Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:02 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:Well, I guess he shouldn't declare a fake state of emergency to get his way then? It's opening the floodgates and everyone knows it, too bad he literally doesn't give a shit about anything except himself and appeasing his base, damn the facts and future repercussions.


... or he might cause the most chaos and destruction he can in his position.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:10 pm UTC


User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:38 pm UTC

Not so fast. It says: "President Trump has confirmed he will use emergency powers to build a wall on the US border with Mexico, saying "walls work"."

Note: "will use". Not "has declared an emergency". It's still just noise. Disturbing noise, but until he signs the declaration, he's just campaigning.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1419
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Link » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:57 pm UTC

Seems like the perfect moment for Congresspeople from both parties to band together to stop this madness. If they don't, Trump might as well start calling himself God-Emperor, because any semblance of democracy will be gone at that point.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:33 pm UTC

Link wrote:Seems like the perfect moment for Congresspeople from both parties to band together to stop this madness. If they don't, Trump might as well start calling himself God-Emperor, because any semblance of democracy will be gone at that point.


Republicans haven't found their spines in the last two years of the Trump circus, what makes you think they will now? As long as they're in power, they don't give a fig about over-reach.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:34 pm UTC

Link wrote:Seems like the perfect moment for Congresspeople from both parties to band together to stop this madness.
Yeah, except for the fact that supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. That's heavy bait.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1419
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Link » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:54 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
Republicans haven't found their spines in the last two years of the Trump circus, what makes you think they will now? As long as they're in power, they don't give a fig about over-reach.

Honestly, I don't think they will, but if there's ever a time to speak out against your own party, this is it. At this point, it's no longer even the Republicans that are in charge: it's Agent Orange up there, and him alone. I imagine he will gladly screw over Republicans just as much if he sees fit to do so. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of Republicans are too stupid to realise that, or the fact that even if Trump doesn't do the screwing-over, the precedent will have been set for someone else to do it...

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:10 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
Link wrote:Seems like the perfect moment for Congresspeople from both parties to band together to stop this madness. If they don't, Trump might as well start calling himself God-Emperor, because any semblance of democracy will be gone at that point.


Republicans haven't found their spines in the last two years of the Trump circus, what makes you think they will now? As long as they're in power, they don't give a fig about over-reach.


There’s certainly some resistance from Republicans. Admittedly, this is in Texas, and most people here know that the border isn’t in an emergency — even Republicans. It’s not surprising that Dan Patrick is for the move — there’s plenty of full-fledged Trump supporters elected from Texas. But I think the fact that both of our senators are, at best, ambivalent about it says a lot. According to 538, John Cornyn has been one of the most pro-Trump senators, and Cruz ain’t all that far behind.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:26 pm UTC

Overreach that supports their goals? Why would they fight back against that? It'd be political suicide. Do it so that the next democratic president can't? Why not just wait until the next democratic president tries and then crucify him for it instead?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:36 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
Link wrote:Seems like the perfect moment for Congresspeople from both parties to band together to stop this madness. If they don't, Trump might as well start calling himself God-Emperor, because any semblance of democracy will be gone at that point.


Republicans haven't found their spines in the last two years of the Trump circus, what makes you think they will now? As long as they're in power, they don't give a fig about over-reach.

The Senate would be the jury in an impeachment trial.aka Trump has a huge reason to play ball with his base. If Trump doesn't, they'll toss him in jail if Mueller brings him down for obstruction of Justice. Mitch McConnell and these old white guys will be dead by the time Democrats can fix everything, and that assumes Democrats don't crash and burn.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:45 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:Well, I guess he shouldn't declare a fake state of emergency to get his way then? It's opening the floodgates and everyone knows it, too bad he literally doesn't give a shit about anything except himself and appeasing his base, damn the facts and future repercussions.


I don't agree with the proposal to declare an emergency; nor do I agree with building the wall in the first place... but all this talk about open the floodgates and whatnot is a bit much... the reality is that presidents declare emergencies all the time, and over much smaller things; there are 31 declarations of emergency that are active right now and some of them date back to the Carter administration.

You can see a list of them here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics/trump-wall-active-national-emergency/index.html

When he makes the declaration he has to specify what actions he will take to address the "emergency" facing the nation; and if he tries to add anything completely stupid, Congress has the ability to vote it down.

On a related topic, even assuming he declares the emergency, he can direct the military to fund and build the wall; but he cannot direct them to bypass existing laws and regulations. Wherever they want to build on public land will be tied up in the courts over environmental regulations; and wherever they want to build on private land will be tied up even longer over eminent domain issues. We're talking years here. Congress passed a bill in 2006 to fund barriers along the border, and out of 300+ court cases over land access, something like 60 of them are still open cases. And that was a duly passed bill from Congress.

And even if he does find some legal means of bypassing landowner rights, it'd cost him severely in support from his base; land rights are a huge deal for most conservatives.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:49 pm UTC

I predict that Congressional Republicans as a whole will remain silent/inactive on the matter so long as Trump is only abusing power to do things that they want done anyway, and will only step up to reign him in if he does something against the Republican agenda.

The framers of the Constitution expected that the individuals in each different branch of government would guard their branch's power jealously from every other branch, but the Constitution has no conception of political parties in it and so is blindsided by multiple people across multiple branches of government acting as agents of a single entity whose power they guard more jealously than that of any actual Constitutionally recognized organized body of government.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4586
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:56 pm UTC

Most of those seem to be primarily be about blocking assets to foreign nationals. I'm not sure specifically why that requires emergency action, but apparently it's a thing.

I think the difference here is that Trump would be using the state of emergency specifically to subvert the legislative process and fund one of his pet projects. It would be something akin to Obama declaring the failing healthcare system a national emergency and unilaterally imposing The Affordable Care Act. Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:03 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Most of those seem to be primarily be about blocking assets to foreign nationals. I'm not sure specifically why that requires emergency action, but apparently it's a thing.

I think the difference here is that Trump would be using the state of emergency specifically to subvert the legislative process and fund one of his pet projects. It would be something akin to Obama declaring the failing healthcare system a national emergency and unilaterally imposing The Affordable Care Act. Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.

Which may be a thing that helps republicans work against it. Like any nuclear option, it will bite you on the ass soon enough.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:08 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Most of those seem to be primarily be about blocking assets to foreign nationals. I'm not sure specifically why that requires emergency action, but apparently it's a thing.

I think the difference here is that Trump would be using the state of emergency specifically to subvert the legislative process and fund one of his pet projects. It would be something akin to Obama declaring the failing healthcare system a national emergency and unilaterally imposing The Affordable Care Act. Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.


Isn't declaring those other things as emergencies used to bypass congress as well? I mean if everyone was in agreement about them why not just pass the necessary laws?

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:21 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Most of those seem to be primarily be about blocking assets to foreign nationals. I'm not sure specifically why that requires emergency action, but apparently it's a thing.


Mainly because it allows the administration to act quickly and with a lot of freedom... if you want to block somebody's assets for example, you typically don't to spend the time waiting for Congress to write a bill, discuss the bill, vote on it, review it, vote on it again, etc, etc. So they declare an emergency and just do it.

I think the difference here is that Trump would be using the state of emergency specifically to subvert the legislative process and fund one of his pet projects.


Fair point. That is a concern, to be sure... I guess my point was that a lot of people seem to be under the impression that a) declaring a state of emergency is something huge that never happens, and b) it gives the president carte blanche powers to do whatever he wants. Neither of those things is true.

Congress has the power to nullify a declared state of emergency; and while it's unlikely that the Senate would do so to prevent a wall from being built, it might be a whole different ballgame once they start trying to seize public properties for example. That would be political suicide for a lot of republican Senators and Representatives, especially in agricultural red states. Even ones that aren't on the border.

The courts can also act to block actions taken during an emergency; and in this case they almost certainly will. There will be suits filed against the emergency being declared; there will suits over the allocation of money; there will be suits filed over environmental concerns; there will be suits filed by landowners seeking to hold onto their lands... and so on and so on and so on...

Also... the declaration includes the intended actions to be taken; Trump can't just declare "emergency" and then do whatever he wants. The declaration itself will outline the building of the wall.

Finally... a declaration of emergency does not allocate funds. Trump can pay for the wall using the military, assuming he can find the money within the defense budget; but only because federal law allows the military to build during emergencies. And that is $8 billion (or whatever the number ends up being) that is no longer available for other military purposes.

It would be something akin to Obama declaring the failing healthcare system a national emergency and unilaterally imposing The Affordable Care Act.


Only if he could find funds within HHS or some other health-oriented agency that were not already obligated.

Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.


I would not be the least bit surprised if the next democratic president did just that. It would allow them to take actions - so long as they were legal and funded - without necessarily waiting for Congress.

But the problem - and this would be for healthcare as well - is that none of what they did would be permanent. It would last as long as the state of emergency.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:40 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Most of those seem to be primarily be about blocking assets to foreign nationals. I'm not sure specifically why that requires emergency action, but apparently it's a thing.

I think the difference here is that Trump would be using the state of emergency specifically to subvert the legislative process and fund one of his pet projects. It would be something akin to Obama declaring the failing healthcare system a national emergency and unilaterally imposing The Affordable Care Act. Or some future Democratic president declaring global warming a national emergency, say.


Isn't declaring those other things as emergencies used to bypass congress as well? I mean if everyone was in agreement about them why not just pass the necessary laws?

I don't think that's a very strong argument. For example, this was one of Obama's:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... anizations

It cites the IEEPA as its source for authority:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USC ... ec1702.htm

This is him pretty clearly using the law exactly as it was intended.

In contrast, Congress very specifically chose to NOT appropriate the funds Trump wanted for his wall. It's really not the same thing. Plus the law that Trump is citing only applies to a national emergency "that requires use of the armed forces" and authorizes construction projects "that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808) It's *highly* questionable that that applies to the construction of a border wall and certainly isn't the sort of thing the law was intended for (which would be things like air bases which directly support the mission of the armed forces).

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:17 pm UTC

The use for the wall is assinine since theres no real urgency required here. But my question was meant as an actual one not a commentary on how Trump’s is acceptable. Why are some of those, particularly the really old ones, still emergencies? I can see why you may need to bypass congress under time pressure but shouldnt these eventually be turned into laws or ended? Or it is just the thinking that “well its already there as an emergency and working fine so lets not waste time formalizing it”?

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:54 pm UTC

Some more paranoid conjecture:

I think Trump doesn't even care if he gets the national emergency to stick. It's all about the precedent. By setting this precedent the people on Fox News and similar can tell their viewers that its even more of a disaster if a Democrat gets elected because of this precedent which further stokes the tensions for a civil war. I've seen comments online saying that if Trump declares this national emergency that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on healthcare or guns. Even the thought of it being declared on guns would be enough for the Trump base to worry. I sometimes wonder if the Russian government is also posting stuff like this in sockpuppet accounts appearing to be Democrats to foster fears by the Republicans.

I also wonder if the purpose of a potential civil war would be so that Putin could take possession of the US without worrying about nukes. If the infrastructure collapses, what would happen to our submarines or people in the missile silo facilities?

I've noted that the venom being spread by Fox News and similar has been what seems to be decades in the making. I'm not sure whether it was Orchestrated by Putin, co-opted by Putin at some point, or if he's just making use of it now. At the very least it seems to be an effective way to get people to buy what they want them to buy and support policies against their own interests.

This has been a paranoid conjecture ramblings publication.
Last edited by gd1 on Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Trump can pay for the wall using the military, assuming he can find the money within the defense budget; but only because federal law allows the military to build during emergencies. And that is $8 billion (or whatever the number ends up being) that is no longer available for other military purposes.

That actually kinda sounds like an upside, to me. While building the wall is hard to characterize as "peaceful" exactly, at least it's still building something, not destroying it, and if in order to build it we have to do less destroying of other things, that's kinda nice I guess.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:54 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:That actually kinda sounds like an upside, to me. While building the wall is hard to characterize as "peaceful" exactly, at least it's still building something, not destroying it, and if in order to build it we have to do less destroying of other things, that's kinda nice I guess.
While I get that, and as a pacifist I am 100% behind less military spending, keep in mind: The money's probably not going to come out of our military's annual "Big Honkin' Gun" budget.

There are a lot of things the military budget goes to funding beyond blowing things up: Medical and psychiatric services for veterans, for example. Given this administration's overall contempt for the health and wellness of the American population, I suspect the money is more likely to come out of programs like these.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:51 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:That actually kinda sounds like an upside, to me. While building the wall is hard to characterize as "peaceful" exactly, at least it's still building something, not destroying it, and if in order to build it we have to do less destroying of other things, that's kinda nice I guess.
While I get that, and as a pacifist I am 100% behind less military spending, keep in mind: The money's probably not going to come out of our military's annual "Big Honkin' Gun" budget.

There are a lot of things the military budget goes to funding beyond blowing things up: Medical and psychiatric services for veterans, for example. Given this administration's overall contempt for the health and wellness of the American population, I suspect the money is more likely to come out of programs like these.


I'm guessing it will mainly come from retrofit projects for barracks, bases, and crumbling military infrastructure.

You know, the stuff that is needed for the health and wellness of the American military population.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:11 am UTC

Here's the House Judiciary Committee's official response. It goes over pretty much all of the arguments as to why this is a terrible thing and makes specific demands of the executive branch.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... ZPlzn-eYEM

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:56 am UTC

And!
Trump had all three branches of government under his control for two years.
He did not act to take a vote when a vote would have gone his way.

He's a Drama Queen!
If he keeps this up, the Republicans will ask for the #25th.

grrrr.....
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:19 am UTC

addams wrote:And!
Trump had all three branches of government under his control for two years.
He did not act to take a vote when a vote would have gone his way.

He's a Drama Queen!
If he keeps this up, the Republicans will ask for the #25th.

grrrr.....


The reasoning I have heard for that is that Democrats obstructed him and they didn't have the 60 votes needed.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 419
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cyanyoshi » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:10 am UTC

In fairness, nobody could have predicted that a hardball mentality of governing may not have been the best strategy to win over more than a handful of congressional Democrats.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:47 pm UTC

http://play.podtrac.com/espn-fivethirty ... 35.64k.mp3
An eyeopening podcast on the winners, and losers of the budget deal, and then the power dynamics.
Interesting tidbits that are dismaying to Progressives
    A. White House has broad authority to redirect spending, including taking from California wildfire/Puerto Rico disaster spending towards the border.
    B. Presidency is allowed to build defensive barriers in order to protect troops deployed on the border.
    C. The cap on ICE detention bed is a decrease on Jan levels, but is a concession to Republicans since the White House had been robbing money from other departments & asking Congress for more cuz ICE blew through their budget early detaining immigrants.
    D. Congressional Republicans won because they made the deal first instead of asking Trump for his buyin.
    E. All this fence vs wall talk is bullshit. Everybody in power knows that the gold standard barrier is a slatted fence (bollard fence/invisible fence) because it prevents entry but still allows guards to see past it. That's why more said barriers were built.
    F. White House always asks for too much, and isn't happy with a partial win IMO.
    G. The border + rest of the budget is pretty much status quo, and the deal mostly prevents a shutdown for the year. That's it.
My overall take is, what a fucking waste of time. This won't be solved without another election to shake up who's in charge. Also, fuck independents out there who keep veering back and forth between support and not supporting Trump. The white house has broad authority to redirect and rob spending. Don't expect Congress to solve ICE's policy problems without taking back the White House.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:33 am UTC

gd1 wrote:
addams wrote:And!
Trump had all three branches of government under his control for two years.
He did not act to take a vote when a vote would have gone his way.
The reasoning I have heard for that is that Democrats obstructed him and they didn't have the 60 votes needed.
Nonsense!
He only ended a majority.

He had as many votes for his Wall as for UnTax the Rich Bill.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

idonno
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:34 am UTC

addams wrote:He had as many votes for his Wall as for UnTax the Rich Bill.

The tax bill passed and there weren't enough votes in the lame duck session to pass the wall bill so I doubt that he ever had as many votes for the wall.

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:04 am UTC

Delicious Yahoo copypasta, you simply must eat it... just don't look too hard at stuff like why sessions had recuse himself...



Behold a Pale Horse
Behold a Pale Horse
5 hours ago


Barr to Mueller:
“Bob, show me the evidence and reasoning for why this investigation was started and still ongoing.”
Mueller to Bart:
“With regards to the President we have found no links or ties to any foreign entity etc”
Barr to Mueller:
“Mandate was clear - verify and investigate reports of possible foreign collusion between President & Russia.” “What justification existed to effectively launch a massive domestic / foreign surv campaign against the President (pres elect / president) and members of his transition / campaign team?”
Mueller to Barr:
“Steele dossier along w/ media corroboration of those findings.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Was the Steele report a ‘trusted and verified’ report per Intel to continue especially considering the funding party was the opposition party?”
Mueller to Barr:
“Those facts were never taken into consideration.” “FISC granted auth to conduct based on conclusions presented.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Was FISC made aware of all details surrounding the dossier?”
Mueller to Barr:
“No.” “We believe there was urgency placed on the auth given the gravity and timeline of events that those involved negated to populate fully.”
Barr to Mueller:
“Why were efforts made to continue investigating the President, interrupt his official capacity in governing, if the only doc presented was unsubstantiated and unverified?” “Why were questions and threat of subpoena communicated to the President if no factual foundation existed?”
“All charges thus far are unrelated to the original mandate - why are you still active and pursuing a crime if no verifiable evidence or evidence through discovery exists?”
Barr to RR:
“What justification did you have to effectively expand the mandate, not report that expansion to Congress, in order to seek a crime outside of R collusion?” “What specific reasoning and/or facts existed to justify the appointment of a SC to begin with per the law?” “Why did you recommend to Sessions that he should recuse?” “Why wasn’t the mandate / budget and regular updates provided to Congress upon request?” “Why is everything kept confidential and under inappropriate classification?” “Was the purpose of investigating to find a crime vs investigate evidence of a crime?”
CLAS 1-99


Looks good if you don't want to question it doesn't it?
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:50 am UTC

Do you have a link or something?

gd1
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:11 am UTC

There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:04 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Do you have a link or something?

For those of you confused. Gd is quoting insane Trump supporters from the comments section, a hive of villainy and wretched scum.

User avatar
Eomund
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:48 pm UTC
Location: The Great White North (Left side)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Eomund » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:26 am UTC

What is really scary about this is that I am fully convinced that Trump does not believe this is an emergency yet he's declaring one anyway. The system was built with checks and balances and some situations require them to be bypassed. But when they are bypassed just because you don't like them, well, then it just looks like a dictatorship.

I'm not saying it is a dictatorship but it is a big step in that direction.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10342
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:28 am UTC

Yep.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:58 am UTC

Let me re-ask the question I posed here (seems forever ago, but it's only been four months): "Does anybody see a dictatorship forming now?"

I suspect it won't work, and we're seeing the dying throes of a failed presidency. But even that does lots of damage. And there is still a path - the Supreme Court is shifting to the right, and all it takes is one more death or resignation in an aging SCOTUS before the question gets there and it will be a done deal. Alternatively, although congress can act decisively to stop this alternative-facts emergency, it might (probably won't) muster up a veto-proof rebuke. If it's not veto-proof, the question dies in Mitch's hands on the overrule attempt, which will never come to a vote.

Either way, the end result is the establishment of precedent that POTUS can grab power whenever he wants it, and it cannot be questioned. The next step would (of course) be to cancel elections, since we're in the middle of an emergency invasion.

I am heartened by two things -
1: Democratic control of at least one chamber of the house, leading Trump to be beaten by a girl.
2: Trump being so far off the rails that some Republicans are resisting our Supreme Leader.

Ultimately, salvation can only come from the Republicans. Democrats can inject some sanity, but, as the saying goes, the light bulb has to want to change itself.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

ijuin
Posts: 1153
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ijuin » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:31 am UTC

Elections being suspended will probably be another bright line that would turn more Republicans outside Trump’s core base against him. It’s an act that pretty much says in so many words, “I do not care about democracy any more”. Considering that the two most intense wars that the USA fought (American Civil War and WW2) did not warrant suspending elections (at least in the non-seceding states), then it would take nothing short of WW3 to convince the public at large to accept it.

idonno
Posts: 327
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:10 am UTC

Eomund wrote:What is really scary about this is that I am fully convinced that Trump does not believe this is an emergency yet he's declaring one anyway. The system was built with checks and balances and some situations require them to be bypassed. But when they are bypassed just because you don't like them, well, then it just looks like a dictatorship.

A veto proof super majority can shut down a state of emergency so it only takes about 1/3 of republicans turning on him to shut it down. It isn't a very good situation but it is still probably a couple of orders of magnitude better than a dictatorship. The Republicans will turn on Trump in a heart beat if they think he is going to lose them power because most of them don't even really like him.

ucim wrote:I suspect it won't work, and we're seeing the dying throes of a failed presidency. But even that does lots of damage. And there is still a path - the Supreme Court is shifting to the right, and all it takes is one more death or resignation in an aging SCOTUS before the question gets there and it will be a done deal.

The assertion that we can assume the judges with a different ideology from yours will just hand the keys over is probably both false and an unhealthy view of the system dividing everything into an us vs them scenario. The most common and in many years the majority of rulings are 9/0. You hear about all the controversial complex cases and it makes the court sound extremely divided but I suspect a case dealing with ending democracy would not be one of those cases.

I'm not even convinced that the current court won't shut this down on the grounds of spending alone. Trump was explicitly refused funding and has made statements himself that this wasn't necessary just easier. I don't think the state of emergency has ever faced a constitutional challenge and the constitution is very clear about who has control over the budget.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:44 pm UTC

The travel ban case would disagree. Trump made several statements about how it was a Muslim ban, and how it was racist etc etc, and he still won in the supreme Court. Justice Kennedy went along with the idea that even though Trump said all those things, the court allowed Trump up change his rationale into a legit one. And then they decided solely on the new twerked rationale.

The merits of a case being decided on are made up by the justices, if they want to stretch or limit the evidence to (does president have authority to call emergency) they can. A partisan hack could easily claim that failing an override vote means democracy worked, and the emergency was legit.

If you haven't learned by now, everything about the presidency is much harder to prove then expected. From the no bribery clause in the Constitution, to hotel contract clauses saying no elected office allowed, to proving conspiracy. It's really fucking hard and tilted towards the president.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:23 pm UTC

Eomund wrote:What is really scary about this is that I am fully convinced that Trump does not believe this is an emergency yet he's declaring one anyway.

He literally said this.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests