|
On January 08 2019 05:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 04:51 xDaunt wrote:
I wonder if Trump is going to use his prime time address tomorrow to declare a state of emergency and simply have the military build the wall with existing funds. Phrasing the border situation as a "humanitarian and national security crisis" suggests that he will. Assault on the first amendment, state of emergency... you can't tell me you don't see the danger? Let's see what he does with the state of emergency. There's a big difference between what he might do using that power (which is clearly constitutional) and politicians who have been subverted by foreign interests stripping Americans of constitutional protections for the sake of foreign interests. I don't know if "let's see" isn't just wishful thinking that has no value. If he's not actively fighting the Republicans/Democrats trying to strip us of our constitutional protections, what gives you faith that he and Republicans/Democrats wouldn't exploit a state of emergency to strip more of our rights faster? Considering that Trump has fought the establishment more than any other politician in recent memory, I'm not sure what your beef is. He's one of the few politicians in DC who actually does look out for the interests of every day Americans, and he's by far the most effective at it.
I'm sure he's convinced you of that. I don't look at ignoring a coordinated bipartisan attacks on the 1st amendment as looking out for my interests. It's one of the most devastating things he could do to them at the systemic level.
His appreciation for an open fascist like Bolsonaro and continued support of Saudi Arabia indicates to me he'd rather be more fascist than freedom oriented.
Declaring a state of emergency to build a largely useless wall he said we wouldn't be paying for definitively lines up better with a shift towards fascism than a champion of the people, at least from my perspective.
|
Oval Office address eight hours away. Let’s see what Trump’s got. It’s the third week of the shutdown and first week we learned the troops aren’t coming home.
|
On January 08 2019 06:13 Danglars wrote:
Oval Office address eight hours away. Let’s see what Trump’s got. It’s the third week of the shutdown and first week we learned the troops aren’t coming home.
It's tomorrow, isn't it?
|
On January 08 2019 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 05:46 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 04:51 xDaunt wrote:
I wonder if Trump is going to use his prime time address tomorrow to declare a state of emergency and simply have the military build the wall with existing funds. Phrasing the border situation as a "humanitarian and national security crisis" suggests that he will. Assault on the first amendment, state of emergency... you can't tell me you don't see the danger? Let's see what he does with the state of emergency. There's a big difference between what he might do using that power (which is clearly constitutional) and politicians who have been subverted by foreign interests stripping Americans of constitutional protections for the sake of foreign interests. I don't know if "let's see" isn't just wishful thinking that has no value. If he's not actively fighting the Republicans/Democrats trying to strip us of our constitutional protections, what gives you faith that he and Republicans/Democrats wouldn't exploit a state of emergency to strip more of our rights faster? Considering that Trump has fought the establishment more than any other politician in recent memory, I'm not sure what your beef is. He's one of the few politicians in DC who actually does look out for the interests of every day Americans, and he's by far the most effective at it. I'm sure he's convinced you of that. I don't look at ignoring a coordinated bipartisan attacks on the 1st amendment as looking out for my interests. It's one of the most devastating things he could do to them at the systemic level. His appreciation for an open fascist like Bolsonaro and continued support of Saudi Arabia indicates to me he'd rather be more fascist than freedom oriented. Declaring a state of emergency to build a largely useless wall he said we wouldn't be paying for definitively lines up better with a shift towards fascism than a champion of the people, at least from my perspective.
Trump hasn't pushed any policy attacking the First Amendment, unless you want to count his railing against the media.
And as usual, you're missing the larger picture with regards to Saudi Arabia and Bolsonaro. Trump's befriending of Bolsonaro has the chance to break up the BRICS, thereby reducing Chinese influence in the Western hemisphere. And frankly, I haven't seen anything suggesting that Bolsonaro is that bad. I had an opportunity to chat with a few Brazilians about him at length a couple weeks ago. One of them was strongly pro-Bolsonaro, one was anti-Bolsonaro, and the last was in the middle, but supportive of Bolsonaro as the best available option. I'm not worried about him turning into the next Mussolini. Likewise, Trump's continued relationship with Saudi Arabia also provides a check against Iran and Russian interests in the Middle East, which is still a critical region for world stability given its oil. The bottom line is that pragmatism matters in foreign policy. Idealistic foreign policy is simply stupid. Burning all of our bridges with the Saudis because they are a bunch of assholes isn't going to get us anywhere. It won't even improve Saudi behavior. If anything, our ongoing relationship with Saudi Arabia has been a moderating influence on the Saudi regime.
|
On January 08 2019 06:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 06:13 Danglars wrote:
Oval Office address eight hours away. Let’s see what Trump’s got. It’s the third week of the shutdown and first week we learned the troops aren’t coming home. It's tomorrow, isn't it?
Yes
January 8 at 02:00 GMT (+00:00)
|
On January 08 2019 06:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 06:13 Danglars wrote:
Oval Office address eight hours away. Let’s see what Trump’s got. It’s the third week of the shutdown and first week we learned the troops aren’t coming home. It's tomorrow, isn't it?
You’re right.
|
I can't believe some networks are actually considering not airing Trump's broadcast tomorrow. There would be no better way to signal to the whole world that they're a bunch of partisan hacks than not to cover the speech. If they're really concerned with the "factual accuracy" of whatever Trump says tomorrow, then they can always form a panel of hacks with the usual suspects to provide "analysis." Besides, regardless of what Trump says tomorrow, it is bound to be newsworthy.
|
Well they have to make the decision about if its worth more then airing what they already have scheduled for that night/ be the network that attracts the "is anything else on" crowd.
I don't think that they're having serious talks about not airing it. It sounds like a bit of speculating about them considering it more then actual discussions.
|
On January 08 2019 07:13 xDaunt wrote:
I can't believe some networks are actually considering not airing Trump's broadcast tomorrow. There would be no better way to signal to the whole world that they're a bunch of partisan hacks than not to cover the speech. If they're really concerned with the "factual accuracy" of whatever Trump says tomorrow, then they can always form a panel of hacks with the usual suspects to provide "analysis." Besides, regardless of what Trump says tomorrow, it is bound to be newsworthy.
I love the way you put air quotes around factual accuracy, as if Trump's speeches aren't regularly riddled with lies, or mocking the very idea of trying to tie someone as unimportant as the President to simple concepts such as the truth.
|
On January 08 2019 06:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 05:46 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2019 04:51 xDaunt wrote:
I wonder if Trump is going to use his prime time address tomorrow to declare a state of emergency and simply have the military build the wall with existing funds. Phrasing the border situation as a "humanitarian and national security crisis" suggests that he will. Assault on the first amendment, state of emergency... you can't tell me you don't see the danger? Let's see what he does with the state of emergency. There's a big difference between what he might do using that power (which is clearly constitutional) and politicians who have been subverted by foreign interests stripping Americans of constitutional protections for the sake of foreign interests. I don't know if "let's see" isn't just wishful thinking that has no value. If he's not actively fighting the Republicans/Democrats trying to strip us of our constitutional protections, what gives you faith that he and Republicans/Democrats wouldn't exploit a state of emergency to strip more of our rights faster? Considering that Trump has fought the establishment more than any other politician in recent memory, I'm not sure what your beef is. He's one of the few politicians in DC who actually does look out for the interests of every day Americans, and he's by far the most effective at it. I'm sure he's convinced you of that. I don't look at ignoring a coordinated bipartisan attacks on the 1st amendment as looking out for my interests. It's one of the most devastating things he could do to them at the systemic level. His appreciation for an open fascist like Bolsonaro and continued support of Saudi Arabia indicates to me he'd rather be more fascist than freedom oriented. Declaring a state of emergency to build a largely useless wall he said we wouldn't be paying for definitively lines up better with a shift towards fascism than a champion of the people, at least from my perspective. Trump hasn't pushed any policy attacking the First Amendment, unless you want to count his railing against the media. And as usual, you're missing the larger picture with regards to Saudi Arabia and Bolsonaro. Trump's befriending of Bolsonaro has the chance to break up the BRICS, thereby reducing Chinese influence in the Western hemisphere. And frankly, I haven't seen anything suggesting that Bolsonaro is that bad. I had an opportunity to chat with a few Brazilians about him at length a couple weeks ago. One of them was strongly pro-Bolsonaro, one was anti-Bolsonaro, and the last was in the middle, but supportive of Bolsonaro as the best available option. I'm not worried about him turning into the next Mussolini. Likewise, Trump's continued relationship with Saudi Arabia also provides a check against Iran and Russian interests in the Middle East, which is still a critical region for world stability given its oil. The bottom line is that pragmatism matters in foreign policy. Idealistic foreign policy is simply stupid. Burning all of our bridges with the Saudis because they are a bunch of assholes isn't going to get us anywhere. It won't even improve Saudi behavior. If anything, our ongoing relationship with Saudi Arabia has been a moderating influence on the Saudi regime.
I accused Trump of ignoring the deliberate, bipartisan, etc... Attack on the 1st Amendment, he won't have been active (beyond his administration "considering" it) until he signs it. It likely would already be signed if the government wasn't shut down.
As to Bolsonaro my favorite part of that was
supportive of Bolsonaro as the best available option.
well he's pro torture, anti-gay and did say his opponents were getting exiled or imprisoned sooo... If that doesn't strike you as "that bad" I think we found the problem.
|
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
|
On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now.
Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
|
On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now. Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives. EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
When you say it's a disgrace that politicians "won't secure the border" but Bolsonaro (and Trump's endorsement of him) are not "that bad" I have a hard time taking you seriously.
|
On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now. Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives. EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border.
Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'?
Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
|
I mean where does that standard come from? Is it a priori or did you make it up yourself after you took a side in this specific issue?
After 9/11 we shut down air travel for what 6 months? And there was no literal horde of anything at any proverbial gates which don't exist because they're proverbial.
|
On January 08 2019 19:48 oBlade wrote:
I mean where does that standard come from? Is it a priori or did you make it up yourself after you took a side in this specific issue?
After 9/11 we shut down air travel for what 6 months? And there was no literal horde of anything at any proverbial gates which don't exist because they're proverbial.
I can see a logical connection between 'someone flew planes into our buildings which then fell down and killed 10,000 people' and 'shutting down the airports for a period of time for investigations and security upgrades'.
What urgent national security threat exists that the border wall adequately counters?
EDIT: Removed the paraphrase of oBlade's 'months' after DMCD's post below.
|
On January 08 2019 19:48 oBlade wrote:
After 9/11 we shut down air travel for what 6 months? And there was no literal horde of anything at any proverbial gates which don't exist because they're proverbial.
2 days. You are out by a factor of 90. Don't let reality affect your arguments.
Also 9/11 is an actual incident. Yours is just well, as real as 6 months.
|
On January 08 2019 18:21 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now. Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives. EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border. Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'? Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out?
Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
|
On January 09 2019 00:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2019 18:21 iamthedave wrote:On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now. Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives. EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border. Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'? Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out? Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change.
It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters.
Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example.
Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
|
On January 09 2019 00:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2019 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 18:21 iamthedave wrote:On January 08 2019 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On January 08 2019 11:17 Doodsmack wrote:
Looking forward to the Republican arguments in favor of decaring a state of emergency to build the wall. Suddenly theyll be bending over backwards in favor of presidential and federal power. Its constitutional for the president to invoke an emergency in order to bypass the legislative branch. It's so clearly a politically expedient argument that its sincerity is doubtful. Keep in mind that if Obama had even suggested the use of emergency powers to accomplish something that was the subject of a political stalemate, the militias would literally be traveling to DC right now. Trump is acting well-within the limits of executive power. The legislature and the judiciary so-empowered the president long ago. If you don't like it, blame progressives. EDIT: For the record, I'm not particularly concerned about the executive going it alone on urgent matters of national security. It's a disgrace that the democrats (and many republicans) won't secure the border. Can you provide evidence that the Border Wall is an 'urgent matter of national security'? Is there some literal horde of barbarians at your proverbial gates, bent on America's destruction? Has a modern version of the black death sprung up in Mexico and scientific research suggests a wall will keep it out? Trump is going to lay it all out tonight: human trafficking, drug trafficking (plus the attendant ODing epidemic in the US), terrorist infiltration, an overwhelmed border security agency, and the many tens of billions of dollars that the US spends dealing with these problems every year. Spending $20 billion on a wall to shut most of this down is chump change. It's also unrealistic fantasy, which kinda matters. Most of the heroin comes through ports of entries not through the desert. A wall would do diddly squat for that (not to mention pharmaceutical companies provide most of the opiates feeding the crisis) for example. Unless it's a skywall it won't do shit for "terrorists" either.
Those are specious arguments. We should lock down all points of entry for drugs, terrorists, and human trafficking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
