZ mosque shooting


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> you're right a president should be limited on his vetoing powers (this is an example) btw what threat do you mean @ Xzi the only other thing i heard in the news was the NZ mosque shooting


The threat came during a Breitbart interview.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-how-tough-his-supporters-can-get/3172413002/



			
				DJT said:
			
		

> "So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening,” Trump said before discussing his supporters. “You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay?"
> 
> "I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad."



He deleted it today after receiving a lot of backlash, but then he went on to repeat a lot of the same language the New Zealand shooter used:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/829486/trump-just-called-immigration-invasion-did-new-zealand-shooter

Does Trump acknowledge the rise of nationalist-inspired violence, though?  Of course not.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...tionalism_us_5c8c055fe4b0db7da9f33cd4?m=false


Edit: On the topic of the NZ shooter, I'm extremely disturbed by how much American far-right politics seems to have influenced him.  Not much more to say than that at the moment, I'm still kind of working through my feelings on all this.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 16, 2019)

Friendly reminder that Hitler and the Holocaust were democratically established.


----------

