| 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 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On February 16 2019 01:25 Doodsmack wrote: Trump today: "I didnt need to do this." Is he a smart person? Should we have presidents who arent smart? It's what happens when he doesn't have a teleprompter. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
Not only is there the whole court challenge aspect of it that Trump is likely to lose, but now the House Democrats can pass a bill challenging the emergency declaration and because of the rules around this stuff, the Senate is required to vote on it within 18 days. This is why McConnell was so against declaring an emergency. Now the Senate Republicans have to either support Trump subverting the law and building the wall, or vote against Trump (which is obviously a toxic thing for some of them to do given who they represent). Also, if the bill passes both the house and the senate, it has to be signed by Trump, who will likely veto it, meaning that they would then need 2/3rds support in both the house and the senate to get the bill through as veto-proof. This is a catch 22 situation for the Republicans. Either support using emergency declarations to pass an agenda or vote against your own leader. At the same time, the Democrats have nothing to lose here. They can force the Republicans into an incredibly awkward spot with little or no political risk. Also, apparently in a conference call today, WH staff confirmed that they would be using Eminent Domain to get the land required for the wall. That's surely to go over poorly in Texas. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On February 16 2019 02:22 Ben... wrote: I read an analysis (I'll try and find it. It was from CNN I think) on what is going to happen and this seems like it's really bad for the Republicans. Not only is there the whole court challenge aspect of it that Trump is likely to lose, but now the House Democrats can pass a bill challenging the emergency declaration and because of the rules around this stuff, the Senate is required to vote on it within 18 days. This is why McConnell was so against declaring an emergency. Now the Senate Republicans have to either support Trump subverting the law and building the wall, or vote against Trump (which is obviously a toxic thing for some of them to do given who they represent). Also, if the bill passes both the house and the senate, it has to be signed by Trump, who will likely veto it, meaning that they would then need 2/3rds support in both the house and the senate to get the bill through as veto-proof. This is a catch 22 situation for the Republicans. Either support using emergency declarations to pass an agenda or vote against your own leader. At the same time, the Democrats have nothing to lose here. They can force the Republicans into an incredibly awkward spot with little or no political risk. Also, apparently in a conference call today, WH staff confirmed that they would be using Eminent Domain to get the land required for the wall. That's surely to go over poorly in Texas. Yep, forcing Republican legislators to vote on the emergency workaround is a very beneficial to Democrats. There’s no more middle ground. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 16 2019 02:22 Ben... wrote: I read an analysis (I'll try and find it. It was from CNN I think) on what is going to happen and this seems like it's really bad for the Republicans. Not only is there the whole court challenge aspect of it that Trump is likely to lose, but now the House Democrats can pass a bill challenging the emergency declaration and because of the rules around this stuff, the Senate is required to vote on it within 18 days. This is why McConnell was so against declaring an emergency. Now the Senate Republicans have to either support Trump subverting the law and building the wall, or vote against Trump (which is obviously a toxic thing for some of them to do given who they represent). Also, if the bill passes both the house and the senate, it has to be signed by Trump, who will likely veto it, meaning that they would then need 2/3rds support in both the house and the senate to get the bill through as veto-proof. This is a catch 22 situation for the Republicans. Either support using emergency declarations to pass an agenda or vote against your own leader. At the same time, the Democrats have nothing to lose here. They can force the Republicans into an incredibly awkward spot with little or no political risk. Also, apparently in a conference call today, WH staff confirmed that they would be using Eminent Domain to get the land required for the wall. That's surely to go over poorly in Texas. Republicans essentially have 2 options: 1. No wall, no green deal in 2020 2. Wall, but also green deal in 2020 Very weird situation for them | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9625 Posts
On February 16 2019 01:28 Plansix wrote: And every lawyer working on a challenge to the State of Emergency starts updating their argument section while yelling “Fuck the old argument, he just said it isn’t necessary on live TV. Get a time stamp on that.” i couldn’t watch, did this actually happen or is it a little hyperbole? did he literally say he didn’t need to declare a national emergency? presumably in the context of ‘if congress would just do what i wanted,’ but either way that would be quite something. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
'But, I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster' + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Trump's love of his own voice a gift to everyone who opposes his bullshit because he doesn't listen to his lawyers when they tell him to shut the fuck up. This is just another example of that. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 16 2019 02:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The direct quote is 'But, I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster' + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMRo0x7_3c In other words the full quote and context makes it even worse for him lol. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 16 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote: That quote is choice. As more than a few attorneys have said already "That quote should be in the introduction to every complaint challenging this state of emergency". More than a couple said they would use it as the closing to every argument as to why the state of emergency wasn't necessary. Trump's love of his own voice a gift to everyone who opposes his bullshit because he doesn't listen to his lawyers when they tell him to shut the fuck up. This is just another example of that. I honestly think its not nearly as much of a liability. By saying he could let the issue rot a bit, but then saying he'd like to do it quickly, could perhaps even be support it is a real emergency. "This could be done slowly, but I want it done quickly" is the sort of thing you say about an emergency. | ||
|
brian
United States9625 Posts
On February 16 2019 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: I honestly think its not nearly as much of a liability. By saying he could let the issue rot a bit, but then saying he'd like to do it quickly, could perhaps even be support it is a real emergency. "This could be done slowly, but I want it done quickly" is the sort of thing you say about an emergency. what emergency could be be handled slowly? i don’t think anyone has ever said that in regards to an actual emergency. i don’t think anyone has looked at a fire and said ‘i think we could [fix this] over a longer period of time, but id rather to do it much faster.’ | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On February 16 2019 03:08 brian wrote: what emergency could be be handled slowly? i don’t think anyone has ever said that in regards to an actual emergency. I could take my time treating my appendicitis, but I won't, because it would be very bad if I didn't address it quickly. Saying you "could" do something is not the same as saying "I could, and nothing would be different". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
OK. Doesn't sound much of an emergency to me then. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 16 2019 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: I honestly think its not nearly as much of a liability. By saying he could let the issue rot a bit, but then saying he'd like to do it quickly, could perhaps even be support it is a real emergency. "This could be done slowly, but I want it done quickly" is the sort of thing you say about an emergency. I think you are missing the core argument. The Emergency Act is there to allow the president to act quickly in a crisis and free up money that would take a lot of time logistically to get through congress. But the foundation of the power is that is has to be used in a crisis, which has specific traits to qualify as a crisis. One which is that “time is of the essence”. That action is needed right away to prevent harm from being done. Trump just admitted on camera that this is not the case. He said he could do it slower, but he wants to speed it up by using the emergency powers. There is also the aspect that he is using the power to bypass the appropriations process, which is part of Congress's constitutional powers. The power of the purse is the bedrock of Congress’s power in the Federal Government. As a core check on the executive branch, laws like the Emergency Powers Act cannot be used to bypass congress’s power to control funding after losing a policy fight. It is something even the Republicans know is a problem, which is why some of them are saying it’s a terrible idea. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
