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

Varmint

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
20,548
Likes
13,468
Location
North Shore, MA
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?

We could divert all the water from California to keep the moat filled. Win win.
 

oldguy47

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
1,306
Likes
542
Location
Brockton MA
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.

Yes!
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
3,180
Likes
2,254
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.

Paul Rino Ryan would never have let this come up for a vote.
The Repugnaughts dont want a secure border any more than the Dumbocrats do.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,542
Likes
968
Location
Sunshine state
It'll be in the courts before it can take effect.

There's really no other choice. You heard them say it, not $1. Nothing will change and they will block him on everything. He should throw the Dreamer extension in there to expose them further.

benStillerDoIt1.jpg
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
3,180
Likes
2,254
I think folks are rushing to judgement in their assessment of this.....I have to believe theres a long game strategy here that includes re-election and regaining the house.

In reopening gov for 3 weeks, Trump comes away smelling like a rose.....he's the reasonable party in this deal and people acknowledge it

It bolsters and ACCLIMATES his likely decision to declare an emergency and start building a wall with US Mil.

If however Trump gets nothing out of negotiations in 3 weeks AND he caves in/doesnt shut down gov AND he doesnt declare an emergency then he's for all intents a lame duck with possible exception of SCOTUS nominations

since the Gov is back open for business, there should be no problem holding the State of the union.
We'll see if the Trumpster drops a bombshell
 

TLB

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
8,673
Likes
9,353
Location
Heading for greener pastures
Paul Rino Ryan would never have let this come up for a vote.
The Repugnaughts dont want a secure border any more than the Dumbocrats do.
Paul RINO Ryan, the one who only voted for full repeal of Obamacare when the big zero was still President. Republicans suck. If they didn't, they would have repealed Obamacare with Trump available to sign it. Then they could have reworked something. Repeal and replace...."my ass".
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
3,180
Likes
2,254
Paul RINO Ryan, the one who only voted for full repeal of Obamacare when the big zero was still President. Republicans suck. If they didn't, they would have repealed Obamacare with Trump available to sign it. Then they could have reworked something. Repeal and replace...."my ass".

exactly, it's all a show. They love the control too much to give it up.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
Thats why article v is the only solution

Sure if you want to lose all your other rights. You keep saying this, and keep being told it is completely stupid. As soon as they convene a convention the second is on the chopping block no mater what the convention was convened for.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
Easy, the people have no control once the convention is approved. They have no requirement to listen to the states, the people, or follow the rules the convention was created under. They can, with a simple majority, make their own rules. They are likely to go well beyond their mandate, and there are serious questions about how the delegates would be chosen, and how many each state would get. How would you like it if it was population based and then used to radically change the constitution based on a simple majority vote of delegates? CA, NY, IL get to set the agenda and we get no say.

Whatever they come up with and vote for becomes an amendment, there is no backstop of states getting a vote on it once the convention is approved. It is far too dangerous, and makes no sense to risk the things we have for unknown future stuff that we are unlikely to get anyway from a convention.

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,951
Likes
1,182
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
Easy, the people have no control once the convention is approved. They have no requirement to listen to the states, the people, or follow the rules the convention was created under. They can, with a simple majority, make their own rules. They are likely to go well beyond their mandate, and there are serious questions about how the delegates would be chosen, and how many each state would get. How would you like it if it was population based and then used to radically change the constitution based on a simple majority vote of delegates? CA, NY, IL get to set the agenda and we get no say.

Whatever they come up with and vote for becomes an amendment, there is no backstop of states getting a vote on it once the convention is approved. It is far too dangerous, and makes no sense to risk the things we have for unknown future stuff that we are unlikely to get anyway from a convention.

States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues

Your claim in the second paragraph is patently false. As jpk's link illustrates, just like any other Constitutional amendment, any COS-offered amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
Your claim in the second paragraph is patently false. As jpk's link illustrates, just like any other Constitutional amendment, any COS-offered amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Except nothing in there rebuts the other claim. Sure the states can put in all sorts of process, or add whatever rules they want. The convention IS NOT BOUND BY THOSE RULES. They start the convention, day one they vote on new rules for the convention and the states rules are now out the window. They propose an amendment, after changing the rules to a simple majority vote national referendum or some other nonsense I haven't thought of.

Bam, the second amendment is gone and whatever stupidity they want is in by majority vote. There is no stopping them from doing it, and no governing body above them. Essentially you can either have the normal process that requires 3/4ths to approve, or the convention that does whatever the hell it wants.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,546
Likes
39,708
Location
MA
Remember what happened the last time there was a convention to “tweak the Articles of Confederation?”

They got scrapped and replaced, and none of The People saw it coming or had anything to say about it. If it happened once....
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
297
Likes
273
Location
CT now NH soon
I'm still trying to figure out why some people think he "rolled".

He lost absolutely nothing in his position, nothing.
The government workers were going to get back pay ANYWAY, because that's how it works.


For the last 6 weeks he has repeatedly dragged the Democrats through the mud on this issue.

Trumps position is that he wants to build the wall. Border Patrol over and over clearly stated they much prefer a see through barrier of some sort for safety reasons. There are many internet inks that state this.
As Trump Pushes for U.S.-Mexico Border Wall, Experts Prefer Fencing
President Trump wants a wall; Border experts want a fence
What Border Agents Say They Want (It’s Not a Wall)

There is no way Pelosi wants to give Trump a "win" on this.

Trump offered to work a deal with the Dreamers. Pelosi shut him down. Trumps position on the wall has not changed.
Trump offered a lesser amount of funding and Pelosi shut him down. Trumps position on the wall has not changed.
Trump has now totally backed Pelosi / Democrats into a corner on this. Now when he declares a National Emergency the wall will get built.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=162&v=MI9c6QMXGi8


Even Congress’ research arm vouches for Trump’s border funding authority
ress-research-arm-vouches-for-trumps-border-funding-authority/

So once again, Trump will get his wall. Pelosi and the Democrats will get absolutely nothing.

Trump gets 100% of what he sought. Pelosi and Democrats get absolutely nothing.

Pelosi now is in hot water for aiding and abetting child trafficking.

"Rolled" indeed. LOL. Trump, like a giant Alligator slow rolled Pelosi and the Democrats.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
23,546
Likes
39,708
Location
MA
He did lose. Credibility. The “deal maker” aura.

His dwindling political capital dwindled some more. He emboldened Pelosi and lost the SOTU for nothing. I’m not happy about it, but reality is crashing in.
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,951
Likes
1,182
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
Except nothing in there rebuts the other claim. Sure the states can put in all sorts of process, or add whatever rules they want. The convention IS NOT BOUND BY THOSE RULES. They start the convention, day one they vote on new rules for the convention and the states rules are now out the window. They propose an amendment, after changing the rules to a simple majority vote national referendum or some other nonsense I haven't thought of.

Bam, the second amendment is gone and whatever stupidity they want is in by majority vote. There is no stopping them from doing it, and no governing body above them. Essentially you can either have the normal process that requires 3/4ths to approve, or the convention that does whatever the hell it wants.

The second amendment is pretty much already gone based on the sum total of usurpations it has endured over the last 100 years. Our federal government is well on its way to becoming a total tyranny. The purpose of a federalist system is so that the states can collectively rein in the federal government from doing exactly what it is doing to us, the people right now. I know a convention of the states sounds like a risky, even a “nuclear” option and in some ways it is, but we’re rapidly running out of time IMHO.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,566
Likes
953
Location
Mass
The second amendment is pretty much already gone based on the sum total of usurpations it has endured over the last 100 years. Our federal government is well on its way to becoming a total tyranny. The purpose of a federalist system is so that the states can collectively rein in the federal government from doing exactly what it is doing to us, the people right now. I know a convention of the states sounds like a risky, even a “nuclear” option and in some ways it is, but we’re rapidly running out of time IMHO.


It seems foolish to say "It's already gone". Sure politicians are constantly trying to take more away, but outside liberal bubbles it is a losing topic and the sentiment is going our way in general. The states have no power, they lost it after the civil war when lincoln was cannonized instead of being burned for the traitor he was and will never get it back unfortunately. A constitutional convention is so dangerous as to be a suicide option. You have a tiny chance of getting amendments that actually do some good (Which the government will ignore the same way they ignore the first, second, fourth, and fifth until 200 years from now a future supreme court tells them they went too far and to reign it in a touch) and a huge chance of getting those rights removed completely or changed into something ridiculous (The right of the police and national guard to bear arms shall not be infringed, Safe from search and seizure unless the police think you did something wrong, Free speech except if you say something mean online that makes someone feel offended).

The danger is real, the benefits are not, and it just gives unimaginable power to change the fabric of america to a group of unaccountable people who make their own rules. How is that a good plan?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
8,857
Likes
19,223
I’m of the thought that even if the 2nd amendment gets voided that it won’t matter one bit. There are just too many gun owners with the forward thinking that guns are necessary for a free state and there is no opposition in the world to stop that from happening. My friends these weapons of ours are for the last days to protect this country as a haven and refuge for the escapees of tyranny and injustice in the world.
 
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
488
Likes
84
Location
S.E. Ma
Don’t really car, it will work out in the next several weeks. Republicans pussed out when they had the power to get this done, which is a reflection on them and why we need term limits.

Really should have done it when we had both the House and Senate. BTW...... Why didn't this happen? School me on this
 

HuntMaine

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
6,401
Likes
3,785
Location
2A Supporter
Really should have done it when we had both the House and Senate. BTW...... Why didn't this happen? School me on this
I wish it did but politicians on both sides each time they have power do less. It’s better to have the minions fighting each other and voting them back in. It’s 5 billion which is a drop in the bucket in the overall crazy budget. Cut a military program for Dems in turn for the wall or something but this wall discussion is just getting stupid
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,951
Likes
1,182
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
Two words

"Paul Ryan"
It’s not just Paul Ryan. With very rare exceptions, the Rs really don’t care about the same things you and I care about anymore than the Ds do. Both sides think they’re better and smarter than us peasants and both have an insatiable thirst for power. They only care about doing what we tell them to do out of fear of not being re-elected. Once they lose that fear, an attempt to purge dissent will follow, a la Stalinist Russia and modern-day Venezuela.
 
Top Bottom