Trump Declared A National Emergency To Build His Wall

[Calliecake]

Let’s talk about our national emergency...

Trump’s UN Ambassador pick (former Fox New Anchol Heather Nauert)
withdraws her bid for role after employing an illegal immigrant nanny not authorized for work.

She said it was “best” for her to withdraw her bid.

 

[evergreen]

@redwood66 @Dancing Fire I don't understand your point here. "BUILD THE WALL" is not "border security" -- and the funding bill that just passed includes over a billion for border security. Your flippant comments don't address the issue: which is that there's border security enhancements that are responsive to today's needs and reflect technology, and there's BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL. If I'd seen any persuasive evidence that a huge wall is really what's needed then I'd reconsider my disgust at this approach, but it sounds like we maybe need better visa enforcement and airport security/drug detection technology to address the main statistics Trump cites. He's been fact-checked by independent sources -- over and over he's been proven to be twisting facts to suit an emotionally-driven agenda. I think we should all be able to get behind interventions that are well thought out and deliberately targeted to solve real problems. The Wall, as a solution to illegal immigration, is not that.

 

[redwood66]

@redwood66 @Dancing Fire I don't understand your point here. "BUILD THE WALL" is not "border security" -- and the funding bill that just passed includes over a billion for border security. Your flippant comments don't address the issue: which is that there's border security enhancements that are responsive to today's needs and reflect technology, and there's BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL. If I'd seen any persuasive evidence that a huge wall is really what's needed then I'd reconsider my disgust at this approach, but it sounds like we maybe need better visa enforcement and airport security/drug detection technology to address the main statistics Trump cites. He's been fact-checked by independent sources -- over and over he's been proven to be twisting facts to suit an emotionally-driven agenda. I think we should all be able to get behind interventions that are well thought out and deliberately targeted to solve real problems. The Wall, as a solution to illegal immigration, is not that.

You are assuming that I agree with his approach to declare an emergency? No I don't and thought I made that clear earlier. But I do believe that walls work in some locations to funnel would be crossers to make apprehension easier. Otherwise why are there walls at border crossings? It has never been all about just the wall but that is what people are hung up on.

As to BUILD THE WALL or whatever ridiculous chant people do, that's not me so don't ascribe it as such. But I will point out hypocrisy when Dems voted for the Secure Fence Act but now fences/walls are immoral because Trump is President.

 

[evergreen]

@redwood66 I was also responding to your comment with the eyeroll: "Democrats voting against something they voted for previously because it's now Trump is not emotion or partisan based at all." I think that missed the nuances we're both approaching this with. The Wall, as per Trump's demands, is not a good use of resources, which is not to say that no wall, or no other more thoughtful approaches to border security, could *ever* be a good use of funds. The argument, and the proposal, need to be well thought out, consistent with the evidence of what works for discrete, clearly defined problems, and backed by an appropriate budget. I'm not hung up on the wall, just the threatened expenditure of billions of dollars for totally non-fact-based reasons. I do not like that Trump has created this issue based on twisted facts and propaganda -- it's creepy post-truth stuff that nonetheless resonates with his base, and it sounds like we both agree that an emergency declaration is utterly inappropriate. If he submitted analysis to Congress justifying a plan to improve border security that used expert opinions to justify that walls were necessary and sufficient to mitigate discrete, fact-based border security issues, and detailing the cost and anticipated outcomes of the interventions, fine. I do not imagine that somehow that's going to be our impulsive President's next step, but that's what he'd need to do if he were actually interested in bipartisan support. Nothing emotional or partisan about objecting to the lack of thoughtful planning, justification, and facts which should be expected when talking about multi-billion-dollar tax expenditures.

 

[redwood66]

Yet that is not what is happening on either side. For Pelosi to say "not one dollar" is quite childish so it looks like 2 two year olds in a sandbox. I have low expectations of Trump and am pleased when something actually good happens.

 

[House Cat]

My point is both groups are acting like spoiled two year olds while we have to watch and pay their effing salary.

What would you have the Democrats do after Trump shut down the government and said there would be no compromises? At that point, their only choice was to dig their heels in. They weren’t being spoiled two year olds. They were being strong parents managing spoiled two year old.

 

[redwood66]

What would you have the Democrats do after Trump shut down the government and said there would be no compromises? At that point, their only choice was to dig their heels in. They weren’t being spoiled two year olds. They were being strong parents managing spoiled two year old.

I would have all of them do their jobs they were elected to do. Look, we won't see eye to eye on this which is fine with me and hopefully the same for you.

 

[mrs-b]

Most accurate description of Trump I've ever.

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"

Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

 

[ksinger]

He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people"

Ha! Yes, I posted this over in the other Trump thread. It probably needs to be posted in every thread that mentions Trump even just in passing. And no one but a Brit can scathe quite so well.

Cruelty. Yes. That's what this whole time in our history is about, cruelty. (I could give examples but we all know what they are so let's not depress ourselves too early in the day, right?) And Trump leads the way in the final normalization of cruelty as an unremarkable, accepted, and even extolled characteristic of Americans.

And the fact that distresses Brits, that lots of Americans think Trump is someone they like or would like to be like, is even more distressing to those of us who live among those people.

 

[ksinger]

He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people"

Ha! Yes, I posted this over in the other Trump thread. It probably needs to be posted in every thread that mentions Trump even just in passing. And no one but a Brit can scathe quite so well.

Cruelty. Yes. That's what this whole time in our history is about, cruelty. (I could give examples but we all know what they are so let's not depress ourselves too early in the day, right?) And Trump leads the way in the final normalization of cruelty as an unremarkable, accepted, and even extolled characteristic of Americans.

And the fact that distresses Brits, that lots of Americans think Trump is someone they like or would like to be like, is even more distressing to those of us who live among those people.

 

[Calliecake]

Ha! Yes, I posted this over in the other Trump thread. It probably needs to be posted in every thread that mentions Trump even just in passing. And no one but a Brit can scathe quite so well.

Cruelty. Yes. That's what this whole time in our history is about, cruelty. (I could give examples but we all know what they are so let's not depress ourselves too early in the day, right?) And Trump leads the way in the final normalization of cruelty as an unremarkable, accepted, and even extolled characteristic of Americans.

And the fact that distresses Brits, that lots of Americans think Trump is someone they like or would like to be like, is even more distressing to those of us who live among those people.

+1000 @ksinger

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

What would you have the Democrats do after Trump shut down the government and said there would be no compromises? At that point, their only choice was to dig their heels in. They weren’t being spoiled two year olds. They were being strong parents managing spoiled two year old.

That's what I m thinking every day. I am forever grateful that my 2y o is so much more reasonable and mature than Trump.

Https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.16435cfef437

 

[Octo2005]

Most accurate description of Trump I've ever.

Someone asked "Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?"

Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England, wrote this magnificent response:

"A few things spring to mind.

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman.

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface.

Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront.

Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul.

And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist.

Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that.

He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat.

He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully.

That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead.

There are unspoken rules to this stuff - the Queensberry rules of basic decency - and he breaks them all. He punches downwards - which a gentleman should, would, could never do - and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless - and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority - perhaps a third - of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think 'Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
* Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
* You don't need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss.

After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum.

God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid.

He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart.

In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws - he would make a Trump.

And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish:

'My God… what… have… I… created?

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set."

I read this the other day and meant to bookmark so that I could share. It summarizes my feelings and I suspect those of many, perfectly. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Tekate]

How does this support your contention (or the author's btw) that Obama had anything to do with allowing Trump to invoke national emergencies act, it says that Obama used this to get his agenda done at times in his tenure, but that Obama's WERE DIFFERENT The guy is obviously a shill for religion and conservatives (the guy who wrote this).. that's okay but I can't find anything there that Obama remotely did that would allow Trump to make up something to ensure he caters to his base.

Build that wall, Build that wall!!!.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-congress-and-president-obama-made-trumps-wall-possible

 

[vintageloves]

Actually... That graphic shows that the Republicans unanimously voted in favor of the National Emergencies Act. There were a few dissenting Democrats, and the House was strongly Democratic to begin with. Not that it matters which party backed it, 90% of the House was in favor. Back when people could agree on stuff. Trump's move is an abuse of bipartisan politics and of this Act. Can't imagine that any of the 90% who voted in favor had foreseen that this would be used to circumvent Congress and push forward a bizarre, emotion-based, evidence-free agenda.

And it was 44 years ago. The parties have realigned since then, having started that process in the 1960s. Many of those Democrats would be Republicans today, and vice versa. Looking at old electoral maps is such a trip. Seeing the Republican win NJ, CA and OR only to lose TX-- it was a very different country. Modern partisanship has made our brains dumb. We see Democrats=Good or the opposite and can't look into historical context.

I'm not sure the National Emergencies Act was a bad idea, but it has been abused since before Trump. How are we under 32 national emergencies? Why do so many deal with foreign conflicts? It has never been used before for a case of not being able to bend Congress to the will of the Executive, but it was not being used for strict emergencies either. The potential silver lining is that this gross misuse from Trump will end in a more narrow definition for this power.

 

[Maria D]

That's what I m thinking every day. I am forever grateful that my 2y o is so much more reasonable and mature than Trump.

Https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...b8fba003e81_story.html?utm_term=.16435cfef437

Thanks for the link to this article @kipari. Nancy Pelosi is the leader this country needs right now and I am truly grateful for her.

When Trump was first elected, my real-life republican friends (actually my neighbors, but we're friendly) insisted that all the hand-wringing histrionics that we liberals were displaying were totally unnecessary. They themselves were NOT Trump supporters (they felt compelled to make this clear), but weren't at all worried because the republican representatives they did support would keep everything in check.

HA! The republican party didn't rein in Trump; the promised "pivot" never happened. The republican reps were too weak and scared to defy Trump. But not our Nancy. Even in the face of opposition from her own party she prevailed and unified. This woman has proven to be a fearless and tireless fighter!

 

[vintageloves]

How does this support your contention (or the author's btw) that Obama had anything to do with allowing Trump to invoke national emergencies act, it says that Obama used this to get his agenda done at times in his tenure, but that Obama's WERE DIFFERENT The guy is obviously a shill for religion and conservatives (the guy who wrote this).. that's okay but I can't find anything there that Obama remotely did that would allow Trump to make up something to ensure he caters to his base.

Obama arguably overused the executive action. The most obvious example of that overreach is the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected and then Obama used the executive order to override them. Good or bad, he owns that decision. But Obama is not responsible for Trump's decision to abuse the national emergencies act. Trump is responsible for that. We need to hold our leaders accountable and stop allowing them to blame others.

Both Trump and Obama are/were fans of the executive order. The key difference is that a president cannot force Congress to fund an executive order. Congress still has power of the purse. Declaring a national emergency is an attempt to subvert that power.

 

[Tekate]

Yes I read that and I remember it. Trump is getting what he wanted for his agenda as did Obama. The republicans were not happy EVER with Obama, as a democrate I am and never will be a fan of Trump.

I think the headline for the Lawfare article was a lure with no substance. Yes DACA was to Obama's base a moral issue, as I assume a Wall is a moral issue to Trumps base.. don't agree but that is fair I think. Obama based his ideas on allowing Dreamers a life here a kind and generous gesture on the part of the American people, Trump bases a WALL on lies, false equvalencies, racism, hate, and FEAR, so there to me is a difference. Equating the two executive actions is a false equivalency.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence

I also find that defunding Pentagon programs is aborrent to me.

As I always say, Peace!

Obama arguably overused the executive action. The most obvious example of that overreach is the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected and then Obama used the executive order to override them. Good or bad, he owns that decision. But Obama is not responsible for Trump's decision to abuse the national emergencies act. Trump is responsible for that. We need to hold our leaders accountable and stop allowing them to blame others.

Both Trump and Obama are/were fans of the executive order. The key difference is that a president cannot force Congress to fund an executive order. Congress still has power of the purse. Declaring a national emergency is an attempt to subvert that power.

 

[evergreen]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...he-said-he-wanted-to-make-america-great-again

@vintageloves , oh how the parties have realigned. I just expect professionalism and respect and facts to drive a political agenda, no matter the label on the party.

I think the Democrats have been caught flat-footed with how far fact-denialism, simplified propaganda-style messaging, and fearmongering (yes, with racist dogwhistles) can go with segments of the American population. I'm missing the good old days when I could maintain respect for the president while disagreeing with his policies...

 

[cocotate]

Obviously there's no emergency. Too much partisan scuffle happening on both sides at everyone's expense.

 

[AGBF]

The House of Representatives just voted to overturn Trump's declaration. By law this bill must now move to the Senate where Mitch McConnell will be obliged to bring it to the floor for a vote.

"WASHINGTON — The House voted on Tuesday to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the Mexican border, with more than a dozen Republicans joining Democrats to try to block his effort to divert funding to a border wall without congressional approval.

The resolution of disapproval, which passed 245-182, must now be taken up by the Senate, where three Republicans have already declared their support, only one short of the number needed for Congress to ratify a stinging rebuke of Mr. Trump’s efforts.

It remains highly unlikely that opponents will muster the votes to overturn a promised veto of the resolution. But passage of a measure to assert Congress’s constitutional authority over spending is sure to bolster numerous lawsuits that maintain that Mr. Trump’s declaration is an unconstitutional end run around Congress’s lawful power of the purse.

'Is your oath of office to Donald Trump or is it to the Constitution of the United States?' Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked her Republican colleagues in a speech on the floor ahead of the vote. 'You cannot let him undermine your pledge to the Constitution.'"


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/us/politics/national-emergency-vote.html