So Trump caved, Master of the Deal , Not this week.

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
2,125
Likes
1,338
Location
New Hampshire
I think that he should quit and let everything go to shit. Let's get it over and done with. Jack.
It won't, they won't let it. When Chevy should have gone bankrupt, they stopped it. Saving union jobs. Same thing here. They'll keep things limping along. I hope Trump has a plan. I guess we'll see.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
157
Likes
133
Location
Worcester County
I'm willing to wait and see how the next few weeks play out, it has not been going well for progressives despite appearances. Lots of fake news getting exposed after Covington, bunch of journalists lost their jobs at progressive websites and now the DNC are so obstructionist that the left is getting angry. Interesting how this will play out. Patience is the only prudent course now, anything can happen tomorrow.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
22,426
Likes
13,632
Location
Suckachusetts
I wouldn't get excited about the journalists losing their jobs. Facebook & Google just launched a big initiative to get their staff & software into local newsrooms and NOTHING GOOD will come out of that.
Wake up call ... Facebook and Google have been inside the news rooms and everyone's private lives for years.

Google already decides what and how you see. FB does the same.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,973
Likes
6,370
I would love to see that if no deal is reached at then end of the three weeks that he call for emergency funding for the wall. under which federal judge will block him from doing that with an injunction.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,361
Likes
9,267
Location
MA
I would love to see that if no deal is reached at then end of the three weeks that he call for emergency funding for the wall. under which federal judge will block him from doing that with an injunction.
And rightly so.

This is mismanagement, not an “emergency.” If Obama did the same thing, you’d be talking about go time. And now you “would love it?”

Christ. Does CONUS mean nothing to anybody? There’s a reason the president isn’t supposed to be able to appropriate his own money.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,973
Likes
6,370
And rightly so.

This is mismanagement, not an “emergency.” If Obama did the same thing, you’d be talking about go time. And now you “would love it?”

Christ. Does CONUS mean nothing to anybody? There’s a reason the president isn’t supposed to be able to appropriate his own money.

Actually I never had a problem with a barrier on the southern border. I would prefer they dig a canal about a mile or two wide across the whole south. You want to stop the majority of illegal immigration and drugs coming into the US something needs to be done...I would support this no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Once we're done down south we need to take a look up north. You want to come into this country come in the right way. otherwise....stay out.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,361
Likes
9,267
Location
MA
Actually I never had a problem with a barrier on the southern border. I would prefer they dig a canal about a mile or two wide across the whole south. You want to stop the majority of illegal immigration and drugs coming into the US something needs to be done...I would support this no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Once we're done down south we need to take a look up north. You want to come into this country come in the right way. otherwise....stay out.
Sounds fine to me.

But ONLY if it’s done constitutionally. Meaning, through Congress. Presidents declaring emergencies so they can fund their favorite projects? That’s El Salvador or Moscow. I don’t care who’s in office, either, as long as they don’t try to be a dictator.

Hey Trump. Thanks for SCOTUS, but this wall-funding thing isn’t about you. It’s about the Presidency. And if we really want future presidents using emergency declarations to fund their pet causes, we should be worried about the precedent this would set.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,973
Likes
6,370
Sounds fine to me.

But ONLY if it’s done constitutionally. Meaning, through Congress. Presidents declaring emergencies so they can fund their favorite projects? That’s El Salvador or Moscow. I don’t care who’s in office, either, as long as they don’t try to be a dictator.

Hey Trump. Thanks for SCOTUS, but this wall-funding thing isn’t about you. It’s about the Presidency. And if we really want future presidents using emergency declarations to fund their pet causes, we should be worried about the precedent this would set.

Is the Pelosi and Schumer denial of funds constitutional or political? They want to keep the birders open. Couldn't that also be considered a "pet" project? Allows more illegals in and more and more states and municipalities are allowing more and more rights to these people and it undermines our sovereignty. I consider that an emergency.

I would like to know the constitutional reasoning behind denying thew funds.

See, their reason for denying the funds is personal and not constitutional.




Start this one at 1:45
 
Last edited:

MassPete

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
990
Likes
923
Location
Massachusetts
Don't underestimate the Master of Negotiations. They will always spin Trump in the negative. He knows this. Wait and See....
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
49
Likes
19
The emergency thing should not happen. It's yet another stupid over reach of power... But he's lining himself up to say that and do it anyway. If he can't get anything in three weeks. He can say he tried everything and is forced to do a emergency order
 

10thSFFD

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 1, 2013
Messages
22,749
Likes
15,703
Location
Camp Deplorable in the Blue Swamp

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
10,361
Likes
9,267
Location
MA
Is the Pelosi and Schumer denial of funds constitutional or political? They want to keep the birders open. Couldn't that also be considered a "pet" project? Allows more illegals in and more and more states and municipalities are allowing more and more rights to these people and it undermines our sovereignty. I consider that an emergency.

I would like to know the constitutional reasoning behind denying thew funds.

See, their reason for denying the funds is personal and not constitutional.
Apples to oranges. CONUS doesn’t say anything about the whys and hows of Congressional appropriations. Congress has the constitutional right to pass whatever it wants, regardless of what the president says or does. It’s called “separation of powers.” The branches are supposed to be equal.

And if the president doesn’t like the laws congress passes? That’s what vetoes are for.

Look, I’ve said this before; I don’t know at this point which Trump Wall threads are saying what. But if Trump wanted to prevent Pelosi from doing what we all knew Pelosi would do, his option was the same one every president has: spend his first congress behaving in a way that guarantees the midterms will give him a second congress. Trump chose not to do that. This is the consequence. He has nobody to blame but himself.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
8,069
Likes
3,264
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
He's playing the long game. He was losing the battle in the polls and people were starting to get impacted. In another couple of weeks, the Dept of Ag would have run out of money for food stamps and there would have been riots in the streets. So he really didn't have a choice.

At this point, he can try to negotiate - which will fail. So the national emergency route is really his only choice. But since the Dems seem willing to spend something on border security, he should at least take what he can get before he declares the emergency. Because at that point the door on anything is pretty much going to close once it heads into the courts.

He really didn't have a choice... I don't like it, I want the wall, but it is what it is. He's going to continue the fight which is all I can realistically expect.
 

JJ4

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
2,965
Likes
1,468
Location
South Central MA
Interesting article on why we don't already have the wall going when the R's controlled everything:

National Review: Why Don't We Already Have a Wall? | National Review

TL;DR version:
  1. Wasn't a priority. Trump let congress set priorities and they focused on tax cuts and Obamacare. Trump had no actual legislative agenda.
  2. Congressional R's didn't care about the wall.
  3. Senate dem's could have filibustered and R's were unlikely to change the rules to get 50%.
  4. Senate dems actually offered a deal that would have funded the wall, but Trump wanted more (cuts to legal immigration) and turned it down.
 

Lip

Army Veteran
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
7,531
Likes
3,517
Location
Free, free at last. Hudson New Hampster.
#4 is incorrect. The Dems offered spare change for the wall and empty promises for future funding (their usual con) in exchange for what they wanted. Trump said no to that game of Lucy holding the football.
Much like when they offered Regan border security for amnesty. Never ever trust Democrats.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
4,596
Likes
2,781
Location
Louisiana
I would love to see that if no deal is reached at then end of the three weeks that he call for emergency funding for the wall. under which federal judge will block him from doing that with an injunction.
He should then tell the judge to enforce it. Reset the balance of power a little bit.

Then come to terms with the power balance with Congress, which gave the power Trump has back when Big O was in charge and they thought it was a good idea to defer congressional power to the executive branch.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,973
Likes
6,370
Apples to oranges. CONUS doesn’t say anything about the whys and hows of Congressional appropriations. Congress has the constitutional right to pass whatever it wants, regardless of what the president says or does. It’s called “separation of powers.” The branches are supposed to be equal.

And if the president doesn’t like the laws congress passes? That’s what vetoes are for.

Look, I’ve said this before; I don’t know at this point which Trump Wall threads are saying what. But if Trump wanted to prevent Pelosi from doing what we all knew Pelosi would do, his option was the same one every president has: spend his first congress behaving in a way that guarantees the midterms will give him a second congress. Trump chose not to do that. This is the consequence. He has nobody to blame but himself.
I agree with that.
 

ISOTOX

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
7,246
Likes
3,078
Location
N of the Rebublic. SE of Alba and W of Ling Ling
Actually I never had a problem with a barrier on the southern border. I would prefer they dig a canal about a mile or two wide across the whole south.

The canal has real merit...like a new panama canal.....Works for me.

The canal has real merit...like a new panama canal.....Works for me.
 

NHKevin

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
2,644
Likes
1,411
Location
Live Free or Die
If there is something that I can guarantee with absolute certainty, it's that such a canal would be stocked with sharks with fricken laser beams.

You think a wall is expensive? Holy crap, imagine what a moat would cost?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
4,596
Likes
2,781
Location
Louisiana
Much like when they offered Regan border security for amnesty. Never ever trust Democrats.
Clinton offered a wall, and backed out.
Bush2 had another IRCA 86 on his desk when the planes flew into the towers, I get he got sidetracked, but still, if there was ever going to be a wall built, it was 6 months after 9/11.
Obama was the worst thing that happened to the US immigration wise in several lifetimes. The mess we are dealing with now is beyond what I can get into.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,973
Likes
6,370
If there is something that I can guarantee with absolute certainty, it's that such a canal would be stocked with sharks with fricken laser beams.

You think a wall is expensive? Holy crap, imagine what a moat would cost?

yeah but it would take a long time and think of all the jobs created. Trump loves to create jobs...
 

Lip

Army Veteran
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
7,531
Likes
3,517
Location
Free, free at last. Hudson New Hampster.
Clinton offered a wall, and backed out.
Bush2 had another IRCA 86 on his desk when the planes flew into the towers, I get he got sidetracked, but still, if there was ever going to be a wall built, it was 6 months after 9/11.
Obama was the worst thing that happened to the US immigration wise in several lifetimes. The mess we are dealing with now is beyond what I can get into.
Reagan got hosed by Tip" O'Neil even back then dumbocrats were thieves and liars
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
9,691
Likes
10,387
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
I posted this in the MAGAthread and I think this probably going to be what Trump does in order to have legal standing and not set a precedent which bites us in the ass later. Not a barrier across all areas wanted for security, but I'm sure the known smuggling routes cover large areas and any place the routes shift with new barriers would then become eligible for barriers until the entire wall is built.

EXCLUSIVE: Congressional Research Service Finds That Trump Could Build The Wall Without Congress OR Declaring Emergency http://bit.ly/2B1pZAG

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a paper internally that suggests President Donald Trump may have the authority to use Department of Defense resources to build a wall without obtaining congressional approval or declaring a state of emergency.
CRS, Congress’s in-house research arm, internally published a paper Jan. 10 titled “Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall?,” which The Daily Caller News Foundation has obtained. It says (emphasis added):

Another statute that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to assist civilian law enforcement with counterdrug activities may provide some authority for the construction of barriers along the border. 10 U.S.C. § 284 (Section 284) provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” …

Use of Section 284 would not require a declaration of a national emergency under the NEA. However, the DOD’s Section 284 authority to construct fences appears to extend only to “drug smuggling corridors,” a condition that may limit where DOD could deploy fencing.

“Drug corridors” are not defined in law, according to a top congressional aide.
Document here:
Congressional Research Service: Can the Department of Defense Build...
 

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
14,212
Likes
6,218
Location
North Shore, MA
Considering all the forces aligned against him, not to mention the RINOs in Congress and the weak-kneed here on NES, Trump is still doing a better job than almost all of his predecessors.
It's the power of not giving a fock what people think of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lip
Top Bottom