Well, It's Time... (The Wall) (1 Viewer)

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
42,559
Reaction score
35,196
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
Which Dems are “evil”? How do you define evil?

The democratic house just passed an additional 1.6 billion for border security. What funding are they blocking?

What project did he start?
I think you need to take a step back and recognize sarcasm better.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
53,697
Location
GBTR
Online
Fixed that for you.
I'd heard that that was the original amount as well, however the statement was correct. It would have been wrong if stated an additional 1.6 over what was originally requested.

So tired of gotcha politics...
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
42,559
Reaction score
35,196
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I finally found what I was listening to on NPR last week about Immigration reform, and the wall.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/675388201/politics-with-amy-walter

Today it's the most recent episode.

JANUARY 19, 2019
Immigration Impasse: Is Comprehensive Immigration Reform Impossible?

At the bottom, there is a button to play it. The meat of it starts about 3 minutes into it, but it's worth listening to the whole thing. They do a good job outlining the bipartisan support prior to 9/11.

Please give it a listen, it's a good history lesson on what happened before we got to this point.
 

Zztop

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
4,714
Reaction score
6,343
Offline
“In 21 days President [Trump] is moving forward building the wall with or without the Democrats,” tweeted press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

She continued: “The only outstanding question is whether the Democrats want something or nothing.”

(I wonder how exactly they think they'll be doing this?)
 

Goatman Saint

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 18, 1999
Messages
20,433
Reaction score
16,749
Age
47
Location
Between here and there
Offline
Let me rephrase Sanders. In 21 days Trump will throw a temper tantrum, shut down the government and declare a national emergency because he has tiny hands and Ann Coulter made fun of him”
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
26,263
Reaction score
42,886
Location
70005
Offline
Newell Normand proves himself yet again to be a partisan hack.

Even when I told him I agreed with him on some points, he'd ignore it and continue to try to make me appear uninformed about how bureaucracy works.

In telling him that I keep hearing callers and reading the same online in articles about how the democrats are hypocrites for voting for the border barriers back in 2006 but not for Trump's wall now - and supposedly only because it's Trump proposing it - I pointed out that they supported fencing and barriers in areas near legal ports of entry that were being flooded with illegal crossings and those barriers have worked extremely well. Pointed out that they don't support the current Trump proposal for new barriers in areas where no one is being caught trying to cross the border in the first place because of the obstacles presented by the terrain. He tried to claim that the $5.7 billion Trump is requesting is just to fix the sections of wall that are in disrepair. When I pointed out that he hasn't spent only 60% of the border wall money allocated to him in the last budget, that's when he said that I obviously don't know anything about how government procurement of funds works. When I asked what that means since the funds have already been procured, he then rambled about something that made no sense to me whatsoever - so much so that I can't even paraphrase it here - and then cut to commercial in the middle of me trying to tell him I appreciate his taking my call.

WWL is the absolute worst. I've got to give Scoot a little credit because he seems to be the only one who at least tries to remain as impartial and unbiased as possible, even though he seems to get a call a day where someone calls in who disagrees with whatever position he has by calling him a faggot on the air.
 
Last edited:

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,708
Reaction score
3,723
Age
56
Offline
...

In telling him that I keep hearing callers and reading the same online in articles about how the democrats are hypocrites for voting for the border barriers back in 2006 but not for Trump's wall now - and supposedly only because it's Trump proposing it - I pointed out that they supported fencing and barriers in areas near legal ports of entry that were being flooded with illegal crossings and those barriers have worked extremely well. Pointed out that they don't support the current Trump proposal for new barriers in areas where no one is being caught trying to cross the border in the first place because of the obstacles presented by the terrain. He tried to claim that the $5.7 billion Trump is requesting is just to fix the sections of wall that are in disrepair. When I pointed out that he hasn't spent only 60% of the border wall money allocated to him in the last budget, that's when he said that I obviously don't know anything about how government procurement of funds works. .....
Inside,
I haven't heard any discussion about studies showing whether barriers could be useful in areas that still don't have barriers. As you alluded to, I think all of the "low hanging fruit" areas without barriers have probably been dealt with. I know much of the remaining ~1300 without barriers, of the total ~2000 miles of total border, are areas which are difficult to pass, but has there been a study to determine if there still remain some areas where a wall would be useful? I know Trump is now asking for 200 more miles, but is that based on any analysis, or did he just pull that number from his rear? If it is nothing but a symbol of his anti-immigration persona, then it should not get another penny. If on the other hand, there is some value in some additional barriers, then I wouldn't oppose some additional barriers. Can anyone provide insights?
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
8,988
Reaction score
17,322
Offline
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

We already have a law that authorized physical barriers where we need it. This was debated by Democrats and Republicans, and this is what they came up with.

Now, it hasn’t all been built, but a new law is going to make it happen any sooner.

Trumps wall is a campaign promise. That’s all it is.
 

Saintamaniac

Purple & Gold for Life
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
3,501
Reaction score
6,511
Age
49
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
Newell Normand proves himself yet again to be a partisan hack.
Normand IS a partisan hack. He routinely misstates opposition policies and voting records and always finds a way to defend Republican positions. He's also big into whataboutisms and wrong on them as well. Normand can't hold Scoot's jock in trying to remain non-partisan.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
26,263
Reaction score
42,886
Location
70005
Offline
Inside,
I haven't heard any discussion about studies showing whether barriers could be useful in areas that still don't have barriers. As you alluded to, I think all of the "low hanging fruit" areas without barriers have probably been dealt with. I know much of the remaining ~1300 without barriers, of the total ~2000 miles of total border, are areas which are difficult to pass, but has there been a study to determine if there still remain some areas where a wall would be useful? I know Trump is now asking for 200 more miles, but is that based on any analysis, or did he just pull that number from his rear? If it is nothing but a symbol of his anti-immigration persona, then it should not get another penny. If on the other hand, there is some value in some additional barriers, then I wouldn't oppose some additional barriers. Can anyone provide insights?

From what I heard in interviews with the CPB agents who did the tour of the tunnel near San Diego, the agents said that the walls that have been put into place have been extremely effective because their close proximity to cities made them very desirable crossings since they could hurry up and get lost in a city like El Paso or San Diego if they weren't apprehended crossing. He also said that the stretches of border that don't have walls already were deemed as unnecessary (as pointed out by Phan above in the negotiations that were had to pass this bill in the first place) back in 2006 when they put up the currently successful walls. No one is crossing in these areas because the terrain is more difficult to cross than a wall would be, hence constructing walls in those areas would be pretty dumb, in their opinion (and mine too).
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
26,263
Reaction score
42,886
Location
70005
Offline
Normand IS a partisan hack. He routinely misstates opposition policies and voting records and always finds a way to defend Republican positions. He's also big into whataboutisms and wrong on them as well. Normand can't hold Scoot's jock in trying to remain non-partisan.
Yup, couldn't agree more. I really can't stand that his show's tagline is actually "Speaking Truth to Power" - like he wasn't a part of that machine of power just a little more than two years ago. He was crooked as a sheriff and routinely allowed prisoners to be beat and go without being fed as a punishment for more than a day at a time in his jail. But now that he's retired, he's acting like he's pure as the driven snow, hasn't supported Republicans - and Republicans ONLY - for as long as I can remember and is the voice of the little guy while constantly putting the little guy down whenever they call into his show.
 

superchuck500

tiny changes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
46,334
Reaction score
60,964
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Online
So apparently yesterday Sen. Lindsay Graham said that Trump should move forward with his emergency declaration if he can't get wall funding from Congress.




It is quite a remarkable statement from a senator who seems willing to advocate an unconstitutional undermining of the congressional power of the purse, and the very pillar of government in which he sits.

Conor Friedersdorf, the staff conservative at the Atlantic writes:

The Framers assumed that those elected to the co-equal branch would jealously guard their power, at times even to excess. Instead, Graham has become so focused on currying favor with the president that he is betraying one of his core constitutional responsibilities in order to play sycophant. In doing so, he is exacerbating an imperial presidency that grew under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. “Each abuse builds on the next,” writes David French, who concludes, “The loser is our constitutional republic.”

It is bad enough when presidents, their staffers, and their apologists undermine the separation of powers in favor of the executive branch. It is even worse when a legislator joins in undermining his own branch. There is only one position for a responsible U.S. senator: If the White House fails to reach a deal with Congress on a border wall, it simply doesn’t happen.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/lindsey-graham-wall/581500/

And in this piece, also published at Atlantic, Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on executive power (and abuse) at the Brennan Center writes that emergency power is very specifically not constitutional when its sole impetus is that Congress refuses funds for a project the president desires:

Here’s how the legal process for emergency powers works: Under the National Emergencies Act, passed by Congress in 1976, the president has broad discretion to declare a national emergency. Upon issuing the declaration, he gains access to special authorities provided in 123 provisions of law that have been enacted over many decades. These laws authorize presidential action across all areas of government, from military deployment to agricultural exports to energy production. Like an advance medical directive, in which a patient specifies actions a doctor may take in a range of extreme situations when the patient cannot make her wishes known, they represent Congress’s best guess as to what powers a president might need in a crisis that is unfolding too quickly for Congress to respond.

As this legal framework makes clear, emergency powers are not a license for the president to sidestep Congress. To the contrary: The only powers the president can access during a national emergency are those Congress has granted. However potent some of these powers might be, the source of the president’s authority in all cases remains a legislative delegation—one that is granted in advance because true emergencies require immediate action. A president using emergency powers to thwart Congress’s will, in a situation where Congress has had ample time to express it, is like a doctor relying on an advance directive to deny life-saving treatment to a patient who is conscious and clearly asking to be saved.

Of course, Trump’s hesitation also belies his claim that there is an emergency at the border. Presidents don’t dawdle in the face of real emergencies. President George W. Bush did not spend weeks scratching his head about whether to issue an emergency declaration after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But even if a real crisis existed, emergency powers are designed for situations in which Congress has no time to act. If Congress does have time, then there is no justification for bypassing the ordinary legislative process.

Indeed, the more time Congress has to act—and the more times it votes against providing the funding the president has asked for—the clearer it becomes that an emergency declaration in this case would be designed as an end run around the Constitution. Article I provides that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This provision is one of the Constitution’s most important checks against executive-branch overreach. Congress has now consistently declined to appropriate funding for the border wall. Whatever deference judges might owe to the president’s assessment of what constitutes an emergency, an interpretation of the National Emergencies Act that would allow the president to engage in an expenditure of funds for which Congress has expressly withheld consent cannot be squared with the Constitution.
More at https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-has-no-case-national-emergency/581356/
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
26,263
Reaction score
42,886
Location
70005
Offline
So apparently yesterday Sen. Lindsay Graham said that Trump should move forward with his emergency declaration if he can't get wall funding from Congress.
Am I ignorant in my understanding that if Trump were to suddenly declare a state of emergency at the southern border that it'd be immediately challenged in the courts (I believe I heard it'd be in the 9th circuit as well, which hasn't been too kind to Trump's most idiotic demands and actions) and be tied up for quite some time?

Wouldn't this prevent him from possibly getting any money for his wall even longer than it would if he'd actually negotiate?
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
22,340
Reaction score
53,697
Location
GBTR
Online
Am I ignorant in my understanding that if Trump were to suddenly declare a state of emergency at the southern border that it'd be immediately challenged in the courts (I believe I heard it'd be in the 9th circuit as well, which hasn't been too kind to Trump's most idiotic demands and actions) and be tied up for quite some time?

Wouldn't this prevent him from possibly getting any money for his wall even longer than it would if he'd actually negotiate?
It's not about the negotiation. It's not about the wall. It's not about the 'emergency'.

It's about the wedge of being able to claim Dem's are obstructionists. It's about being able to claim to fight those evil snowflakes. It's about keeping power and profits.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Twitter

Headlines

Saints Headlines (Official Site)

Top Bottom