The Trump Presidency...

So, the great negotiator, the best, could not get what's left of the promise through a negotiation. Remember this is a problem of his own making. He promised to build a wall. He promised that the Mexicans would pay for it. He decided that he'd probably pushed too far and he could never get any money from Mexico (go figure!). He's the one who is trying to get money from Congress after he lost the majority, not before.

His first attempt of bullying Congress and the American people by shutting down the government (again suggested by and owned by him) went spectacularly wrong. So yes, this is his second attempt to force Congress' hand. It's not a normal move, it's not in any normal president's playbook and it won't work. But he will at least have been seen, by his thick a mince supporters, to have done everything to fulfil his promise and to have been thwarted by those pesky Dems.

In his mind it will be a win. In reality it shows that his inflated opinion of his own negotiating abilities is based on a lifetime of getting what he wants by threatening those with less money and more to lose. If he's not negotiating from a position of strength, he's useless. This also explains the fact that he talks big until he is in the presence of equals or those he fears. That's not negotiation. He is however trying to bypass (or look as if he is) Congress.
Yeah, but putting aside your whinging, what have you written above that actually challenges his lawful authority to declare a national emergency?

The rest is just noise
 
Yeah, but putting aside your whinging, what have you written above that actually challenges his lawful authority to declare a national emergency?

The rest is just noise
The rest of the 'noise' was just clarifying that he has put himself in this position because of his lack of negotiating skills and it won't work. The whole project will be stopped by legal moves, not least because evidence of a 'State of Emergency' does not exist and he has already admitted to the world that "I don't need to do this" (His mouth is his worst enemy as his claiming the shutdown before the shutdown proves. Or should that be his lack of brainpower?)

There are lot's of things that someone can legally do that a) won't get you where you want to be, b) make it easier for others to do the same in the future with more chance of success (they just have to think things through and implement it correctly). Either way, he has opened this particular can of worms and many Republicans are worried.

You are defending his right to do it. Are you also saying that he is right to do it? Because they aren't the same thing.
 
blah blah... ...not least because evidence of a 'State of Emergency' does not exist...
Give me the legal definition of a national emergency then. Because, you know, if you are so confident it isn’t one, then you will no doubt be able to define what was and was not envisaged as an emergency when they wrote the Act, rightL

You are defending his right to do it. Are you also saying that he is right to do it? Because they aren't the same thing.
Couldn’t give a **** what you think is ‘right’ - what’s right or wrong is nothing more than an opinion that two sane and reasonable people can disagree on (see death penalty, abortion, meat eating, marmite & brexit for examples). Fact remains that Trump got voted in, that makes him president and thus he gets to choose.
 
It is tepid short term gain, without much of a realistic chance of completion. The wall will be fought in courts for years. The only thing this has done is ensure Democratics can use the same trick, when it is their turn to occupy the White House. Which they will do so with a vengeance, and the cycle will just continue. It is not about governing but pleasing the respective base, and ******* the other side over. Both sides will reach to far and the prospective for some real civil disobedience is a given.
 
Give me the legal definition of a national emergency then. Because, you know, if you are so confident it isn’t one, then you will no doubt be able to define what was and was not envisaged as an emergency when they wrote the Act, rightL
The numbers have been drastically reduced over the last 10 years. So how can it be called a 'State of Emergency'? Now it is, when it was over 1 million a year, it wasn't. He has said that "I don't have to do this", whereas an state of emergency would pretty much be something that you do have to do. I'll let the legal eagles fight it out, but I'm not confident that he'll come out on top.

It was you stating his 'rights' and defending them. So don't get a c** stand when you are asked a question as it looks as if you realise you are defending the indefensible.
 
The numbers have been drastically reduced over the last 10 years. So how can it be called a 'State of Emergency'? Now it is, when it was over 1 million a year, it wasn't. He has said that "I don't have to do this", whereas an state of emergency would pretty much be something that you do have to do. I'll let the legal eagles fight it out, but I'm not confident that he'll come out on top.
See, there you go, mixing up what the law actually says with your opinion of what it must, or might, mean.

I ask you again: what is the legal definition of a national emergency in the relevant act?

It was you stating his 'rights' and defending them. So don't get a c** stand when you are asked a question as it looks as if you realise you are defending the indefensible.
Yeah, but as pointed out, his ‘rights’ come from being elected as president, not from jumping up and down on the spot wishing he hadn’t been.
 


Interesting, so you admit that it was in fact Obama who opened this little Pandora’s box, yet you now criticise Trump for following the precedent that the democrats set.

Of course, it’s also academically interesting that a republican congressman fears it being used to control guns... without, of course, pointing out that the constitution would prevent that (and, remind us, exactly what does the constitution say about borders or illegal immigrants? **** all, right?)
You
Utter
Simpleton
 
See, there you go, mixing up what the law actually says with your opinion of what it must, or might, mean.

I ask you again: what is the legal definition of a national emergency in the relevant act?



Yeah, but as pointed out, his ‘rights’ come from being elected as president, not from jumping up and down on the spot wishing he hadn’t been.
I did say I’d let the legal teams sort it out. Why do you insist that you are stating your opinion while I seem to have to provide a legal definition.

You are quoting his rights to do one thing but refuse to admit there is no precedence for doing so in order to provide money to do something that isn’t a national emergency. Is there a precedence for doing this because the president’s inflated opinion of his own skills falls a long way short of the mark? Is failing to be able to get things done politically making America great again? It’s certainly not making Britain great again, but that’s a different story.

Again, I point out the difference between having the right to do something and it being the right thing to do. Because at the moment you are using the argument that could be applied to Pohl Pot, Stalin and any other dictator. They had the political/constitutional right to do something. That doesn’t mean they were right to do something.

Are you happy defending his actions? Or is it just that he has the right, so what the hell, let him do it?
 
You are quoting his rights to do one thing but refuse to admit there is no precedence for doing so in order to provide money to do something
There’s never precedence for anything until the first time it’s done - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate legal power to do it

that isn’t a national emergency.
That’s your opinion, it’s not the presidents opinion
According to the law, as it stands, whose opinion matters?


Is there a precedence for doing this because the president’s inflated opinion of his own skills falls a long way short of the mark? Is failing to be able to get things done politically making America great again? It’s certainly not making Britain great again, but that’s a different story.
Again, none of this calls in to question the presidents power to declare the border a national emergency - it’s just noise

Again, I point out the difference between having the right to do something and it being the right thing to do. Because at the moment you are using the argument that could be applied to Pohl Pot, Stalin and any other dictator. They had the political/constitutional right to do something. That doesn’t mean they were right to do something.
He’s not a dictator - He’s bound by the constitution and, as you have already admitted, congress has the power to overturn his decision. This fundamental rule utterly undermines your argument.
You’re spouting exactly the same shite that was being spouted two years ago about the travel ban, that it was beyond presidential powers and unconstitutional - go and have a read of the Supreme Court decision in Trump v Hawaii, it genuinely fucks your entire argument in the arse:

The upshot of our cases in this context is clear: “Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution,”

Are you happy defending his actions? Or is it just that he has the right, so what the hell, let him do it?
I don’t need to defend his actions - that’s what international law, the constitution and the inherent checks and balances to the powers offered to the president by congress are for. Other than that he gets to do whatever the law gives him (as president) the right to do.

Edit: To reiterate the point, what I am saying here is that it doesn’t matter whether you personally find the decision morally repugnant - it’s entirely irrelevant, the only question that matters is whether the presidents decision is legal. If the presidents decision in this case is truly offensive then congress can recall it and rescind it, or they all pay the price at the ballot box. That’s the very nature of how a constitutional democracy works.
 
Last edited:
There’s never precedence for anything until the first time it’s done - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate legal power to do it
Well that's all right then. Legitimate legal power gives the right for him to do whatever he likes that hasn't been done before (as you say, no precedence until it happens), found to be illegal and legislated against.

A pity he hasn't got the moral fibre to do the right thing. It's what you get when you elect a petulant child promising the impossible. he certainly is making America Grate again.
There’s never precedence for anything until the first time it’s done - but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate legal power to do it



That’s your opinion, it’s not the presidents opinion
According to the law, as it stands, whose opinion matters?




Again, none of this calls in to question the presidents power to declare the border a national emergency - it’s just noise



He’s not a dictator - He’s bound by the constitution and, as you have already admitted, congress has the power to overturn his decision. This fundamental rule utterly undermines your argument.
You’re spouting exactly the same shite that was being spouted two years ago about the travel ban, that it was beyond presidential powers and unconstitutional - go and have a read of the Supreme Court decision in Trump v Hawaii, it genuinely fucks your entire argument in the arse:

The upshot of our cases in this context is clear: “Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution,”


I don’t need to defend his actions - that’s what international law, the constitution and the inherent checks and balances to the powers offered to the president by congress are for. Other than that he gets to do whatever the law gives him (as president) the right to do.

Edit: To reiterate the point, what I am saying here is that it doesn’t matter whether you personally find the decision morally repugnant - it’s entirely irrelevant, the only question that matters is whether the presidents decision is legal. If the presidents decision in this case is truly offensive then congress can recall it and rescind it, or they all pay the price at the ballot box. That’s the very nature of how a constitutional democracy works.
 
I don’t need to defend his actions - that’s what international law, the constitution and the inherent checks and balances to the powers offered to the president by congress are for. Other than that he gets to do whatever the law gives him (as president) the right to do.

Edit: To reiterate the point, what I am saying here is that it doesn’t matter whether you personally find the decision morally repugnant - it’s entirely irrelevant, the only question that matters is whether the presidents decision is legal. If the presidents decision in this case is truly offensive then congress can recall it and rescind it, or they all pay the price at the ballot box. That’s the very nature of how a constitutional democracy works.
You don't have to say you are defending his actions, you are.

And the point is the fact that he is using the power he has been given to deal with national emergencies to get money he couldn't any other way. The moral does matter. You are defending him. Like it or not, that says all I need to know about your morals.
 
Ah, “morals”

Tell me, which is “moral”:

a) Killing an unborn foetus which could support independent life
b) forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child she does not want

Or how about:

a) not causing pain or suffering to a laboratory animal
b) curing disease in a sick child

“Moral” is just a fancy word for “I think my opinion is more important than yours”
 
Ah, “morals”

Tell me, which is “moral”:

a) Killing an unborn foetus which could support independent life
b) forcing a woman to carry and give birth to a child she does not want

Or how about:

a) not causing pain or suffering to a laboratory animal
b) curing disease in a sick child

“Moral” is just a fancy word for “I think my opinion is more important than yours”
No, morals are sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of choice. You have chosen to support something that is morally wrong. It is a moral choice. It is your moral choice. Saying that there are other moral choices is not a defence of the moral choice you have made and defended.
 
No, morals are sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of choice. You have chosen to support something that is morally wrong. It is a moral choice. It is your moral choice. Saying that there are other moral choices is not a defence of the moral choice you have made and defended.
What justifies you saying that someone else is morally wrong?

What makes your moral choices/beliefs better than someone else’s?

The strongest argument you could probably come forward with would be that society as a whole had formed an opinion that something was, on balance, negative for the cohesiveness of wider society and therefore outlawed it... but by your own admission, that hasn’t happened here.
 
Last edited:
What makes your moral choices better than mine?
It’s not moral choices, it’s one particular moral choice. You have chosen to defend Trumps improper use of his power to declare a state of emergency when on any scale, there isn’t one. He is using his power improperly to raise funds for something his negotiation ‘skills’ have failed to.

If he didn’t want the wall, no emergency. Because he can’t get the money, he declares an ‘emergency’. That’s pretty much an abuse of power, in anyone’s books. Why do trump supporters support actions and words that if similar were done by Democrats would have them in a heart attack inducing rage?
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Drug smuggling is mainly though other routes, cross-border illegal immigration from Mexico is down. Yet it is announced that building a wall constitutes a national emergency.

By Trump's definition of a 'national emergency', anything that the incumbent President feels is adversely affecting the USA is a national emergency.

Gun control national emergency is the obvious next step for a new President, but I can also think of many others. How about banning refined sugar, smoking, cars, bears, angry people, high-rise buildings.... Anything at all in fact. Legislation won't reduce the problem, but most experts say that Trump's vanity wall won't solve the border problems either so that is irrelevant.
 
improper use of his power to declare a state of emergency
Your opinion

when on any scale, there isn’t one.
Again, your opinion, clearly not his - however, according to the law as it stands, whose opinion actually matters:
a) the opinion of the elected president of the United States
b) anyone else

He is using his power improperly to raise funds for something his negotiation ‘skills’ have failed to.
Where does the law say that invalidates his power to declare a national emergency

If he didn’t want the wall, no emergency. Because he can’t get the money, he declares an ‘emergency’. That’s pretty much an abuse of power, in anyone’s books.
On which basis, congress will undoubtedly call the decision back in and in invalidate the state of emergency, yes? So what’s the problem?
 
By Trump's definition of a 'national emergency', anything that the incumbent President feels is adversely affecting the USA is a national emergency.
Yes, absolutely correct, you’re getting it, well done.

It’s one of the little perks that goes with being elected president.

Great, innit?

Gun control national emergency is the obvious next step for a new President,
Well, in theory, yes, but, of course, the constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, so in fact no, it isn’t, happy now?

but I can also think of many others. How about banning refined sugar, smoking, cars, bears, angry people, high-rise buildings.... Anything at all in fact.
Yep, well done, you’re getting it - all those things - things that any president could have done, because the president has always had the power to declare something a national emergency, but of course then he, and his supporters in congress, bear responsibility for that decision via the ballot box.

Donald Trump has clearly decided that fulfilling his election pledge to do that is worth more than upsetting those who already fought to oppose him every step of the way, and instead risking it all on upholding what those who elected him elected him to do.

Legislation won't reduce the problem, but most experts say that Trump's vanity wall won't solve the border problems either so that is irrelevant.
Ah, ‘most experts’

You mean the ones that have spent years calling for increased border security and spent billions building walls

Right
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top