EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1118
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32736 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18811 Posts
 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Now I need a full Senate vs House fight. Bring it to me. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 15 2019 05:16 PhoenixVoid wrote: McConnell says Trump will sign the funding bill, but then declare an emergency on the border for wall money. With how much the Republicans were leaning towards not using the emergency declaration for fear of a precedent for the Democrats, has me a bit surprised. Then again, this is Trump and he needs the boost to say he is getting the wall built than the measly $1.4 billion (was it?) the bill allocated. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1096139983914708993 Will be interesting to see how the courts decide the emergency issue, and whether the fact that Trump is simultaneously obtaining a funding bill from Congress and also obtaining his own funding sources changes things. One might think that the lawmaking process, which is for the purpose of obtaining funding, undermines the notion that funding can be obtained from other sources. On February 15 2019 05:20 farvacola wrote: So the House can pass a resolution that disapproves of the President’s emergency declaration and effectively halts it. The only way around that is a 60 approval vote in the Senate. Which is all to say that things are gonna get juicy Doesn't it have to pass the Senate as well before it becomes effective? And then it's subject to veto? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21157 Posts
On February 15 2019 05:16 PhoenixVoid wrote: I mean, that statement alone is enough for Democrats to withdraw support for the bill right?McConnell says Trump will sign the funding bill, but then declare an emergency on the border for wall money. With how much the Republicans were leaning towards not using the emergency declaration for fear of a precedent for the Democrats, has me a bit surprised. Then again, this is Trump and he needs the boost to say he is getting the wall built than the measly $1.4 billion (was it?) the bill allocated. https://twitter.com/AP/status/1096139983914708993 Don't accept threats, send a clean bill to the Senate and let them close down the government again if they have the balls for it. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On February 15 2019 05:30 Gorsameth wrote: I mean, that statement alone is enough for Democrats to withdraw support for the bill right? Don't accept threats, send a clean bill to the Senate and let them close down the government again if they have the balls for it. Nah, I think the dems still need to send the bill. To go ' we have a solution in place, this emergency is bunk' it is really hard to argue in court that you need to declare an emergency when they just passed a law to fix the issue | ||
|
farvacola
United States18811 Posts
On February 15 2019 05:28 Doodsmack wrote: Will be interesting to see how the courts decide the emergency issue, and whether the fact that Trump is simultaneously obtaining a funding bill from Congress and also obtaining his own funding sources changes things. One might think that the lawmaking process, which is for the purpose of obtaining funding, undermines the notion that funding can be obtained from other sources. Doesn't it have to pass the Senate as well before it becomes effective? And then it's subject to veto? Yep, but forcing the senate to vote is where the juice runs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2019 05:30 Gorsameth wrote: I mean, that statement alone is enough for Democrats to withdraw support for the bill right? Don't accept threats, send a clean bill to the Senate and let them close down the government again if they have the balls for it. The state of emergency will be locked up in the courts. Nothing will happen. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
We'll see if "nothing's gonna happen", because i'm not even remotely convinced about that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18811 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
At worst, you guys waste a lot of money on nonsense. This isn't the first time and certainly not the last time. What this does do is that in case the SC rules that "national emergency" can be any made up bullshit, we'll have way more fun ones in the future. For example declaring a national emergency over sharp raise in mental health problems. Or declaring a national emergency to throw funds at Obamacare. Of course, less simplified, but the general gist should be clear. Because the next democratic president won't have forgotten how Trump used this to free up dozens of billions of dollars. If the SC rules that "dem brown piopel thou!" isn't enough justification for a national emergency (especially through "loopholes" that are purely military), well.. Guess that's okay too. The only question is how much money will be wasted. And make no mistake, there will be wasted money either way. That's what i meant by "nothings gonna happen" is bs. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Because we are going to waste 32 billion dollars. It is going to happen. So lets do it in the dumbest and most politically advantageous way possible. Edit: In a related story, the border patrol has increased harassment of attorneys, volunteers, and journalists who cross the border, subjecting them to searches and copying documents from their digital devices. They are also flagging people, often US citizens, they see as trouble makers to be stopped my Mexican authorities upon returning to the US. So you know, abuses of government power against due process and the first amendment. Just a typical day in the Trump administration. http://www.nprillinois.org/post/increasing-number-us-volunteers-journalists-and-lawyers-face-border-crossing-hassles#stream/0 | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Didn't work for Truman doubt it will work now. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32736 Posts
@lisamurkowski: “I don’t think this is a matter that should be declared a national emergency. We as legislators are tying to address the president’s priority. What we’re voting on now is perhaps an imperfect solution, but it’s one we could get consensus on.” @SenatorCollins: “I don’t believe that the National Emergencies Act contemplated a president repurposing billions of $ outside the normal appropriations process. I also believe it will be challenged in court & is of dubious constitutionality. It undermines the role of Congress” On February 15 2019 06:29 Plansix wrote: Good, now we can end this political drama and this can be fought in the courts. Without this issue, Trump will need to create a new crisis or risk having the airwaves overtaken by the endless investigations coming his way. Edit: Please, those senators can put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the President if they want. The Democrats would be happy to help. Yep, I'm still waiting on action from said senators, because there's plenty of words and concern but when it comes to voting time I see this turnaround way too often. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: Please, those senators can put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the President if they want. The Democrats would be happy to help. | ||
| ||
