• 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!

"White House seeks to clarify Trump remarks on emergency"

roguenuke said:
How many fewer? How many "mass border crossings" happen now? Please provide documentation. How "dangerous" is our nation exactly? And how is stopping the illegal border crossings going to make it less dangerous? How much less dangerous will it make us? Where do you get information to support this belief from?

There is plenty of research and data that shows that a border wall will do very little to make our borders safer. Heck, border towns have a lower crime rate than most non-border towns (equivalents). There is no evidence that stopping border crossings in any area will significantly reduce illegal immigration, especially since there are at least hundred+ tunnels under the border that are used to import most of the truly bad things that people are worried about coming across the border. The wall will do nothing to stop that. Many other things, including people coming in illegally, simply use controlled border entry points to come across either through legal means or illegal. The least effective way to stop illegal immigration and/or moving of contraband and illegal substances/items from the south into our country is to build a border wall, because all of those things already move into our country through other points that will not be blocked by a wall.
Click to expand...

Democrats can roll themselves in false propaganda crap if they like, but they will never be able to prove the truth is not true.
 
marke said:
Democrats can roll themselves in false propaganda crap if they like, but they will never be able to prove the truth is not true.
Click to expand...

You haven't supported a single claim you have made on here, at all. So it doesn't appear as if the Democrats are the ones denying either truth or facts here.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If his "I didn't have to do this ..." had NOT been coupled with his "... but I'd rather do this much faster." that possible interpretation of a portion of what he did say might have been more plausible.
Click to expand...

"I'd rather do it faster" plays directly into "it didn't have to come to this but you left me no choice".

You're trying to not see it. "I'd rather do it faster" = "you left me no choice".
 
ecofarm said:
"I'd rather do it faster" plays directly into "it didn't have to come to this but you left me no choice".

You're trying to not see it. "I'd rather do it faster" = "you left me no choice".
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the choice be doing it slower?
 
prometeus said:
Wouldn't the choice be doing it slower?
Click to expand...

Can't, emergency. See? It all feeds into the same sentiment: "you didn't have to make me do this, but you wouldn't act and now it has come to this".
 
ecofarm said:
Can't, emergency. See?
Click to expand...
I do not see it like that. "I'd rather do it faster" means that the "other way" or other choice is doing it slower. It simply can not equate with not doing it.

It all feeds into the same sentiment: "you didn't have to make me do this, but you wouldn't act and now it has come to this".
Click to expand...
No, it does not unless one wants to contort words to support a particular narrative.
 
prometeus said:
I do not see it like that. "I'd rather do it faster" means that the "other way" or other choice is doing it slower. It simply can not equate with not doing it.
Click to expand...

Congress is doing it slower. Most bills have something for border security... hiring people, equipment, judges, even physical infrastructure. But it's an emergency, so slow is not good enough.

No, it does not unless one wants to contort words to support a particular narrative.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's an emergency and I'm not fan of Trump, but you are the one working hard to apply an alternative meaning.
 
ecofarm said:
"I'd rather do it faster" plays directly into "it didn't have to come to this but you left me no choice".

You're trying to not see it. "I'd rather do it faster" = "you left me no choice".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the "I'd rather" does NOT imply NO other choice. What "I'd rather" DOES imply is that the decision was a personal choice and not one dictated by any "emergency".
 
prometeus said:
I do not see it like that. "I'd rather do it faster" means that the "other way" or other choice is doing it slower. It simply can not equate with not doing it.

No, it does not unless one wants to contort words to support a particular narrative.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, would be totally inapplicable to the position that you have advanced - right?
 
ecofarm said:
Congress is doing it slower.
Click to expand...
Perhaps or perhaps it is doing it the way it has to be and "I'd rather" is still not an emergency.

I don't believe it's an emergency and I'm not fan of Trump, but you are the one working hard to apply an alternative meaning.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am simply going by the words and their valid meaning as Trump said them.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'm sorry, but the "I'd rather" does NOT imply NO other choice. What "I'd rather" DOES imply is that the decision was a personal choice and not one dictated by any "emergency".
Click to expand...

"Congress could have acted. They didn't. They were going slow. They forced this. We didn't need to do this. It didn't have to come to this. But congress is slow, and this is an emergency, so I'm doing it. Not my fault."


For me, this crap about it is like "mission accomplished" and "what does it matter". BS.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Which is the usual reaction of those who are completely bereft of any valid argument.
Click to expand...

So, you've gotten this sort of response before eh? Maybe you should try debating honestly instead of the BS you engage in.
 
ecofarm said:
"Congress could have acted. They didn't. They were going slow. They forced this. We didn't need to do this. It didn't have to come to this. But congress is slow, and this is an emergency, so I'm doing it. Not my fault."

For me, this crap about it is like "mission accomplished" and "what does it matter". BS.
Click to expand...

Now that Mr. Trump has "clarified" his remarks on the "national emergency", perhaps you'd be interested to know that he has also "clarified" his remarks on the "withdrawal" from Syria.

It appears that Mr. Trump did NOT say that the withdrawAl would be "now", what he really said was the the withdrawal would be "N.O.W." which was shorthand for "Not On Wednesday".

France's Macron welcomes U.S. reversal on keeping troops in Syria
 
ecofarm said:
Can't, emergency. See? It all feeds into the same sentiment: "you didn't have to make me do this, but you wouldn't act and now it has come to this".
Click to expand...

How can an emergency situation exist for something that has been going on for decades and in fact the situation has been improving (less border crossings, less crime) for almost 2 decades? That isn't an emergency. It is like going into the emergency room at the end of a cold and insisting that you need to be seen immediately, it is an emergency when you just have a cold and are showing signs of improvement.
 
roguenuke said:
How can an emergency situation exist for something that has been going on for decades and in fact the situation has been improving (less border crossings, less crime) for almost 2 decades? That isn't an emergency. It is like going into the emergency room at the end of a cold and insisting that you need to be seen immediately, it is an emergency when you just have a cold and are showing signs of improvement.
Click to expand...

Picky, picky, picky.
 
roguenuke said:
How can an emergency situation exist for something that has been going on for decades and in fact the situation has been improving (less border crossings, less crime) for almost 2 decades? That isn't an emergency. It is like going into the emergency room at the end of a cold and insisting that you need to be seen immediately, it is an emergency when you just have a cold and are showing signs of improvement.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's an emergency. I just don't agree with the childish "gotcha" games of twisting his words.

He meant "it didn't have to come to this" and I won't lower myself to pretend otherwise.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Now that Mr. Trump has "clarified" his remarks on the "national emergency", perhaps you'd be interested to know that he has also "clarified" his remarks on the "withdrawal" from Syria.

It appears that Mr. Trump did NOT say that the withdrawAl would be "now", what he really said was the the withdrawal would be "N.O.W." which was shorthand for "Not On Wednesday".

France's Macron welcomes U.S. reversal on keeping troops in Syria
Click to expand...

You're conflating events to obscure your dishonest BS. He meant "it didn't need to come to this".
 
ecofarm said:
You're conflating events to obscure your dishonest BS. He meant "it didn't need to come to this".
Click to expand...

I quite agree that that is what you think that he meant AND that that is the currently operative, government sanctioned, White House approved, truth-of-the-day.
 
archives said:
"White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday sought to clarify President Trump’s statement that he “didn’t have to” declare a national emergency at the border, but did so to speed up construction of his long-promised wall."

“I could do the wall over a long period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” Trump conceded."

White House seeks to clarify Trump remarks on emergency | TheHill

Appears Trump blew it in his own proclamation, "didn't have to" and "didn't need to do this" are going to be the central theme of every lawsuit stemming from his "emergency." Tough to defend something as an "emergency" when you preface it with "didn't have to" and "didn't need to do this." Even beer belly Brett is going to struggle rationalizing that one

Trump's advisers much live in fear every time he drifts away from the teleprompter
Click to expand...

Yeah, he just destroyed the future court case for his own side with his flapping gums. What a maroon.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't believe it's an emergency. I just don't agree with the childish "gotcha" games of twisting his words.

He meant "it didn't have to come to this" and I won't lower myself to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

He did not mean that at all. He said what he meant, that he was impatient that he could not get what he wanted, so he went ahead and did something that he felt was in his power, which others, including many Republicans see as far overstepping the powers of the President. In fact, if many of those Republicans/conservatives who are supporting this national emergency were truly honest with themselves, they would see that.

Our President is a spoiled brat that is so used to getting his way on so many things that he wanted to show that he could do it on this as well, and became impatient with the process set forth by our Constitution. That is exactly what he meant when he said what he did.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I quite agree that that is what you think that he meant AND that that is the currently operative, government sanctioned, White House approved, truth-of-the-day.
Click to expand...

It's what I've said from day one. I'm too old to believe silver bullets fall from heaven. Buncha naive BS sucking going on in believing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom