• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump just killed the emergency act move

PIPEWRENCH said:
No question the problem is Trump. He is not a party puppet. He is not supported by either party. The rich and powerful want him gone. They don't own him or control him. He was not supposed to happen. Our choice of candidate R or D both funded and owned by the rich should be in the white house not Trump.

Trump could create peace in the Middle East, put everyone to work at middle class wages and provide health care for everyone on the planet and the media would find some way to make it into something bad.

Let's face the facts. The great job by Bush and Obama on immigration has 10 to 20 times as many people in this country illegally as our immigration policy allows every year. When you are 50% wrong that is terrible and a failure but when you are over 1000% wrong that is a disaster, a crisis of epic proportions, not an accomplishment.
Click to expand...
I was speaking to Trump's failure at the border wall with respect to G.W. & Obama, but fair enough. I can respect your thoughts here, and I agree in general. I diverge with you on Trump - the man - specifically, though. Because, I see him as a con & charlatan, and can't stand him.

Remove the xenophobia and racial animus, and there's much in general about his message that has merit (on the surface). But he's the wrong messenger with the wrong tactics, in my opinion ...
 
Chomsky said:
I was speaking to Trump's failure at the border wall with respect to G.W. & Obama, but fair enough. I can respect your thoughts here, and I agree in general. I diverge with you on Trump - the man - specifically, though. Because, I see him as a con & charlatan, and can't stand him.

Remove the xenophobia and racial animus, and there's much in general about his message that has merit (on the surface). But he's the wrong messenger with the wrong tactics, in my opinion ...
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you are saying to hell with the message...kill the messenger.
 
Mycroft said:
Sounds to me like you are saying to hell with the message...kill the messenger.
Click to expand...
Too a point, yeah. For the good he may do, I feel he does far more bad. He's not worth the drama and stress. Kinda' like being in a bad relationship ...
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
No question the problem is Trump. He is not a party puppet. He is not supported by either party. The rich and powerful want him gone. They don't own him or control him. He was not supposed to happen. Our choice of candidate R or D both funded and owned by the rich should be in the white house not Trump.

Trump could create peace in the Middle East, put everyone to work at middle class wages and provide health care for everyone on the planet and the media would find some way to make it into something bad.

Let's face the facts. The great job by Bush and Obama on immigration has 10 to 20 times as many people in this country illegally as our immigration policy allows every year. When you are 50% wrong that is terrible and a failure but when you are over 1000% wrong that is a disaster, a crisis of epic proportions, not an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

That's not really fair. I guess it depends on the source, but everything I've seen is the 'illegal' population has been steady or declining from the tail end of Bush II and through Obama, with new arrivals offset roughly 1-1 with voluntary and involuntary departures. There are many times more agents on the border, the immigration courts are operating at way above capacity, we've caught and deported far more in that era than previously, and everyone supports kicking out the criminal elements and we did a lot of that.

Further, for years now at least more than half and by some estimates as many as 3/4th of the newly arriving 'illegals' arrive here totally legally and stay, in large part (and an essential part of the "problem" - in quotes because it's not a problem for the big boys) because of employers like Donald J. Trump who hire them and keep them on the job and do not care about legal status, which Trump's demands here do not address, and which Trump didn't care about at least through 2019.
 
JasperL said:
To your point, his White House budget request was for $1.6 billion and 64 miles, and he could have easily gotten that and no shutdown. What he couldn't do was pull a new number ($5.7 billion!!) from his rear end in December after watching Fox and Friends and jam it through a Democratic House headed up by Pelosi, especially after having spent the last two years publicly trashing Democrats and scare mongering non-stop on the Wall during the 2018 elections, thus poisoning the well for Democrats to compromise with him, or he with them.

But, yeah, all that you said is absolutely the case.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe if he would have negotiated respectfully and in good faith, he could have gotten a more than the originally offered $1.6B!

But once he shut-down the government, he froze the board; no way could the Dems reward his bad behaviour setting a precedent. Which is why he would never get the original 1.6B or greater, after the shutdown. He had to be taught a lesson - 1.3B. And we still haven't heard all the details of the Poison Pills and Trojan Horses in the bill he signed. I bet there's many!
 
Mycroft said:
Sounds to me like you are saying to hell with the message...kill the messenger.
Click to expand...

The message and the messenger matter in politics. He can't spend years crapping on illegal immigrants as rapists, gang members, mass murderers, etc. and in a way that brought cheers from white supremacists and other bigots and dirtbags, then wonder why the well was poisoned as far as cooperating with Democrats on immigration.
 
Chomsky said:
Too a point, yeah. For the good he may do, I feel he does far more bad. He's not worth the drama and stress. Kinda' like being in a bad relationship ...
Click to expand...



Speaking with some on line friends in a chat room last night, I was asked about how "The Wall" or any seriously controversial subject would be handled in Canada.

I used Canada's pipeline debate, where many divergent interests are impacted, from natives, to land owners, etc.

I explained that constitutionally Canada must "consult" with all interested parties and anyone affected. The negotiations begin and once everyone is reasonably satisfied the pipeline goes ahead. We Just approved a doubling of the South Pacific route (south for us - 49th parallel). It took seven years

They were appalled at the "delay".

But, all concerned are quieted, their concerns addressed, the "anti" side now are extremists and no one even got high blood pressure.

And our mirror image is that of an obstinate child insists on going ahead with a questionably effective project by using a questionable method, angering half the population.

Your system does not lend itself to the co-operative involvement approach, it seems anything big has to become a war before anything happens, and then when party fortunes change, they get undone.

I do not consider what is happening to Obamacare to be in any way part of any 'democratic' process, nor would I say is the Wall anything but the will of a dictator.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Speaking with some on line friends in a chat room last night, I was asked about how "The Wall" or any seriously controversial subject would be handled in Canada.

I used Canada's pipeline debate, where many divergent interests are impacted, from natives, to land owners, etc.

I explained that constitutionally Canada must "consult" with all interested parties and anyone affected. The negotiations begin and once everyone is reasonably satisfied the pipeline goes ahead. We Just approved a doubling of the South Pacific route (south for us - 49th parallel). It took seven years

They were appalled at the "delay".

But, all concerned are quieted, their concerns addressed, the "anti" side now are extremists and no one even got high blood pressure.

And our mirror image is that of an obstinate child insists on going ahead with a questionably effective project by using a questionable method, angering half the population.

Your system does not lend itself to the co-operative involvement approach, it seems anything big has to become a war before anything happens, and then when party fortunes change, they get undone.

I do not consider what is happening to Obamacare to be in any way part of any 'democratic' process, nor would I say is the Wall anything but the will of a dictator.
Click to expand...
You don't remember Churchill's quote?

"Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."
 
Chomsky said:
You don't remember Churchill's quote?

"Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."
Click to expand...



In fact I think of it regularly...and only an outsider can really see it. So often I am struck by the debate where only TWO options, neither valid, are all that is on the table.

An American theologian was lecturing here right after Obamacare was announced. You will recall it was chaos, 'the people' really were "losing their plans" and it looked like another complete **** up.

During the question session I asked him about Obamacare as he had said our system was more "Christlike" in its aim. He stated to the effect that one day, down the road, when even "little island countries" (his then home was Barbadoes) would have universal health care, and then, after much more debate would the US bend and accept what should have been natural from the beginning. I then informed him that Cuba was a "little island country" and already had universal care.

HE replied "that's why Americans fear it, they think its communist."
 
JasperL said:
The message and the messenger matter in politics. He can't spend years crapping on illegal immigrants as rapists, gang members, mass murderers, etc. and in a way that brought cheers from white supremacists and other bigots and dirtbags, then wonder why the well was poisoned as far as cooperating with Democrats on immigration.
Click to expand...
When you get down to it, here is the absurd chronology of the President's negotiation prowess:

25B offered

25B turned down

1.6B offered

5.6B counter offered

Offer reduced to 1.3B

Emeregency Declared!

What the hell kind of negotiation was that? :doh
 
bullseyelqcs said:
I'm not the one in a hole, you are. Enjoying it just makes you a masochist.

First off, I'm not even the one who detailed how many votes they would or wouldn't have had...you were...or do I need to remind you of your own words? I'll do that just so everyone else can keep up, since I have a sneaking suspicion you won't be:



Those were YOUR words in post 296. YOU detailed how many votes they would have actually had, not me. To be fair, you may have been a stopped clock and only gotten it right because we checked you at the precisely correct time to do so, but you were right about your count nonetheless. You are the one who made the claim that they actually had 60 votes, which, by the way, would have been enough to call the vote to cloture, but that is something else I don't have time to explain to you on top of this. By YOUR numbers, they had 9 votes more than they would have needed for reconciliation (or the nuclear option, since you prefer that phrase....its all the same either way), and so they could have EASILY passed any bill they wanted to without fear of anything other than the President forgetting what his stance was on that particular day and accidentally vetoing it because one of his handlers didn't tell him to sign the damned bill.

Now to address your question about why they didn't pass a bill if they had 60 votes. I've said that to you multiple times already as well. The reason they didn't pass anything even though they had more than enough votes is because when they had more than enough votes, this wasn't an emergency to them. Thats been the whole point this whole time. Its really that simple. They could have passed whatever the hell they wanted to, and they chose to pass tax cuts for the rich and fill a Supreme Court seat with a less than deserving candidate. THOSE were the things (among others) that were more important than getting the money for the wall budgeted.

So in the interest of full disclosure....NO, I can't actually explain why they didn't pass a bill to pay for the wall. I cannot for the life of me figure out why when they could have done basically anything they wanted, they dithered around and wasted the opportunity. I have my suspicions, but they are just that.
Click to expand...
lol...ok Mr. its a majority, its 51, no wait its answered in post 80, no wait the answer is 60...you still havent factually answered either question...please list the two questions I asked then write only a number after each one. The two questions I have can be factually answered using 4 digits. If you dont want to answer or troll me again that will be the last post I read from you.
 
Grand Mal said:
And that's the standard you all compare Trump too.
Click to expand...

Trump's policies have been spot on and successful. I've sent you both of Obama's failure and Trumps success. You can go down the lists and compare for yourself.

Who was a better President, Trump
Click to expand...

Obama vs Trump, If you look at Obama's list of failures vs Trump successes, it's night and day.


Why do you guys always compare him to the worst President ever?
Click to expand...

We are comparing our last President to our current President, which is a common comparison as Trump presidency overlaps Obama's

And it's fair enough to snip my post if you're only going to reply to one sentence but it's pretty stupid to snip the context out of the sentence. About what we expect from low-functioning right-whingers, though.
Click to expand...

The proof is laid out for you, just compare Obama's failures vs Trump's successes. It's right in your face who is was low-functioning.

The problem is you libs can't cover for Obama's policies failure, and you hate Trump's successes.
 
Fearandloathing said:
In fact I think of it regularly...and only an outsider can really see it. So often I am struck by the debate where only TWO options, neither valid, are all that is on the table.

An American theologian was lecturing here right after Obamacare was announced. You will recall it was chaos, 'the people' really were "losing their plans" and it looked like another complete **** up.

During the question session I asked him about Obamacare as he had said our system was more "Christlike" in its aim. He stated to the effect that one day, down the road, when even "little island countries" (his then home was Barbadoes) would have universal health care, and then, after much more debate would the US bend and accept what should have been natural from the beginning. I then informed him that Cuba was a "little island country" and already had universal care.

HE replied "that's why Americans fear it, they think its communist."
Click to expand...
The reason for America's healthcare failure is far more sinister:

Monied and legislative interests that profit off of Americans' health, have influenced a large segment of Americans to vote against their best interests.
 
Born Free said:
Trump's policies have been spot on and successful. I've sent you both of Obama's failure and Trumps success. You can go down the lists and compare for yourself.



Obama vs Trump, If you look at Obama's lost of failure vs Trump successes it night and day




We are comparing our last President to our current President, which is a common comparison as Trump presidency overlaps Obama's



The proof is laid out for you, just compare Obama's failures vs Trump's successes. It's right in your face who is was low-functioning.

The problem is you libs can't cover for Obama's policies failure, and you hate Trump's successes.
Click to expand...

This crap coming from you is the most dishonest bull**** I've seen on this forum. You snipping the context out of my sentences and replying to single phrases is what I'd expect from a kind of stupid 12-year-old. My own fault, I know, for engaging with you in the first place. If I ever knew that you were that kind of a jerk I must have forgotten it.

Done with you.
 
Grand Mal said:
This crap coming from you is the most dishonest bull**** I've seen on this forum. You snipping the context out of my sentences and replying to single phrases is what I'd expect from a kind of stupid 12-year-old. My own fault, I know, for engaging with you in the first place. If I ever knew that you were that kind of a jerk I must have forgotten it.

Done with you.
Click to expand...

Have a good one.
 
Chomsky said:
The reason for America's healthcare failure is far more sinister:

Monied and legislative interests that profit off of Americans' health, have influenced a large segment of Americans to vote against their best interests.
Click to expand...

Don't overlook the obvious. Tens of millions of Americans rejected Obamacare outright because of its high cost and low quality compared to what they had been used to from their own plans in the private sector.
 
AlphaOmega said:
lol...ok Mr. its a majority, its 51, no wait its answered in post 80, no wait the answer is 60...you still havent factually answered either question...please list the two questions I asked then write only a number after each one. The two questions I have can be factually answered using 4 digits. If you dont want to answer or troll me again that will be the last post I read from you.
Click to expand...

You are calling ME out for trolling after I have repeatedly given you the answers to your questions? You gotta be kidding me.

**** it....one last time to see if you even understand what you are asking......

Here were your two questions and a statement for review:

Quote Originally Posted by AlphaOmega
A) They were supposed to as part if that deal
B) How many votes do you need to pass a funding bill?
C) How many republican votes were there?
Math is fascinating.
Click to expand...

How many votes did they need to pass the funding bill? The answer depends on how they were gonna go about it. Its not a black and white answer, as there are multiple routes to passing it that could have been taken. That is where you keep getting off track.....but I'll try it this way to satisfy you. The answer is either 60 or 51.

How many Republican votes were there? The answer to that also depends on which way they did things. Per your own words, Flake and Alexander said they would not support reconciliation. That being the case, I assume you are asking based on an up and down vote. If that is the case, the answer would have been 54. 52 for reconciliation.

That, for the record, would STILL have been 1 more than needed, even without Flake and Alexander.

In closing.....if you want to take your ball and go home because the answer to your poorly thought out question isn't as binary as you want it to be, that is fine by me. If you want to actually engage in an educated debate, then I am all ears. The first step is gonna have to be your recognition that there was more than one way for them to accomplish things. Without that, there is nothing anyone can do to help you out. That said, you still aren't any closer to right whether you engage me or not.

Either way, glad tidings.
 
Chomsky said:
The reason for America's healthcare failure is far more sinister:

Monied and legislative interests that profit off of Americans' health, have influenced a large segment of Americans to vote against their best interests.
Click to expand...



Oh I know. I have posted the profits made by the largest care giver companies in the US. The best gig is owning an operating old age homes, you can rake 100% off the meds.

Insurance companies, like those who were bailed out in 08, are the primary recipient which is why Obamacare is based on private insurance, all Obama did was reduce their % profit.

Then there are the HMO's, they need their cut, so before we look at a patient half the money has been spent.

What we have in Canada has been the results of many mistakes, all the ones the other systems had like not properly factoring in boomers and their "early onset issues" and were no where near prepared for the explosion in open heart surgery in the 70's and 80's we do less open hearts now than ever.

Take out those middle men, get rid of that which doesn't work, and try anything new.

In Cuba now, there are more doctors per capita than anywhere in the world. They have teams of doctors who are assigned certain neighborhoods and the regularly visit the individuals living there. I call that aggressive prevention, but their life spans are longer than Canada's so I do not argue
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You are calling ME out for trolling after I have repeatedly given you the answers to your questions? You gotta be kidding me.

**** it....one last time to see if you even understand what you are asking......

Here were your two questions and a statement for review:



How many votes did they need to pass the funding bill? The answer depends on how they were gonna go about it. Its not a black and white answer, as there are multiple routes to passing it that could have been taken. That is where you keep getting off track.....but I'll try it this way to satisfy you. The answer is either 60 or 51.

How many Republican votes were there? The answer to that also depends on which way they did things. Per your own words, Flake and Alexander said they would not support reconciliation. That being the case, I assume you are asking based on an up and down vote. If that is the case, the answer would have been 54. 52 for reconciliation.

That, for the record, would STILL have been 1 more than needed, even without Flake and Alexander.

In closing.....if you want to take your ball and go home because the answer to your poorly thought out question isn't as binary as you want it to be, that is fine by me. If you want to actually engage in an educated debate, then I am all ears. The first step is gonna have to be your recognition that there was more than one way for them to accomplish things. Without that, there is nothing anyone can do to help you out. That said, you still aren't any closer to right whether you engage me or not.

Either way, glad tidings.
Click to expand...

Have a nice day.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You are calling ME out for trolling after I have repeatedly given you the answers to your questions? You gotta be kidding me.
Click to expand...

No. He has a notoriety here for that.
 
Born Free said:
I see you hate prosperity for the American People. So now you want to implement the "New Green Deal" and destroy our economy in the process. The "New Green" will cost trillions and eliminate millions of jobs. And then you want "Medicare" for all costing more trillions. And with you open border policy, inviting all of central and south America to come here will cost more trillions. And that's all OK with you.



Are you talking about Robert Wilkie
Click to expand...

As far as your accusation that I want to implement the 'New Green Deal' just let me say this. I have never mentioned anything on this forum, not a single word about the 'New Green Deal'. So you must have me mixed up with someone else. I don't know much about the New Green Deal. I haven't researched it, so I'm not a liberty to comment one way or another about it.

Marvel Entertainment Chairman Ike Perlmutter, a Palm Beach doctor named Bruce Moskowitz and lawyer Marc Sherman were found to exert "sweeping influence" on policies concerning America's military veterans, according to a report by ProPublica.
The report was based on "hundreds of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and interviews with former administration officials," ProPublica said.

Trump allies, Mar-a-Lago members are making decisions for VA: Report

Three of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Buddies Are Secretly Running the V.A. | Vanity Fair

Three of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Buddies Are Secretly Running the V.A.
A Palm Beach doctor, a lawyer, and the head of Marvel Entertainment have reportedly been calling the shots since Trump was inaugurated.

Is VA Really Run By Mar-a-Lago Trump Cronies?

Is VA Really Run By Mar-a-Lago Trump Cronies?
ProPublica published its piece about the Mar-a-Lago trio, including Marvel Comics Ike Perlmutter, who are believed to be the shadow leaders running the agency.

Once word got out there, my inbox got a flood of emails from readers concerned about the news, which certainly appears true. Now, a host of major news publications are running the story.

As to my question in the titled, I think it is clear that answer is “Yes,” at least for certain decisions.

Veterans Sue Over Reported Troika Of VA 'Shadow Rulers' From Mar-a-Lago | HuffPost


Veterans Sue Over Reported Troika Of VA ‘Shadow Rulers’ From Mar-a-Lago
“The health and safety of veterans isn’t a game for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago members to play with between rounds of golf,” an Iraq War vet said.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
"Trump, questioned by @PeterAlexander, concedes there’s no national emergency to justify building his wall. “I didn’t need to do this.� “I just want to do it faster.� A gift to all the lawyers preparing to sue him."

Joyce Alene on Twitter: "Trump, questioned by @PeterAlexander, concedes there’s no national emergency to justify building his wall. “I didn’t need to do this.� “I just want to do it faster.� A gift to all the lawyers preparing to sue him."

Trump just had another "I will own the shutdown" moment, guaranteeing that an injunction will be upheld and further illustrating why Presidents use teleprompters.



DoJ lawyers watching [Trump's speech announcing a national emergency] who will have to defend the emergency decree:

OrdinaryThornyBasenji-size_restricted.gif


-Popehat

25thHat on Twitter: "DoJ lawyers watching this who will have to defend the emergency decree:… "
Click to expand...

Abovethelaw4.jpg
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
What if I am refused a permit because the chief of police and I are not friends. Let's say I have tried to get him removed because of his good ole boys policies. My right to bear arms has clearly been infringed.
Click to expand...

let's take it to the other extreme - your position - that there is no legal way to restrict a person from bearing a firearm
then prisons would be filled with guns, with prisoners bearing them
schools would have to allow guns
courts would have to tolerate the presence of guns
guns would be able to be carried aboard aircraft

hopefully, you are sane enough to recognize that there are sound reasons why guns are restricted
such reasonable restriction does not mean your right to bear arms has been infringed
we have already covered that. you continue to bear arms. no infringement is evident
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom