Jump to content
2019 Head Coach Openings Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

New Donald Trump thread

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, gonzoron said:

Image may contain: 1 person, textH

Hear, hear.

And Countrywomen......

https://www.atr.org/green-new-deal-air-travel-stops-becoming-necessary

This morning, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released an 

overview of the Democrat “Green New Deal” which threatens "a massive transformation of our society."

Below are the details of the proposal.

Rebuild every single building in the U.S.

“Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.”

Will end all traditional forms of energy in the next ten years.

The Green New Deal is “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

Plans to ban nuclear energy within 10 years if possible.

“It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Build trains across oceans and end all air travel!

“Build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary”.

Don’t invest in new technology of Carbon Capture and Storage, just plant trees instead!

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.”

Mandates all new jobs be unionized.

“Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local.”

May include a carbon tax.

“We’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.”

May include cap and trade.

“…Cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan.”

How much will it cost?

No estimate of the total cost of implementing the Green New deal is offered by Ocasio-Cortez.

However, as Ocasio-Cortez admits, “even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.”

She does provide one estimate that the cost to “repair and upgrade infrastructure U.S. infrastructure” alone will cost “$4.6 trillion at minimum.”

How will it be paid for? Don’t worry about that.

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t provide any insight into how the trillions of dollars in spending will be paid for other than claiming, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit”.

But as Ocasio-Cortez says, “the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 5:19 PM, gonzoron said:

I imagine his base were the main viewers, he could probably get the same numbers at one of his "rallys". No one I have talked to today watched it, Democrat or Republican.

Well....there you have it.  A true scientific poll response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 12:18 PM, Wabash82 said:

My dad, also Navy, was in those battles as well. Do you know what ship(s) your uncle served on? Dad was on USS Vincennes during Leyte and USS Vicksburg during Okinawa.

 

I do not, but your question has me interested.  I will reach out to my cousin (his son) to see if he knows.  My Dad definitely knew his ship(s)....but now they are together up above.

Wondering how I could research this....your question really has me intrigued.

I know one of my uncles served in Patton's 3rd and went from France to Germany.  He did share with us German articles he picked up during the war.  He was also "Dear Johned" by his first wife.  The war really had a lifelong impact on him....saw too many horrific things very close up.  He would tell some stories....some way too graphic to a young lad like myself at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

I do not, but your question has me interested.  I will reach out to my cousin (his son) to see if he knows.  My Dad definitely knew his ship(s)....but now they are together up above.

Wondering how I could research this....your question really has me intrigued.

I know one of my uncles served in Patton's 3rd and went from France to Germany.  He did share with us German articles he picked up during the war.  He was also "Dear Johned" by his first wife.  The war really had a lifelong impact on him....saw too many horrific things very close up.  He would tell some stories....some way too graphic to a young lad like myself at the time.

If you have an Ancestry.com account, you can often get access to ship rolls in some wars.  Take a look at the following link. 

https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1143

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Thanks a bunch Fox....I don't have an account, but maybe its time!

 

You might try the free account first and see if you can still get access to this specific database before plunking down the cash on it.  You can always upgrade the account at anytime without losing any data that you've put in prior to upgrading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look's like it's not just Melania who likes to borrow from former First Ladies ...

image.png.606bc03242344f0499182dad92784cd6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, foxbat said:

Look's like it's not just Melania who likes to borrow from former First Ladies ...

image.png.606bc03242344f0499182dad92784cd6.png

Saw his new "Finish the Wall" banner and laughed so hard I almost choked.

I go back and forth on whether he is delusional, or if he is just the most cynical person alive, and it amuses him somehow to mock his "base" like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 12:56 PM, TrojanDad said:

Well....there you have it.  A true scientific poll response.

No photo description available.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will he ever learn?:

6rxqs6i5y8g21.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Will he ever learn?:

6rxqs6i5y8g21.jpg

Oh, he's learned already.  What he's learned is that whatever he says is truth to roughly 35% of the electorate regardless of the science, facts, or direct visual evidence.  Now all he has to do is get them to scream loud enough and offer up a Supreme Court nominee and he's pretty close.  The bigger question, and probably more important is, "Will we ever learn?"

BTW, while the meme accurately calls out the idea that Trump is lying on both fronts, and in a bigly way, the numbers at the bottom are clearly "played with" for additional effect.  The EPFD stated that the arena where Trump held his rally has a capacity of 6,500.  They guesstimated, with folks outside watching on screens, that the number might around 10,000 total although they specifically stated that they didn't count the people outside.  MSNBC said that the total outside may have been as much as 10,000 - 12,000.  NBC and other news sources put O'Rourke's rally at around 7,000 - 8,000; however, Bloomberg reported, based on an EPFD estimate, that O'Rourke's rally drew between 10,000 - 15,000 ... most likely thus the 12,500 number.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/trump-el-paso-rally-crowd-1164730

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-vs-trump-who-had-bigger-crowd-el-paso-1327514

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/former-fbi-director-mccabe-says-he-ordered-obstruction-probe-trump-n971441?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_np&fbclid=IwAR3yzLvYMz6P7ySzta7cz61zotdQW4lqpd8Vqua1B32rQbawsae30_5V41c

McCabe speaks out and is under fire from both Trump and the DOJ.

On "CBS This Morning," Pelley provided more details about the interview, including McCabe's description of the aftermath of Comey's firing, saying there were "meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment."

"These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel," he continued. "And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president."

In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Vice President Mike Pence said, however, that he "never heard of any discussion of the 25th amendment, and, frankly, I find any mention of it to be absurd." He added that he "couldn't be more proud" of Trump's accomplishments in office, "and the words of a disgraced FBI agent won't change that fact for the American people."

On Thursday, Pelley also said McCabe confirmed in the interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did consider wearing a wire in meetings with the president. When that information was reported last year, it nearly led to Rosenstein's exit from the Justice Department. Although a prior Justice Department statement said the proposal was made in jest, McCabe said it was taken seriously, Pelley said.

McCabe "says no, it came up more than once, and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley said.

In a statement Thursday, the Justice Department disputed McCabe's assertions in the interview, calling his recollections "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

"The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," the department's statement said. "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, meanwhile, said in a statement that McCabe "was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath."

"His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President," she continued. "His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors. Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country."

McCabe was fired last year — just before his planned retirement — in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general's report said he misled investigators regarding a leak about the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which he denies. The inspector general referred its findings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia last year for possible prosecution, and prosecutors reportedly have convened a grand jury on the matter.

Even though he is no longer there, and is actually close to being prosecuted, I wonder if people realize how determined and close this guy was to heading a coup to oust the President using a fake dossier as the genesis.  Endorsing Deputy Attorney Rosenstein to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President.  I suppose since the Mueller investigation is winding down and the current word is there is nothing implicating the President colluded with Russia, he thinks he better his book out there while he can still sell a few......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Even though he is no longer there, and is actually close to being prosecuted, I wonder if people realize how determined and close this guy was to heading a coup to oust the President using a fake dossier as the genesis.  Endorsing Deputy Attorney Rosenstein to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President.  I suppose since the Mueller investigation is winding down and the current word is there is nothing implicating the President colluded with Russia, he thinks he better his book out there while he can still sell a few......

More conjecture, or wishful thinking, than anything else.  Mueller and his team have done an extraordinary job keeping their operations pretty much air-tight.  As such, any current word, on either side of the coin, is pretty much conjecture.  In my own conjecture, I think that collusion with regard to rigging an election, will not be what will be found and, consequently, will be the least of Trump's concerns.  It's going to end up being financials.  Similarly, I don't think Mueller's findings and release will be the end of things for Trump.  SDNY and Virginia will be the problem areas for Trump and Trump Org. and those will continue on likely through the election and, the dangers for Trump and folks like Manafort, Gates, etc. is that presidential pardons don't extend to convictions or indictments in the state courts.

Of course, the other potential problem for Trump is that, for all of his attempts, the GOP's attempts, and his fans' attempts to try to discredit Mueller, Americans have more confidence in Mueller than Trump and they also think that Mueller is handling the investigation better than Trump.  They also are more likely to believe that his focus in on finding the truth vs. hurting Trump politically.  https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/more-americans-trust-special-counsel-162706856.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next distraction!!!!!

National Emergency to stop the hordes of rapers overwhelming our southern border!!!!

Edited by BARRYOSAMA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Next distraction!!!!!

National Emergency to stop the hordes of rapers overwhelming our southern border!!!!

Coming to spring El Chapo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/former-fbi-director-mccabe-says-he-ordered-obstruction-probe-trump-n971441?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_np&fbclid=IwAR3yzLvYMz6P7ySzta7cz61zotdQW4lqpd8Vqua1B32rQbawsae30_5V41c

McCabe speaks out and is under fire from both Trump and the DOJ.

On "CBS This Morning," Pelley provided more details about the interview, including McCabe's description of the aftermath of Comey's firing, saying there were "meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment."

"These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel," he continued. "And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president."

In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Vice President Mike Pence said, however, that he "never heard of any discussion of the 25th amendment, and, frankly, I find any mention of it to be absurd." He added that he "couldn't be more proud" of Trump's accomplishments in office, "and the words of a disgraced FBI agent won't change that fact for the American people."

On Thursday, Pelley also said McCabe confirmed in the interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did consider wearing a wire in meetings with the president. When that information was reported last year, it nearly led to Rosenstein's exit from the Justice Department. Although a prior Justice Department statement said the proposal was made in jest, McCabe said it was taken seriously, Pelley said.

McCabe "says no, it came up more than once, and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley said.

In a statement Thursday, the Justice Department disputed McCabe's assertions in the interview, calling his recollections "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

"The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," the department's statement said. "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, meanwhile, said in a statement that McCabe "was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath."

"His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President," she continued. "His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors. Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country."

McCabe was fired last year — just before his planned retirement — in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general's report said he misled investigators regarding a leak about the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which he denies. The inspector general referred its findings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia last year for possible prosecution, and prosecutors reportedly have convened a grand jury on the matter.

Even though he is no longer there, and is actually close to being prosecuted, I wonder if people realize how determined and close this guy was to heading a coup to oust the President using a fake dossier as the genesis.  Endorsing Deputy Attorney Rosenstein to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President.  I suppose since the Mueller investigation is winding down and the current word is there is nothing implicating the President colluded with Russia, he thinks he better his book out there while he can still sell a few......

Following the 25th Amendment would not a "coup." It is really the exact opposite of a coup -- it is the legal processes We the People have chosen for removing a President who is unfit. If the process had been used, it would have been a legal removal, not a coup. It also would have provided the president with the legak process to get back into control, by establishing his "fitness." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/former-fbi-director-mccabe-says-he-ordered-obstruction-probe-trump-n971441?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_np&fbclid=IwAR3yzLvYMz6P7ySzta7cz61zotdQW4lqpd8Vqua1B32rQbawsae30_5V41c

McCabe speaks out and is under fire from both Trump and the DOJ.

On "CBS This Morning," Pelley provided more details about the interview, including McCabe's description of the aftermath of Comey's firing, saying there were "meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment."

"These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel," he continued. "And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president."

In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Vice President Mike Pence said, however, that he "never heard of any discussion of the 25th amendment, and, frankly, I find any mention of it to be absurd." He added that he "couldn't be more proud" of Trump's accomplishments in office, "and the words of a disgraced FBI agent won't change that fact for the American people."

On Thursday, Pelley also said McCabe confirmed in the interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did consider wearing a wire in meetings with the president. When that information was reported last year, it nearly led to Rosenstein's exit from the Justice Department. Although a prior Justice Department statement said the proposal was made in jest, McCabe said it was taken seriously, Pelley said.

McCabe "says no, it came up more than once, and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley said.

In a statement Thursday, the Justice Department disputed McCabe's assertions in the interview, calling his recollections "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

"The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," the department's statement said. "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, meanwhile, said in a statement that McCabe "was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath."

"His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President," she continued. "His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors. Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country."

McCabe was fired last year — just before his planned retirement — in the aftermath of a Justice Department inspector general's report said he misled investigators regarding a leak about the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which he denies. The inspector general referred its findings to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia last year for possible prosecution, and prosecutors reportedly have convened a grand jury on the matter.

Even though he is no longer there, and is actually close to being prosecuted, I wonder if people realize how determined and close this guy was to heading a coup to oust the President using a fake dossier as the genesis.  Endorsing Deputy Attorney Rosenstein to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President.  I suppose since the Mueller investigation is winding down and the current word is there is nothing implicating the President colluded with Russia, he thinks he better his book out there while he can still sell a few......

We don't want Mike Pence as president either. Glad they didn't try this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, foxbat said:

Coming to spring El Chapo!

What happened to the good old days when all you had to do to stop a caravan was "turn up your radio"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Following the 25th Amendment would not a "coup." It is really the exact opposite of a coup -- it is the legal processes We the People have chosen for removing a President who is unfit. If the process had been used, it would have been a legal removal, not a coup. It also would have provided the president with the legak process to get back into control, by establishing his "fitness." 

The same folks calling it a coup are also the same folks that are going to be completely OK with calling a two-year event a national emergency to get around Congress.  They will also be the ones cheering US intervention in Venezuela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Plans To Sign Border Deal and Declare National Emergency. Here’s What That Could Mean.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/14/mcconnell-trump-plans-to-sign-border-dea

Quote

President Donald Trump plans to sign a bipartisan budget deal and then declare a national emergency to obtain money for his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday.

McConnell's Senate floor announcement came the day before funding for parts of the federal government was set to lapse. Congressional leaders from both parties reached a deal to avoid a shutdown earlier in the week, but it was unclear if Trump would sign it. The president has demanded $5.7 billion for his border wall, but the deal in question includes just $1.375 billion for the wall.

Trump "has indicated he's prepared to sign the bill," McConnell said. "He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to support the national emergency declaration."

 

The White House quickly confirmed the news. "President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action—including a national emergency—to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border," Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

Trump's use of a national emergency declaration to secure border wall funding should trouble anyone who understands and appreciates separation of powers. According to a 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 1976 National Emergencies Act entitles the president to "statutory delegations from Congress" that let him "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."

We don't know what limits there are on a president's ability to declare a national emergency. There is definitely potential for civil liberties abuses, particularly in regard to eminent domain, which is the process by which the government forces a property owner to sell. David Bier, an immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, told Reason last month his "biggest concern" is that Trump will use the declaration of a national emergency to "seize private property for the wall without following the normal, albeit, minimal procedures."

Bier has previously noted for Reason that the federal government owns less than a third of the land on the southern border. The rest belongs to other entities, including states, Native American tribes, and private individuals. Most of the border land in Texas, in fact, is private property. In order for the wall to get built, the federal government will need to confiscate quite a bit of privately owned land.

What's less clear is whether Trump can seize land without congressional authorization. Title 42 of the U.S. Code says that when a federal program or project (like the border wall) requires an individual to relocate, that individual must be given "a reasonable opportunity to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling." But there are three exceptions, including "a national emergency declared by the President."

Trump, for his part, has already suggested using the "military version of eminent domain" to build the wall. And federal law does allow for military department secretaries to seize land "in the interest of national defense." But in the face of one or more inevitable legal challenges, Trump would still have to convince the courts that building a wall is necessary for national defense.

It remains to be seen if Trump can legally seize land for the wall. The same goes for whether declaring a national emergency will help him secure border wall funding. Trump has a few options regarding the latter, as noted by Margaret Taylor, a governance fellow at the Brookings Institute and a senior editor at Lawfare.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code, for instance, says that when the president declares a national emergency "that requires use of the armed forces," the secretary of defense can authorize "military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces." The necessary money would come from un-obligated funds that have already been allocated for military construction.

Title 33 of the U.S. Code applies to similar situations: namely, a national emergency declaration "that requires use of the armed forces." It says that in such cases, the secretary of the Army can "terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense," then "apply the resources of the Department of the Army's civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."

Trump has already deployed troops to the southern border, which could come in quite handy.

But does the situation at the border really require military intervention, and thus warrant a national emergency declaration allowing Trump to bypass Congress and build the wall? Short answer: no.

"There is absolutely and without question no crisis at our southern border," Kristie De Peña, director of immigration and senior counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Reason last month. Politicians should "stop framing this as if it's some sort of national security crisis," she added.

Peña also points to the fact that net migration flows to the U.S. are going down. As Reason's Shikha Dalmia explained in January, net migration flows between the U.S. and Mexico have actually reversed in recent years, meaning more Mexicans are attempting to leave the U.S. than are attempting to enter.

"The facts could not possibly justify a state of emergency declaration," said Bier, who noted that Border Patrol agents are actually apprehending less people now than they were in the early 2000s. "I cannot imagine what case the president could make that the challenges this administration faces are unique or unprecedented."

But just because Trump shouldn't declare a national emergency doesn't mean he's legally in the wrong. "It will probably hold up in court," Peña said of Trump's declaration. "There's a strong case to be made that presidents need to have the authority to declare a national emergency. And that's been upheld in court a number of times."

Bier expressed similar sentiments, predicting that just as the Supreme Court upheld Trump's travel ban on a handful of largely Muslim-majority countries, it will uphold his use of a national emergency declaration to secure border wall funds.

Bier put it bluntly: "My belief is that the president can get away with doing almost anything he wants in the name of national security."

This will be a sad day for America, as a megalomaniac attempts to flex even more muscle.  And most of it will be against the American people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Trump Plans To Sign Border Deal and Declare National Emergency. Here’s What That Could Mean.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/14/mcconnell-trump-plans-to-sign-border-dea

This will be a sad day for America, as a megalomaniac attempts to flex even more muscle.  And most of it will be against the American people.

 

800px-Epimetheus_opening_Pandora%27s_box_MET_DP812748.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, foxbat said:

The same folks calling it a coup are also the same folks that are going to be completely OK with calling a two-year event a national emergency to get around Congress.  They will also be the ones cheering US intervention in Venezuela.

A two year event?  What rock have you been living under since Reagan was in office and has resulted in (estimated) almost 13 million illegal aliens undocumented immigrants.  Everyone seems to forget that little bit of history like when the fencing/border barrier was approved under Bush 44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006 and continued through Obama.

 

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Trump Plans To Sign Border Deal and Declare National Emergency. Here’s What That Could Mean.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/14/mcconnell-trump-plans-to-sign-border-dea

This will be a sad day for America, as a megalomaniac attempts to flex even more muscle.  And most of it will be against the American people.

 

SF doesn't like it either, but with this having been going on since the Reagan years without ANY resolution this President (who IMHO really wants results, not sweet talk) is determined to get this done since the partisan divide in the House and Senate is making it impossible.  I don't agree with your opinion that it is against the American people.  My main concern is that this action will lead to the next side of the aisle declaring "man-made climate change" a national emergency under the next administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×