grinreaper Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which is in congrss’s realm, might be. im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least (I don’t even know the likelihood of this working) also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it. So, Obama's reallocation of 1.5 billion dollars so he could send cash to Iran was ok? Did you object at the time? 1
Bray Wyatt Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which is in congrss’s realm, might be. im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least (I don’t even know the likelihood of this working) also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it. I dont like the idea of using a national emergency to do it, as like you said it sets a bad precedent. I am also wondering why he waited to have the bill passed before he sent out the declaration, there has to be a reason Edited February 15, 2019 by Bray Wyatt 1 1
B-Man Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: As you can see, rather than trying to after they debunk our argument with facts,, we ignore it. they like to laugh at our cowardice , all that leaves us is to resort to namecalling. It's We're sad and pathetic really. Repaired. Nancy Pelosi’s Threat To President Trump If He Declares A National Emergency Rings Hollow FTA: Let’s cut through the bullsh**. No Democrat and no place at no time on no subject has ever been constrained from doing what they wanted to do because a GOP president had not done it before. It wasn’t a Republican White House that chortled, “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” If the Democrats thought they could get away addressing any of their goals of reshaping America into just another totalitarian Third World sh** hole they would have done so by now. And no, the fact that Trump declares this particular emergency doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on our ability to criticize future presidents declaring national emergencies we oppose. As they say, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If you want an example of what a foolish but consistent hobgoblinish mind looks like, this is an example. Quote Steven Dennis ✔@StevenTDennis Spent 8 years hearing Republican speeches opposing unilateral presidential action against the will of Congress, against Chevron deference, etc. Now their leaders are embracing emergency powers to transfer billions for the president’s priorities Congress just refused to fund. Quote Steven Dennis ✔@StevenTDennis A lot of Democrats embraced Obama unilateral actions when Congress refused to enact his priorities - DACA, DAPA, climate regs, etc. Some Rs now saying, well Obama did X Y Z (which they railed about at the time)... 8:47 AM - Feb 15, 2019 Building a freakin fence is not the same as giving 6 million legal residency by legal fiat. Reprogramming existing funds is not the same as restructuring the entire US economy based on the nitwittery of climate change models. You don’t have to agree with a Trump national emergency to have enough brain power to see when things are not the same. I’m pretty much agnostic on the National Emergency idea. I think the bill should be vetoed because it is a horrible bill. But among the reasons to oppose it, believing that doing so will make Democrats act rational in the future is not one of them. . Edited February 15, 2019 by B-Man 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which Is in congrss’s realm, might be. im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least. also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it. The conservatives on here, almost to a person, have worried aloud about the precedent this will set. But isn't it more prudent to wait and read what is being signed before opining about it's long term effects? I'm not a conservative and I worry about it as well - but let's not put the cart before the horse. The issue of the wall is about more than what we're being publicly told. There are lots of pieces being moved behind the scenes. My personal concern has focused on human trafficking since the start of this whole debate - it's a real scourge that must be confronted honestly if we're going to hope to stop it. Lots of people in the media, lots of people in DC, profit directly from NOT closing down trafficking lanes on the southern border. Those are the people pushing the hardest against it - and doing so dishonestly. The spending bill (if he signs it, it's still not confirmed he will) ends Sept 30th. It's loaded with poison pills. Trump will take the money he's able to take through his role as CiC and use the military to do the building. This is his constitutional right (securing the borders) - he can get that money without working around congressional appropriation. If that's where the money movement stops (which is what I expect), it'll be enough for him to build sections of the wall in needed areas while he runs out the clock on this spending bill. His plan then will be to win in 2020 and get the full funding when the House flips back.
Numark3 Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, grinreaper said: So, Obama's reallocation of 1.5 billion dollars so he could send cash to Iran was ok? Did you object at the time? Do you only think with us verse them mind? I didn’t mention Obama. I didn’t mention if I thought it was constitutional (I have no idea and don’t care that much). I just asked if you could see the argument against it. You responding by talking about Obama says it all.
Numark3 Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The conservatives on here, almost to a person, have worried aloud about the precedent this will set. But isn't it more prudent to wait and read what is being signed before opining about it's long term effects? I'm not a conservative and I worry about it as well - but let's not put the cart before the horse. Agreed, but worries that it is unconstitutional seem to be more than orange man bad. Seems like a fair argument to make Quote The issue of the wall is about more than what we're being publicly told. There are lots of pieces being moved behind the scenes. My personal concern has focused on human trafficking since the start of this whole debate - it's a real scourge that must be confronted honestly if we're going to hope to stop it. Lots of people in the media, lots of people in DC, profit directly from NOT closing down trafficking lanes on the southern border. Those are the people pushing the hardest against it - and doing so dishonestly. I fully get your position on this, and it’s just really complicated. Even if a wall helps in some respects, it could hurt on a logicial level. There are plenty of people here illegally that would almost assuredly been a victim of a crime, whether it’s violent or sexual, if they didn’t get the ***** out of Central America. I have spoken to people seeking asylum where their family members back home have since been murdered, raped, or recruited (by force) to gangs. So that’s an example of someone coming here illegally that avoided that. And I get your point about some people here illegally are sex trafficking victims. So we have examples of people suffering because of illegal immigration (though perhaps they would still face that if there weren’t able to cross the border?), and examples of people avoiding suffering because illegal immigration. Edit: my only point is good and bad comes through the border. It’s tough to see the net effect tbh. My opinions always been that it’s worth it to help the good that come over the border. And with respect to human trafficking, even with a perfect wall that stops the US from being a consumer of sex trafficking victims, it’s tough to say what that has on the impact of sex trafficking on the whole. Edited February 15, 2019 by Crayola64
boyst Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 24 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Thanks, I am going to stop asking questions now lol. TDS. Trump derangement syndrome NPC. Non playable character. Like those shaded out characters you can't use in videos games that just do what they're supposed to by the computer overlord. Predictable every time Pen15 - @TakeYouToTasker favorite club 1
Cinga Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Conservatives on the board, don’t you at least see the argument against this? it’s not that national emergencies are unconstitutional, but using a national emergency as a mask to allot funds, which is in congrss’s realm, might be. im not predicting how it’s going to turn out, but it seems like a fair argument at least (I don’t even know the likelihood of this working) also, this is the exact type of thing I would imagine would make their heads explode if a Democrat president did it. It goes to show both sides are okay with whatever depending on who does it. Well there is still the OTHER alternative which is actually my personal favorite as I would have long ago... Begin to arrest Congress critters for violating their oath of office to the Constitution which stipulates one of the federal governments main responsibilities (and arguably the only one) id to protect the US and it's people... Every single one of them who vote for an open border are guilty.... Can we send them to Gitmo now? 3
The_Dude Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 What fast food joint makes the best burgers? I say Culver’s.
Numark3 Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Cinga said: Well there is still the OTHER alternative which is actually my personal favorite as I would have long ago... Begin to arrest Congress critters for violating their oath of office to the Constitution which stipulates one of the federal governments main responsibilities (and arguably the only one) id to protect the US and it's people... Every single one of them who vote for an open border are guilty.... Can we send them to Gitmo now? Thats fair lol
The_Dude Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: TDS. Trump derangement syndrome NPC. Non playable character. Like those shaded out characters you can't use in videos games that just do what they're supposed to by the computer overlord. Predictable every time Pen15 - @TakeYouToTasker favorite club Id wager a weeks salary that Tasker is an incel who’s never smashed.
Bray Wyatt Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 Just now, The_Dude said: Id wager a weeks salary that Tasker is an incel who’s never smashed. Smashed??
Tiberius Posted February 15, 2019 Author Posted February 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, The_Dude said: What fast food joint makes the best burgers? I say Culver’s. I like the Burger King double cheeseburger
The_Dude Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said: Smashed?? That’d be the only smash he gets.
Cinga Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, The_Dude said: What fast food joint makes the best burgers? I say Culver’s. In N Out is pretty good
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No no no. You don't get off that easy. I tried for months to honestly converse (not even debate, just converse) with you on the topic of Trump/Russia. You refused to honestly engage, and the longer you tried to participate the more apparent it became to all that you're incapable of honestly discussing a topic without falling back on your pre-programmed talking points. You've been exposed as being an NPC down here because you've earned that title. You could reverse that by having an honest conversation, yet you won't. When presented with facts or ideas which butt against your programming, you plug your ears and run away. The truth is walls are needed to stem the flow of human trafficking. It's backed up by nearly every single expert and history. To argue that walls can "easily be circumvented with tunnels or ladders" is to miss the point in an attempt to deflect the conversation back to your talking points. How many times have you gone to the border to see the issues for yourself? None? How many CBP, DHS, or ICE agents or officers have you met with, sat down with, conversed with to hear what they go through on a daily basis? How many times have you gone on a ride along with those agents on the border to see for yourself what's really happening down there? How many victims of human trafficking (who were brought over the southern border) have you spoken with? How many hands have you held while they cry relaying the horrors they endured? None. Yet, people who HAVE done those things you ignore because you've been programmed to ignore anything that does not fit into the box of goods you've been sold by your partisan leaders. This sounds like an awful case of Feelz you have there. Do you get why talking to you is so frustrating? I provide hard data and facts and you declare them " pre-programmed talking points". You then glide over them and present anecdotal evidence. I provide anecdotal evidence that runs counter to you. You scream "feelz" You're never going to change. The good news is, people are finally seeing how full of ***** you are.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 8 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I fully get your position on this, and it’s just really complicated. Even if a wall helps in some respects, it could hurt on a logicial level. There are plenty of people here illegally that would almost assuredly been a victim of a crime, whether it’s violent or sexual, if they didn’t get the ***** out of Central America. I have spoken to people seeking asylum where their family members back home have since been murdered, raped, or recruited (by force) to gangs. So that’s an example of someone coming here illegally that avoided that. And I get your point about some people here illegally are sex trafficking victims. A wall does not prevent people from seeking asylum through the legal means available at ports of entry. In fact, a wall would help those people by forcing them to go through the ports of entry rather than risk crossing illegally. The wall really isn't about immigration. It's about stopping trafficking and smuggling from a tactical/strategic perspective while acting as a deterrent for possible illegals. Conflating the wall with immigration is Trump's biggest shortcoming on this issue. But it's the only way he can get traction, since no one in the media or DC wants to talk about trafficking - or didn't want to talk about it until Trump forced their hand. That alone is interesting... 11 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: So we have examples of people suffering because of illegal immigration (though perhaps they would still face that if there weren’t able to cross the border?), and examples of people avoiding suffering because illegal immigration. It's really simple. Do you believe that every person on the planet has an inherent right to be an American if they so choose? If you do, then this statement makes sense. If you don't, then you should be able to see why it's problematic.
The_Dude Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Cinga said: In N Out is pretty good It is. I’ve only partaken once but it was good.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said: This sounds like an awful case of Feelz you have there. Do you get why talking to you is so frustrating? I provide hard data and facts and you declare them " pre-programmed talking points". You then glide over them and present anecdotal evidence. I provide anecdotal evidence that runs counter to you. You scream "feelz" You're never going to change. The good news is, people are finally seeing how full of ***** you are. It's not feels. It's facts. You haven't done the due diligence on this topic, yet want to be treated as if your statements are unimpeachable because they come from the media/dnc talking points/bought and paid for experts. You could, rather simply, do the due diligence yourself as I have and you'd see, rather quickly, how wrong you are on all of this. But you won't. Why? As for the bolded: They are? They're seeing through the two+ years of evidence and sources I provided (let alone the 15+ years of posting prior)? You just make stuff up. That's why you keep losing so badly in these discussions. Edited February 15, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1
The_Dude Posted February 15, 2019 Posted February 15, 2019 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I like the Burger King double cheeseburger I remember the first BK to open in Iraq. Best whopper I’ve ever had. Waited in line for like an hour.
Recommended Posts