POLITICS President Trump Emergency Action

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Feb 15, 2019.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    $8B, military building the wall.

    Interesting times.

     
  2. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    Chickenshit move. "President Trump’s decision to announce emergency action is the predictable and understandable consequence of Democrats’ decision to put partisan obstruction ahead of the national interest." is a load of crap. That's what there are checks and balances for. This isn't a national emergency.

    Here's to this getting blocked.
     
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You a betting man?
     
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

  5. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    I don't bet on idiots.
     
  6. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

     
  7. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    So, you support President Trump?

    How about betting against his spending all $8B on a wall? Or, do you want to enlighten us as to who you believe is going to “stop it”?
     
  8. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trumps-news-conference-about-national-emerg/
     
  9. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    I do not support wasting 8 billion on a wall that will have similar weaknesses in preventing illegal immigration to what is already in place.
     
  10. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

     
  11. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

     
  12. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    “Do you think a referendum to remove the border wall would pass, here (in El Paso, TX)?”

    My word.

     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Of course, you’re smart enough to know that these are only seized drugs, right?

    And that your point is that there are multiple points of entry for drugs - some more than others (again, of those seized) - but that doesn’t at all speak to those coming in elsewhere, right?

    Simply, you can have illegal drugs coming in from more than one spot.

    You get that, right?
     
  14. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    I like evidence. Proof. Find me some concrete numbers about what comes in between the ports.
     
  15. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

    - Donald J. Trump, 2/15/19

    Yep, sounds like the textbook definition of an emergency to me.
     
  16. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Sorry, if you know that 91% is coming through legal checkpoints...how do you know how much is also coming in through vast swathes of unsecured border?

    Do you see my point? If 90% of known heroin is coming in via legal checkpoints, and which are heavily guarded, secured and inspected...are you saying that you believe that less is coming in across the usecured and unguarded parts of the border? Of none? More?

    Is that your argument?

    Follow-up: How do you know what you don’t know, and how could anyone else?

    Second follow-up: If the government has any idea as to how much is coming across the non-secured areas of the border, should they also stop it?
     
  17. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    You want me to prove your claim for you?

    You are a liberal.
     
  18. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    And you’ve still not identified who you believe is going to “stop this”...and I’m anxious to hear that.
     
  19. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    Non-sequitur all you like. I'm waiting on evidence.
     
  20. lylsmorr

    lylsmorr Aight Moderator

    "Congress has the power to overturn a national emergency but can’t directly block the president from declaring it in the first place. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 established that Congress has the authority to terminate a national emergency. But the progress can be lengthy and requires approval from both the House and the Senate."

    "The judicial branch can also review whether there is just cause for a national emergency. Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week” that while President Trump has the authority, he would be “wide open to a court challenge, saying ‘where is the emergency?'"
     

Share This Page