Post: #89001

(01-24-2019 01:16 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Bottom line:

We are running out of time. Period. And the deck is stacked against us plenty enough already.

We maybe have two years left of Trump and after all the voter fraud, lies, MSM hate, conservative de-humanization, unacknowledged violence towards MAGA people, violence against conservatives in general, career discrimination, witch hunts, false prosecutions, Mueller non-sense, campaign spying, traitorous cucks like Paul Ryan... and WE should cut the democrats a fucking break?

We need to crush the democrats. Not negotiate. They have lost the plot completely and are an enemy of the state.

So the time has come to go for the full monty and break their goddamn backs like they damn well deserve. Burn the house down (as in, the whole system) if necessary. Lord knows, they have had it coming for a LONG time.

Count me in brother, but I'll get to carry the Flammenwerfer.

Post: #89002

Trump is going down the "beautiful loser" path.

Post: #89003

This was just a ploy to keep America from seeing ginsburg's rotting corpse be wheeled in. There's been radio silence on her since she was last seen weeks ago, allegedly "working from home". bullshit. That alone was worth holding the SOTU.

Post: #89004

No need to fret about Buzzie, she's going to retire before the end of the year, they can't hide her terminal stage cancer much longer.

Post: #89005

Make America Great Again!

Post: #89006

(01-24-2019 01:04 AM)Graft Wrote:  Trump is not going to be able to negotiate the wall from the democrats. They are not interested in any deal that fucks up the momentum they have from people crossing the border into America and voting D. They are also never going to agree to him fulfilling his biggest campaign promise and cruising to victory in 2020.

I imagine Trump knows this, and he is just dragging this all out to make them look worse and worse. He's paying attention to the polls that show his approval vs the Democrats on the government shutdown. If he gets the edge in that poll it's a victory.

He could try and push a healthcare deal that moderate Democrats approve as a bargaining chip, but it will be tough to get the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz crowd on the right. He's already pissing people off on the right by offering temp visas.

I think it's stupid for him to negotiate when he can just declare an emergency and divert a small fraction of the trillions of dollars that go to the military. He's getting killed in the polls again and needs to just do whatever it takes to build the wall, move on and sell some statistics on reduced crime and drugs for the 2020 campaign.

Successful businessman and negotiator though he may be, Trump seems used to doing things roughly according to the rules, while sounding like he's ready to break them at any minute. The kind of people he's up against are the opposite -- they sound professional and law-abiding, but are actually the biggest crooks.

The thing is that if Trump wanted to, he could follow Vladimir Putin's example and essentially launch a coup against the oligarchs. Much of the military would support him if he ordered them to build the wall, lock down the border, and use the political momentum to "bombard the headquarters" of the Left.

But if Trump does that, he'd have to go the whole hog. Kill off journalists, launch a brutal war somewhere (like Putin's Chechnya), and suspend the country's legal institutions. Would that be worth it? Maybe. Perhaps it's inevitable, given that the left is in the process of building and reinforcing a silent autocracy of their own. But it's easier to invite the specter of dictatorship than to see it off. If Trump is exploring the full range of options to save American democracy, then I think that's a noble effort.

Post: #89007

Trump doesn't want to be dictator. America was once great because of its freedom, and he doesn't want to overturn our constitutional government. He wants to MAGA in a way that convinces a lasting majority to turn back to way America was run in decades past.

It currently appears that there is a majority of the US population who subscribes to identity politics and sees the old American way of doing things as evil and illegitimate in the way it treated their identity group. The younger generations have been propagandized with SJW cultural Marxist thinking since day care, and even large portions of the older generations think entirely in terms of having the government give them lots of free stuff. The old ideas of small government and individual self sufficiency with maximum freedom and liberty are forgotten. Furthermore, this majority is energized and triggered by Trump.

The left was rocked back on their heels by Trump in 2016, but they seem to have found the right combination of obstruction and propaganda to block Trump and energize their base.

It is still possible for Trump to win, by building the wall, reducing immigration, growing the economy, shrinking the government, and jailing all the criminals that have been undermining him in the FBI, DOJ, and Democratic party. However, even if he does all these things, there is a portion of the population that is hopelessly in favor of globohomo policies, and the demographic trends will only grow this faction. He hopes to swing a decisive portion of these people into freedom loving, small government believers, but I don't think he can change enough minds. All he can do is achieve tactical victories over the next few years. He's hoping to win the cultural war for generations to come, and I don't think he will be able to do so.

Post: #89008

Yes, it is going to get worse. Elizabeth Warren just proposed a "wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets. They will quickly reduce that number to include all Americans including you. That means the small amount of money you manage to save after all the taxes will additionally be taxed every year if it gets to big sitting in your bank account. Somebody has to pay for the millions of "immigrants".

"Warren to propose ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, economic advisor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabet...visor.html

Post: #89009

She's definitely a non-viable 2020 candidate if she's already wanting to start the confiscations. The donor class won't go for that.

Seriously, it's like no one has ever read a history book.

Post: #89010

(01-24-2019 02:56 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Yes, it is going to get worse. Elizabeth Warren just proposed a "wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets. They will quickly reduce that number to include all Americans including you. That means the small amount of money you manage to save after all the taxes will additionally be taxed every year if it gets to big sitting in your bank account. Somebody has to pay for the millions of "immigrants".

"Warren to propose ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, economic advisor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabet...visor.html

At this point it seems the only thing to do is to just prepare for the eventual collapse and civil war. Leftists no matter how retarded their policies are won't ever back down until everyone starves and dies. Best to prepare and let nature take it's course and re-emerge after the starvations that will occur.

Post: #89011

(01-24-2019 03:02 PM)Malone Wrote:  She's definitely a non-viable 2020 candidate if she's already wanting to start the confiscations. The donor class won't go for that.

Seriously, it's like no one has ever read a history book.

Which one of the Dem candidates IS NOT a viable candidate for 2020?!
Does Kamala Harris even qualify for a presidential run given her Jamaican father and Indian mothers' immigration timeline?

Post: #89012

Yes she can run. She was born in Oakland and is a USA citizen.

Post: #89013

Post: #89014

(01-24-2019 05:47 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

Post: #89015

Someone please tell me he’s wrong? I do wish rbg would hurry up and die and be replaced by a true conservative and Trump would not be losing 5-4 on these border issues

Post: #89016

He's not completely wrong. The Dems will at least try to stop it via the courts. They may or may not succeed, but it must be considered.

This is what the people screaming JUST DECLARE AN EMERGENCY AND BUILD IT don't get, just like they don't get the nuances in most of the things T faces every day. None of it is simple or straight forward. The laws and executive powers may be "clear" (they aren't even that, though), but that really doesn't mean much in reality. This is why he hasn't taken that step yet. There's a hell of a lot more that the administration's lawyers understand that most people don't.

This is why he has been exhausting all other options, including giving concessions on DACA etc, because an agreed budget is vastly preferable to a vulnerable unprecedented executive order that can be tied up in courts, rightly or wrongly. It's looking like there may be no other option at this point though.

Post: #89017

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/...index.html

Quote: Washington (CNN) — The White House is preparing a draft proclamation for President Donald Trump to declare a national emergency along the southern border and has identified more than $7 billion in potential funds for his signature border wall should he go that route, according to internal documents reviewed by CNN.
Trump has not ruled out using his authority to declare a national emergency and direct the Defense Department to construct a border wall as Congress and the White House fight over a deal to end the government shutdown. But while Trump's advisers remain divided on the issue, the White House has been moving forward with alternative plans that would bypass Congress.

Post: #89018

Great to see Amazon still has selller stock:



https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_...s=maga+hat

Post: #89019

(01-24-2019 02:56 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Yes, it is going to get worse. Elizabeth Warren just proposed a "wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets. They will quickly reduce that number to include all Americans including you. That means the small amount of money you manage to save after all the taxes will additionally be taxed every year if it gets to big sitting in your bank account. Somebody has to pay for the millions of "immigrants".

"Warren to propose ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, economic advisor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabet...visor.html

I have always been against this sort of thing until lately. I am starting to think it is a good idea that these Wall St and other millionaire pricks start paying for their Dem support. Normally the Dems just go after the income earners so a wealth tax would really hit them. Fuck them.

Post: #89020

(01-24-2019 02:56 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Yes, it is going to get worse. Elizabeth Warren just proposed a "wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets. They will quickly reduce that number to include all Americans including you. That means the small amount of money you manage to save after all the taxes will additionally be taxed every year if it gets to big sitting in your bank account. Somebody has to pay for the millions of "immigrants".

"Warren to propose ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, economic advisor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabet...visor.html

If history tells us anything it's that these taxes on the rich don't stay limited to the rich over time. Income tax, alternative minimum tax, social security, etc.

Post: #89021

(01-24-2019 08:55 PM)BlueMark Wrote:  

(01-24-2019 02:56 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Yes, it is going to get worse. Elizabeth Warren just proposed a "wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets. They will quickly reduce that number to include all Americans including you. That means the small amount of money you manage to save after all the taxes will additionally be taxed every year if it gets to big sitting in your bank account. Somebody has to pay for the millions of "immigrants".

"Warren to propose ‘wealth tax’ on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, economic advisor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/elizabet...visor.html

If history tells us anything it's that these taxes on the rich don't stay limited to the rich over time. Income tax, alternative minimum tax, social security, etc.

Exactly. The rich will get an exemption. I lived in Netherlands for several years, and they had a wealth tax, and it applied to everyone.

Post: #89022

(01-24-2019 08:55 PM)BlueMark Wrote:  If history tells us anything it's that these taxes on the rich don't stay limited to the rich over time. Income tax, alternative minimum tax, social security, etc.

Income tax, alternative min tax and social security are not taxes on the rich. They don't earn income. Wealth tax, now we are talking. Why do you think all of these billionaires and millionaires are helping Dems? It isn't because they think their taxes will get raised.

Post: #89023

Question.
Will Nancy Pelosi achieve what ruthless Hillary could not? Prevent Trump from winning a POTUS election?

I tend to doubt that...

Post: #89024

Jim Acosta's writing a new book.

The title of his book? "Dear Diary...".

Post: #89025

(01-24-2019 06:48 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  He's not completely wrong. The Dems will at least try to stop it via the courts. They may or may not succeed, but it must be considered.

This is what the people screaming JUST DECLARE AN EMERGENCY AND BUILD IT don't get, just like they don't get the nuances in most of the things T faces every day. None of it is simple or straight forward. The laws and executive powers may be "clear" (they aren't even that, though), but that really doesn't mean much in reality. This is why he hasn't taken that step yet. There's a hell of a lot more that the administration's lawyers understand that most people don't.

This is why he has been exhausting all other options, including giving concessions on DACA etc, because an agreed budget is vastly preferable to a vulnerable unprecedented executive order that can be tied up in courts, rightly or wrongly. It's looking like there may be no other option at this point though.

Valid point on the nuances but we have nothing to lose at this point. And if it needs to work through the courts (like the travel ban, which we won on ultimately), better to get started as soon as possible.

The only reason to possibly wait is to see if Ginsburg will be out of the picture. But that's a dangerous game of chicken to play the longer we wait. My guess is that Trump has some knowledge on Ginsburg's health that we don't know about. But how long does a NE declaration take to work through the courts? What is Ginsburg's health as of today?

This article covers some of those nuances associated with declaring a national emergency for those interested:

Quote:Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story once marveled, “How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be.” If Story returned to life today, he would find these to be familiar times, as politicians and pundits have decided that the Constitution bars an action by President Trump, even when they reached the diametrically opposite conclusion on similar actions taken by President Obama during his term.

In the latest “constitutional crisis” declared on Capitol Hill, Democrats are adamant that they will not fund the signature pledge of Trump to build a border wall. In response, Trump has threatened to start construction unilaterally under his emergency powers if Congress refuses to yield to his demand for more than $5 billion. Critics turned to the Constitution and found clear authority against Trump. Representative Adam Schiff, Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, and many others denounced such a move as flagrantly unconstitutional.

The concern is well founded even if the conclusion is not. Congress has refused the funds needed for the wall, so Trump is openly claiming the right to unilaterally order construction by declaring a national emergency. On its face, that order would undermine the core role of Congress in our system of checks and balances. I happen to agree that an emergency declaration to build the wall is unwise and unnecessary. However, the declaration is not unconstitutional. Schiff, now chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, insists that Trump “does not have the power to execute” this order because “if Harry Truman could not nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president does not have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion dollar wall on the border.”

The problem is Trump does have that power because Congress gave it to him. Schiff is referring to the historic case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Charles Sawyer, in which the Supreme Court rejected the use of inherent executive powers by President Truman to seize steel mills during a labor dispute. He wanted to claim a national security emergency if steel production halted during the Korean War. In a powerful check on executive authority, the Supreme Court rejected his rationale for unilateral action. The Supreme Court was correct. But that was in 1952.

More than two decades later, Congress expressly gave presidents the authority to declare such emergencies and act unilaterally. The 1976 National Emergencies Act gives presidents sweeping authority as well as allowance in federal regulations to declare an “immigration emergency” to deal with an “influx of aliens which either is of such magnitude or exhibits such other characteristics that effective administration of the immigration laws of the United States is beyond the existing capabilities” of immigration authorities “in the affected area or areas.” The basis for such an invocation generally includes the “likelihood of continued growth in the magnitude of the influx,” rising criminal activity, as well as high “demands on law enforcement agencies” and “other circumstances.”

Democrats have not objected to use of this authority regularly by past presidents, including roughly 30 such emergencies that continue to this day. Other statutes afford additional emergency powers. Indeed, a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007 stated, “Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

Congress spent decades yielding authority to the executive branch. When it agreed with the president, such mighty authority was even celebrated. But now, consider the objections from Representative Joaquin Castro, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He has declared that it would be “profoundly inappropriate for the president of the United States to circumvent the legislative branch and single handedly, against the will of the American people and the American Congress, put up a wall.”

This is a curious statement from one of many lawmakers who supported Obama when he openly circumvented Congress on immigration reforms. Obama ordered agencies to stop enforcing some federal laws and used executive orders to do precisely what Congress refused to do. When Obama declared in a State of the Union address that he would circumvent Congress if it failed to approve his immigration reforms, Democrats cheered at the notion of their own circumvention, if not obsolescence.

Likewise, Castro and his colleagues supported Obama when he ordered the payment of billions out of the Treasury into ObamaCare, after being denied the funds by Congress. These same Democrats were largely silent when Obama attacked Libya without a declaration of war or legislative authorization. Obama funded the Libyan war out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without a specific appropriation. I represented lawmakers who opposed the Libyan war. I also served as attorney for the entire House of Representatives in successfully opposing the ObamaCare payments. Most Democrats opposed both these lawsuits.

Congress can act to stop circumvention under the National Emergencies Act. Trump must notify Congress of his declaration and detail the powers being claimed under that law. Congress could and should negate the declaration with a vote of both chambers. However, that does not make the declaration unconstitutional. Any declaration would create a myriad of legal issues and likely face an immediate legal challenge. Two questions that a court would have to consider are the source of the authority and the source of any funds. The latter is where some challenges could arise.

Congress gave Trump such authority in the National Emergencies Act, augmenting claims of inherent authority, but the source of the funds could be more challenging. Under two laws in Title 10 and Title 33 of the United States Code, he could seek to use unobligated funds originally set aside for military construction projects, or divert funds from Army civil works projects. There are limitations on the use of such money, and there could be strong challenges to the use of unobligated funds in other areas. There is money there to start but not nearly enough to finish such a wall without proper appropriation. Recall Obama funded the undeclared war in Libya out of money slushing around in the Pentagon, without the new strict constitutionalists objecting from the Democratic side of the aisle.

Courts generally have deferred to the judgments of presidents on the basis for such national emergencies, and dozens of such declarations have been made without serious judicial review. Indeed, many of the very same politicians and pundits declared the various travel ban orders to be facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ultimately lifted the injunctions of lower courts. Moreover, Trump does not have to ultimately prevail to achieve part of his objective. Even if a court were to enjoin construction, the declaration could afford Trump the political cover to end the government shutdown, as the issue moved its way through the courts.

While the matter could be expedited to move through the courts in a matter of months, the government could seek to slow litigation to push any final decision into 2020. There are compelling arguments against funding the entire wall demanded by Trump, although some added border barriers clearly are warranted. However, one can oppose an emergency declaration without claiming that it is facially unconstitutional. It is not.

Source: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/42...order-wall

Short version: It's constitutional and the basic authority has already been granted from Congress. But there is gray area like GlobalMan has pointed out.

However, Obama abused the shit out of it whenever it suited his cause so I say fuck it and go for it. The democrats are hellbent on not giving an inch on the wall and I wager to guess a prolonged shut down with no benefit would hurt Trump and make him look weak. There is also all sorts of legal hurdles to my Plan 1 from my previous post with regards to firing federal employees. Which battle in court is worth fighting? Firing federal employees or building the wall? Obviously, the latter.

So, declare the national emergency, end the shutdown, let it work through the courts, and when Ginsburg bites it (might be dead already; where is the proof of life?), watch the democrats beg to make a deal. Even if Ginsburg is still around, Trump could still win the case.