|
On January 12 2019 09:56 IgnE wrote:
wow, i am dumbfounded that you think that emergency executive powers are obviously appropriate to the current state of illegal immigration but not to climate change or anything else on the left’s agenda, broadly defined
The law is the law. It's very easy to differentiate and distinguish illegal immigration, medical malpractice, and climate change in terms of which constitutional considerations are implicated.
On January 12 2019 09:59 IgnE wrote:
putting aside the legality, do you think trump should declare a state of emergency to put up a wall?
This is the more interesting question. My answer is yes, but I have serious reservations about it. As I mentioned before, the current imperial stature of the presidency is a progressive creation, and I'm not a fan of it. Executive power should be scaled back. On the other hand, illegal immigration is a monumentally huge problem, which our corrupt politicians won't deal with. Inadequate border control is an existential threat to any nation, and the costs of illegal immigration are simply staggering. Against this backdrop, throwing up a wall at the border to enforce existing law -- which is undeniably a minimally intrusive application of executive power from the perspective of the American citizen -- is the right move on balance.
|
On January 12 2019 13:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 09:56 IgnE wrote:
wow, i am dumbfounded that you think that emergency executive powers are obviously appropriate to the current state of illegal immigration but not to climate change or anything else on the left’s agenda, broadly defined The law is the law. It's very easy to differentiate and distinguish illegal immigration, medical malpractice, and climate change in terms of which constitutional considerations are implicated.
no one said medical malpractice. i can quite easily imagine someone declaring a state of emergency for the nation's health crisis (opioids maybe?) and instituting a variety of police measures and appropriations for health subsidies and clinics. i also don't know how you can just say "climate change" without any reference to a particular solution (emissions cutting? bans on fossil fuels? erecting a massive renewable energy grid?) and confidently proclaim that it's "very easy" to differentiate from building a wall across a desert. as if climate change wasn't an "existential threat to the nation"
|
On January 12 2019 15:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 13:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 09:56 IgnE wrote:
wow, i am dumbfounded that you think that emergency executive powers are obviously appropriate to the current state of illegal immigration but not to climate change or anything else on the left’s agenda, broadly defined The law is the law. It's very easy to differentiate and distinguish illegal immigration, medical malpractice, and climate change in terms of which constitutional considerations are implicated. no one said medical malpractice. i can quite easily imagine someone declaring a state of emergency for the nation's health crisis (opioids maybe?) and instituting a variety of police measures and appropriations for health subsidies and clinics. i also don't know how you can just say "climate change" without any reference to a particular solution (emissions cutting? bans on fossil fuels? erecting a massive renewable energy grid?) and confidently proclaim that it's "very easy" to differentiate from building a wall across a desert. as if climate change wasn't an "existential threat to the nation"
Not to mention heroin out of Mexico is 3rd place at best when it comes to opiate deaths, the US and China are responsible for the production of the majority of opiates that both get people hooked and kill them.
Best case scenario the deaths don't go down, we'll just be able to attribute an even greater share to US corporations and Chinese producers. It's down to reducing the criminal element, but as it is immigrants reduce our crime rates, US citizens left to their own commit crimes at higher rates.
I'm actually unclear at this point whether xDaunt doesn't know this stuff, is being intentionally obtuse, or just refusing to believe the stuff that doesn't align with what he already believes. .
|
Norway28781 Posts
On January 12 2019 08:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2019 08:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 12 2019 08:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2019 07:10 brian wrote:
note in the language you’ve quoted a specific ‘and capabilities,’ and in saying so then you think this is outside the capability of the local efforts and only the military is able(at least this i think i’ve learned elsewhere so please correct me if i’m wrong.) it seems obviously more than a bit of a stretch, to be very generous.
i mean the simple fact that he can waffle back and forth without any real life consequence should point a real ugly finger at how it’s clearly not a national emergency. A couple things. First, the statute that I cited isn't the real source of the president's authority to declare national emergency. The Constitution is. The statute (and related scheme) that I cited constitutes a further delegation of congressional authority to the president to act pursuant to his inherent constitutional powers. Second, you're focused on the wrong language. It goes without saying that the states and local authorities are incapable of handling issues of illegal immigration on their own. It's a national problem, which is why authority over those issues is vested in the federal government. The real language that you should be focusing on is the language concerning the safety of lives, protection of property, health, and safety. There is an ample record showing great harm to the US on all of these points from ills that could be stopped by securing the southern border with a wall. I discussed it previously with GH. The one error that I made is in limiting the discussion to the Wall and the impact that a Wall would have. When Trump talks about "the Wall," he's really talking about securing the southern border, including the lawful points of entry. This becomes apparent when looking at his proposals. Finally, the most important language in the statute is "in the determination of the President." This authority is his, and his alone, not to be second guessed by the courts. It's on this basis that his executive action in building a wall will ultimately be approved and succeed, even if it has to go to the Supreme Court. "he's really talking about" The Wall, that's the whole reason this isn't done already. Don't play daft please. Wrong. Like I pointed out, there are too many vested interests in allowing illegal immigration, which is why they would never allow the only real solution to stopping it along the southern border: including a wall in the package. Show nested quote +At least cut to the good part and tell us why you think this wouldn't then open up more liberal national emergency circumvention of congress? Good luck finding issues where Americans are dying and generally being materially harmed to the same extent as Americans are with illegal immigration. The record is incomparable.
You don't see how gun control or climate change can similarly affected following either school shootings or forest fires taking lives and destroying property? Like, what's the threshold for how many lives must be killed by x or how much property must be destroyed by x during x period of time before it's okay for the president to declare it a national emergency? I absolutely do not at all buy that illegal immigration causes more 'material damage' than the various already felt consequences of climate change, and if you look over projections for the next 20 years, 'the record will be incomparable'.
|
I think xDaunt’s point, to be put simply, is that the key word is illegal. None of the other things mentioned are technically illegal, but illegal immigration is, and that’s why xDaunt gives Trump the “OK” in this situation and not the others, because while he’s not happy about presidents having so much power, he’s at least using it to do his job of being the ultimate law enforcer and not trying to create new policies or something, which is not a president’s job.
That being said, there’s nothing in that statute he linked that specifies that the issue in question has to be illegal, so I don’t know if it has any bearing on anything besides xDaunt’s value system.
|
I see that 2020 is in the headlines with Castro (almost would vote for him just to hear all the lib pundits fawning over "President Castro")
He has 0 chance. He can't even make it to Super Tuesday let alone come out of it with enough delegates to be a serious contender.
Meanwhile Bernie is out to a less enthusiastic start but certainly ahead of everyone when it comes to organizers not beholden to local party elders and before even announcing is having hundreds of organizing events held in his name across the country.
http://map.organizingforbernie.com/
After Super Tuesday it will be Biden and Bernie (provided they run), then Beto, Harris, and Klobachar. If Biden and Bernie don't run it leaves room for some of the lesser candidates like Warren or Booker. Biden could also take a hard nose dive when people finally bother to look at his record.
They are all very awful though, can't even consider voting for any of them save Bernie (begrudgingly).
|
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me.
|
On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me.
Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024.
Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide)
That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind
|
GH ain’t falling for the glamour, skateboarding, or Spanish.
|
On January 13 2019 09:36 Danglars wrote:
GH ain’t falling for the glamour, skateboarding, or Spanish.
I mean Clinton was rough but at least they were right about her knowing how to manipulate the levers of power and being a legit wonk.
The fascination with Francis is barely skin deep and completely detached from the arguments that many of the people backing/showing interest in him made in 2016 for Hillary other than appealing to older more racist centrists.
|
On January 13 2019 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me. Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024. Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide) That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind
Why? He's the hot new thing, young, charismatic. People are a bit excited about him. Sure he's a relative neophyte but Trump's demonstrated that means nothing. Who knows? Maybe on the national stage he could make it work. Probably not but the chances are pretty good that Trump's getting re-elected no matter who he's up against; depends on the economy mostly. There's only been three 1 term Presidents since World War 2.
|
On January 13 2019 10:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me. Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024. Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide) That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind Why? He's the hot new thing, young, charismatic. People are a bit excited about him. Sure he's a relative neophyte but Trump's demonstrated that means nothing. Who knows? Maybe on the national stage he could make it work. Probably not but the chances are pretty good that Trump's getting re-elected no matter who he's up against; depends on the economy mostly. There's only been three 1 term Presidents since World War 2.
I mean I get it from a "I have some terrible politics I need to sell" perspective but for those that aren't grifting and genuinely have some sort of ideological core it makes 0 sense. There is absolutely nothing to him other than his aesthetic appeal from even a moderately left voter perspective.
It's peculiar especially because someone supportive of Hillary has to completely disregard the vast majority of arguments they made in favor of her in 2016 in order to support Francis and they seem to have done it without the slightest introspection.
|
Oh, I just saw that Julian Castro added himself to the list of individuals in the running. Seems like Democrats are still trying to push him despite the fact that he never did have the "Obama effect" of inspiring and rallying voters that they hoped he would have. Huh.
|
He has the face and the hispanic appeal I think to win but there is no chance this nation will vote a man with the last name as castro for president.
It has no real effect on anything real but jesus democrats you need to be better friends to eachother.
|
On January 13 2019 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 10:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 13 2019 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me. Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024. Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide) That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind Why? He's the hot new thing, young, charismatic. People are a bit excited about him. Sure he's a relative neophyte but Trump's demonstrated that means nothing. Who knows? Maybe on the national stage he could make it work. Probably not but the chances are pretty good that Trump's getting re-elected no matter who he's up against; depends on the economy mostly. There's only been three 1 term Presidents since World War 2. I mean I get it from a "I have some terrible politics I need to sell" perspective but for those that aren't grifting and genuinely have some sort of ideological core it makes 0 sense. There is absolutely nothing to him other than his aesthetic appeal from even a moderately left voter perspective. It's peculiar especially because someone supportive of Hillary has to completely disregard the vast majority of arguments they made in favor of her in 2016 in order to support Francis and they seem to have done it without the slightest introspection.
Beto has none of Clinton's advantages but he has none of her disadvantages either. There's no mental gymnastics required to support him; just a different set of recommendations. Just because you tend to view all Democrats as a generic gelid political sludge doesn't mean everyone else perceives them the same way.
Also, you know as well as I do that the US doesn't really have a left. It's been driven so right wing that the left is really kind of centre-ish left at best, for the most part.
Beyond that can't say much for the guy in either direction. He seems nice from what little I've seen, but don't know a lot about his politics. I figured he's probably a generic Democrat with a sharper tongue than most.
|
On January 13 2019 11:23 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 10:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 13 2019 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me. Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024. Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide) That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind Why? He's the hot new thing, young, charismatic. People are a bit excited about him. Sure he's a relative neophyte but Trump's demonstrated that means nothing. Who knows? Maybe on the national stage he could make it work. Probably not but the chances are pretty good that Trump's getting re-elected no matter who he's up against; depends on the economy mostly. There's only been three 1 term Presidents since World War 2. I mean I get it from a "I have some terrible politics I need to sell" perspective but for those that aren't grifting and genuinely have some sort of ideological core it makes 0 sense. There is absolutely nothing to him other than his aesthetic appeal from even a moderately left voter perspective. It's peculiar especially because someone supportive of Hillary has to completely disregard the vast majority of arguments they made in favor of her in 2016 in order to support Francis and they seem to have done it without the slightest introspection. Beto has none of Clinton's advantages but he has none of her disadvantages either. There's no mental gymnastics required to support him; just a different set of recommendations. Just because you tend to view all Democrats as a generic gelid political sludge doesn't mean everyone else perceives them the same way. Also, you know as well as I do that the US doesn't really have a left. It's been driven so right wing that the left is really kind of centre-ish left at best, for the most part. Beyond that can't say much for the guy in either direction. He seems nice from what little I've seen, but don't know a lot about his politics. I figured he's probably a generic Democrat with a sharper tongue than most.
Depends on if you consider backing Republican policy one of Clinton's disadvantages I suppose.
He's one of the least experienced or qualified candidates, that was a pretty big component of Hillary supporters argument going into 2016 that they are completely junking to be open to Francis.
|
I wonder what "mess" Corinne is referring too...Maybe shes a park ranger.
Edit: GH you removed your tweet now what I said makes zero sense 
|
On January 13 2019 13:18 Taelshin wrote:
I wonder what "mess" Corinne is referring too...Maybe shes a park ranger.
+ Show Spoiler +HillaryClinton is the ONLY solution for me. She is the only one with the knowledge and experience to fix this mess. #Hilary2020
Feels unfair to single her out (so I removed the tweet since it's context tweet was deleted anyway), but that's what I mean.
If they actually believe all the "she won the popular vote, Russia did it, yada yada" then Hillary is still the best candidate and people are running away from her to people that currently lose a head to head with Trump because they like the packaging better.
|
Yeah I honestly have no idea who Corrinne is and honestly I thought Hillary was going to win so i'm not in the habit of making predictions. I feel like Hillary might not be a great choice this go around, I'm looking at Biden and Harris. I don't know if Bernie will actually run but if he does id put him there as well. I am not as dialed in as some of you, so i'm confused why Gabbard is getting panned so heavily(seemingly from the left), she seems to cover a lot of bases but I don't know enough about her so i'll leave it there.
|
On January 13 2019 11:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 11:23 iamthedave wrote:On January 13 2019 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 10:07 iamthedave wrote:On January 13 2019 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2019 05:24 iamthedave wrote:
Hey, if he gets a begrudging vote it's more than you'd think of giving to the others. Points more towards Bernie for me. Bernie is just the best (and only potential Democrat primary contender) chance at doing enough over the next 4 years so that we still have a chance to course correct in 2024. Any other candidate is basically certain doom in my view (albeit not for myself directly and just hundreds of millions of people world wide) That people (that aren't Republicans) are even considering Beto blows my mind Why? He's the hot new thing, young, charismatic. People are a bit excited about him. Sure he's a relative neophyte but Trump's demonstrated that means nothing. Who knows? Maybe on the national stage he could make it work. Probably not but the chances are pretty good that Trump's getting re-elected no matter who he's up against; depends on the economy mostly. There's only been three 1 term Presidents since World War 2. I mean I get it from a "I have some terrible politics I need to sell" perspective but for those that aren't grifting and genuinely have some sort of ideological core it makes 0 sense. There is absolutely nothing to him other than his aesthetic appeal from even a moderately left voter perspective. It's peculiar especially because someone supportive of Hillary has to completely disregard the vast majority of arguments they made in favor of her in 2016 in order to support Francis and they seem to have done it without the slightest introspection. Beto has none of Clinton's advantages but he has none of her disadvantages either. There's no mental gymnastics required to support him; just a different set of recommendations. Just because you tend to view all Democrats as a generic gelid political sludge doesn't mean everyone else perceives them the same way. Also, you know as well as I do that the US doesn't really have a left. It's been driven so right wing that the left is really kind of centre-ish left at best, for the most part. Beyond that can't say much for the guy in either direction. He seems nice from what little I've seen, but don't know a lot about his politics. I figured he's probably a generic Democrat with a sharper tongue than most. Depends on if you consider backing Republican policy one of Clinton's disadvantages I suppose. He's one of the least experienced or qualified candidates, that was a pretty big component of Hillary supporters argument going into 2016 that they are completely junking to be open to Francis.
Which of the Republican policies does Beto back? And Clinton certainly supported some Republican stuff. Democrats usually do (to a degree)
You're right about the experience being a thing... but how much of that was because that was Clinton's only major upside?
On January 13 2019 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2019 13:18 Taelshin wrote:
I wonder what "mess" Corinne is referring too...Maybe shes a park ranger. + Show Spoiler +HillaryClinton is the ONLY solution for me. She is the only one with the knowledge and experience to fix this mess. #Hilary2020
Feels unfair to single her out (so I removed the tweet since it's context tweet was deleted anyway), but that's what I mean. If they actually believe all the "she won the popular vote, Russia did it, yada yada" then Hillary is still the best candidate and people are running away from her to people that currently lose a head to head with Trump because they like the packaging better.
Save now she's tried and failed, and would be running against the President who beat her. That's not a good look.
Bernie's surely the best candidate though? He doesn't have her experience at the top of the pile but he's been around the block for a looooooong time and he has a huge amount of ground support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
