https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ys/2381121002/
Well, America had a good run.
Printable View
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ys/2381121002/
Well, America had a good run.
Yep. Mattis is the guy who I pegged to be the one to keep trump from declaring emperor status or refusing to leave office due losing an election or being impeached.
Now who knows.
America and democracy held hostage to the whims of a dictator. And he resides in Moscow.
His anger over losing "the wall" has never been more evident. And his campaign to destroy America from within still enjoys the support of many Americans imo.
A critical tipping point in the history of the USA is being written right before our eyes.
I love you guys, but watch that next step from the ledge, it's a doosey. :)
Trump isn't run from Moscow, and he isn't going to be Emperor Trump the First. Any more than Obama was going to declare martial law or he was taking his orders from a Mullah in Indonesia.
Seriously, you guys have joined the tin foil hat crowd for your side, the same as people on the Right who thought those things about Obama and you no doubt dismissed them as out of it.
Trump is a petulant child, he's got a whole host of issues, but these dire extremist positions don't help. We were doomed to be in WWIII by now if he won, and here we sit with nothing really all that more out of whack than normal.
This is far from the first budget showdown in our lives or the first fight over immigration or policy, or the first troop/war direction change.
Mattis did the right thing. He doesn't agree with the President on his policies, and the way to handle that is respectfully step aside. A President is due the commitment of his staff. If you can't support him you don't undermine him, you leave.
As for the troop withdrawals, it's a very difficult situation either way. We dont' want to create a power vacuum, but the alternative has been to simply occupy wide stretches of hard to defend territory. We're the world's policeman, Britain with more firepower on both sides.
Trump ran on moving away from that position, so this isn't a shock. I'm not all for it, but I'm not all for undeclared wars and occupying armies as far as the eye can see either.
Trump's problem is he lacks patience to get things in place before acting. it will weaken his ability to make long term gains in these areas, but it isn't likely to be any worse than what Obama did, which was to pull us out and allow ISIS to form in the first place. We survived that, so let's not act like doing it again, which is the worst case scenario, is somehow the end of us all. It may be a mistake, but it won't be the last one he or our nation makes.
I have to wait and see how they actually move forward. Trump paints with a mighty broad brush early, sometimes it ends up that way, sometimes not. I'll wait to see.
And I'm not calling anyone out, just trying to reassure that this too shall pass, and so shall Trump, and it won't be that big a deal in the end. The system was set up to tend to the middle, and it still does by and large.
And the tipping point we're at as a nation has nothing to do with Trump. He's at most a symptom of the issue, no the cause.
Far too many Americans have lost sight of the goal: individual liberty. "Social Justice" is the PC term for the modern incarnation of state control and fascism. People are straight faced arguing for the regulation of speech on college campuses and now in Congress and state legislatures. They gleefully look to the power of the state to be used to shut up those who disagree with them in the name of righteousness.
That pattern is oft repeated in our history as a species, and it never ends well. If you want to worry, worry about that, not Trump. In the end his legacy will be his judicial appointments, something that has been pro-conservative but not extremist, and otherwise he probably won't be more meaningful historically than most any other President. We go a little left, a little right, but the shift away from fundamental priority of individual liberty over the power of the state is inexorable and moving all in one direction. That will be our undoing, not a policy fight over immigration or a budget. Those things are trivial.
I don’t understand the reason to remain in Syria. The Syrian government hasn’t invited us to be there, there is no end game, and those who do want us there, the Kurds, never want us to leave.
Lots of people within the government need to go back and read the advice given in George Washington’s farewell address and Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural pledge on the topic of entangling alliances.
The Kurds are the problem. We don't want to abandon them, but becoming the 51st state isn't an option either.
We all keep agreeing we generally dont' want to be the world's policeman, but then on a case by case basis conservatives vote yes on being that policeman.
About the only solution to the Kurdish problem is let them become a separate nation. Turkey would probably pull out of NATO over it, and maybe even go to war over it, and Iraq and Iran would ally in opposition. The only thing the Arab/Muslim world agrees on in that region is that the Kurds suck.
We probably just need to arm them to the teeth.
I think Trump is reacting to the fact that 2 years in we have no exit strategy for how to ever leave, much less soon. Not saying there's an easy or even any answer, but he ran on pulling back UK military engagements so the move isn't exactly surprising.
I need to clarify that image. Are you implying myself or others on here are following Trump simply as naive and foolish children following the pied piper?
Remember, those children were doing so innocently. Blindly so, and similar to your claim we have joined the "tin foil hat crowd", when the truth appears to be the continued defense of all things Mr Trump is a generalized argument that more closely represents a "tin foil hat" philosophy imho.
But yes, I do believe many Trump defenders have no alternative now but to follow blindly and hope either the deep state argument or other conspiracy theories really hold water. Its a giant roller coaster ride that one cant jump off of.
So I think more a case of denial rather than
one of blindness..
That said, I love you guys too.
So which is more likely, that after over 2 years of massive investigation with complete and absolute judicial powers and unlimited budgets without any evidence of "control" by Putin, that it's still there and Mueller et al just hasn't found it, or that I, having studied the Middle East since the 1970s, am just being seduced by a mysogynistic New Yorker with more ego than brains?
Opposing Trump is fine, but it's fascinating to me how you are willing to believe deep conspiracies that have been investigated more than any with no evidence, and yet the obvious conspiracy, with actual real supporting evidence, that the FBI was in the tank for the Clintons, is so readily dismissed.
We have actual texts, monetary payments, the testimony of whistle blowers, actual evidence, and yet people cling to the notion that the conspiracy is Trump and Russia? A theory that came about from Democratic funded oppo research then pushed by FBI staff with ties to the Clinton campaign and in some case their direct monetary beneficiary.
I have never been for Trump b/c of Trump. I'm for Trump b/c voting for Hillary left us with arguably the worst choice for President certainly in my lifetime and maybe in the modern era.
So he has no hold on me other than that he is advancing some of the agenda I want advanced. I wanted him there for judicial appointments, something he's done well with so far other than not getting them up to the Senate fast enough. Otherwise if he just doesn't mess up too bad it's way better than the other option.
I don't think you're doing anything blindly, but yes I do think you need to step back and see your beliefs on Trump in the context of other leaders. We're 2 years in and so far not a single thing has happened to support the notion he's looking to become King and end democracy. Nothing.
You could argue maybe his desire to bring the troops home is pro-Russian, but Obama brought them out of Iraq and Syria too, was that pro-Russian? Obama opened up a wide area that allowed Russian influence to grow, was he run by Putin?
The conspiracy here if there is one is that Washington is completely dedicated to the power and influence of Washington, and anyone who upsets their apple cart is in trouble. It's now clear that GOP people had their hands on the dossier as well. it's both sides, and they're playing both of us.
Syria is a very difficult situation. There's no way to easily fix it, and I'm likely to side with Mattis over Trump on the issue, but I would also like to hear the plan for how we ever stabilize the region. The only solution short of falling out completely with Turkey is what we have done before, which is to establish an iron fisted ruler who, due to our money and military arms, is willing to protect them.
I don't think you or anyone here is being blind or even naive, but I do think you have lost perspective on Trump. The evidence says he's an ass and a half, but there's no evidence of anything with a deep conspiracy, just as there wasn't with Obama. Obama was a socialist, but not a socialist controlled by the Muslim conspiracy.
Follow the evidence. The reality of the evidence is more mundane, and arguably worse, b/c it's that the "deep state" is very real, and humans are still corruptible, and when Trump is long gone they will still be there putting their thumbs on the scales.
That's how Huma Abedin got immunity before her interview despite breaching security laws over and over, and Flynn got prosecuted.
Chuck, no use going over this all again. But it would take actual documented photos of Trump kneeling and rubbing Putins feet under a COMING SOON..Trump Tower Moscow! to get you to admit there may be something unseemly there.
In spite of the ever mounting evidence already presented ;)
The deep state argument is only a shield against the truth and the safe place for alternate facts and fables
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I have documented proof, texts, and a money trail. You have nada. Nothing. No amount of hoping will change the balance of the actual documentation presented to date.
Is and was Trump involved in what I'm sure was all kinds of unseemly business dealings all over the globe? Absolutely. Is it anything like the hundreds of millions of money just handed over to the Clinton Foundation, all of which has miraculously dried up now that they aren't in power?
I'm sure as a real estate developer he was bribing his way into various projects. You have to do that to get something built in Lexington, much less anywhere else in the world. And I have ZERO doubt if you want to do business in Russia you do business with Putin. How about that $500K check to Bill Clinton from Putin's bank?
But that's a far cry from the notion that he ran for office as part of some Russian plot.
Meanwhile, the "deep state" you see as some distraction ploy has actual money spent by political sources, a whistleblower with Uranium One, actual texts discussing meetings over what to do about Trump with things like "we won't let him", and now we have information that Mueller's team may have deleted texts rather than turn them over for FOIA requests.
Nope. I feel great about my position. I have a lot more evidence, and frankly my theory takes a lot less suspension of disbelief and is a lot easier to see happening.
It's Occam's razor. The easiest and most obvious explanation is usually the best. What's more reasonable? That a handful of bureaucrats abused their position of power, something we see happen all the time, or a movie worthy script where a sitting President is actually a Russian agent?
The real foreign corrupt influence story of this last election was the massive foreign money pouring into the Clinton's control. Including money from Putin for the Uranium One Deal.
You look for conspiracy when years of investigation has found nothing, yet the obvious Russian influence, complete with cancelled checks and an 8 page memo from a Clinton fixer, testimony of a whitleblower means nothing to you. I just dont' get it.
Answer me this.
When the FBI was investigating Hillary's emails, they gave Huma Abedin immunity before she even got an interview. No matter what she said, if she lied, she was fine. They let it pass that physical devices were destroyed and 30,000 emails deleted.
When they investigated Trump they prosecuted Flynn for lying, even though there was and still is not any actual criminal act. he lied about representations but there was no prosecution for having done anything illegal in those representations. Same for several others.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have done that with Flynn. he lied, that's a mistake, prosecute him. But why did Hillary's people, more than one, get immunity before they even got their first interview? Wouldn't it be useful to have that pressure on them to help get to the truth?
If you can't see the difference between how these two cases were pursued I don't know what to say. And in the one they went easy we had actual legal violations of US code. it's a CRIME to mishandle US secrets. While Trump working with Putin may be politically repugnant, it's actually a super high bar to prove any kind of crime. Yet the one with a clear criminal underpinning gets a whitewash, and the other gets the full set of knives from the DOJ.
The difference is stark, and there is a reason.
I think Hillary was given pass. The server, the emails, the dual role of her IT guy working for State and her is Horrible and it is a clear double standard between her and say how she d be treated. le.
It was wrong, stupid and illegal. the Clinton foundation? It reeked of a violation of the emoluments clause.
Along with dems protecting dems, I M guessing the FBI saw that Clinton’s decision was arrogant and foolish and she was not going to sell her country out. Also a cabinet secretary will be given more latitude than some SES, GS-15 or a low level GS 11
Trumps stance puts everything in a different perspective. Outspoken against NATO while being very pro Russia. Including the UKraine defense being taken from the GOP platform at the convention.
Trump may be right that the CIA and the KGB are comparable to one another. That said, Trump in every way gives up any moral high ground the US claims to have.
So did Hilary and TRump get treated the same? NO.
Also let’s be honest Hillary would already have been brought up on impeachment by the House had she won.
For me, and Secretary Mattis resigning shows I am not the only tin foil hat guy, Trumps position goes aga7nst 70 years of US foreign policy and there are legitimate questions as to where his loyalty lies. Well actually he 8s loyal to himself over the country.
But I do think his policies are in the interests of Russia far more than our or our allies’ traditional interests.
I am unsure what it would take to convince those who see the evil and hypocrisy with the dems
I just see Trump as the Kremlins candidate and know while i could be wrong, I just think the truth of Trump as a traitor is too much for those who cast a vote for him to take.
History, I could take it, but there has to be some actual evidence.
Mattis resigning shows he disagrees over syria, which is only tangentially tied to Russia. Obama also pulled out and in fact did a lot to give Russia free reign in many countries, was he also in cahoots with Putin?
that's just not evidence, not by itself.
I respect disagreeing with Trump, I respect hating the guy, he's easy to hate. I respect thinking he's a bafoon, etc. And it isn't disrespect, but I do think it's an extreme view to think Trump is vying in some way to become King Trump the First, etc. Those same views were out there on the right with Obama, they just were quickly dismissed, whereas those views of Trump are on the nightly news as if there is something there to support it. As of right now, there isn't.
Trump ran on bringing the troops home, getting NATO to pay its fair share, etc. None of that is any kind of surprise. he's also helped the anti-Russian forces in Ukraine, and been very supportive of hegemony nations like Poland.
Look at this way. To date, Obama did more to help Russia by FAR than Trump has done. yet one is plotting in some deep conspiracy and the other is just being President. Why the double standard application of the policy facts? I don't get it.
I understand the emotional reaction to Trump, but I don't think I'm just afraid to admit anything about him. I don't like him. I support him generally b/c he generally pursues policies I want pursued, but I have nothing vested in him personally.
I believe in pretty simple axioms of human nature. one is that power corrupts. So do I believe those in power are corrupt? yes I do, and history proves me right. Do I believe Trump is part of that? Sure he is, he's rich and powerful. But nothing he's done and nothing that has been uncovered in an investigation that is vast and powerful shows he's corrupt to that degree or has the kind of deep ties you perceive to Putin.
There is a LOT of foreign influence in our political system. Look at this investigation. Everyone that has come up on either side has gotten paid by some foreign power or company. Podesta's brother, Flynn, McCabe's wife was at Fusion GPS.
You live in DC. You know how intertwined it all is, where so and so's spouse works over at X and knows Y and how many former politicians and government employees, esp. appointed positions, end up with lobbying firms. Apparently they also end up on foreign payrolls.
It's shocking how much of it goes on, and I dislike it as much as any. But two years of the most dogged kind of investigating, with full judicial powers, hasn't uncovered anything with Trump that's even close to the kind of corruption we see with Clinton, or even what we'd probably find with others in deals like Uranium One.
If the evidence is there we'll do something about it. Surely no one can claim there hasn't been a massive and detailed investigation.
But meanwhile the real threats, like the complete corruption of the notion of equality before the law, are running wild and those are the things that will be our undoing.
Russia isn't going to land troops up the Potomac. But the kind of corruption we have seen uncovered at the FBI, where one political side gets a pass and the other gets persecuted, makes the threat of Russia pretty small compared to the real threats.
The problems with this IMO are :Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
1) it's not about intentionally selling the nation. Exposing our secrets to foreign operatives through negligence is a crime, and one for which people are routinely prosecuted. There's a guy in jail for taking selfies in a submarine. he didn't intend harm either.
2) Her actions weren't those of someone being naive. On the contrary she and her staff went way out of their way to do what they did. Their wish was to avoid FOIA and make sure no one had a paper trail, but even if the FBI gave them that benefit of the doubt, it doesn't dismiss that she was directly involved in this process.
3) It doesn't protect her staff that she is a cabinet secretary, and of course (and we agree I'm sure) it shoudlnt' matter if she is.
4) Flynn was a senior person too, that didn't matter. But Clinton is very powerful, and can reward people.
And that goes to my point. Even if I agree with you, and I do in part, it only proves my point that the FBI/DOJ are terribly corrupt,where they decide subjectively when to enforce and when to ignore the laws of the land, and coincidentally ignore them when people they agree with politically happen to be the ones in question.
They're corrupt. Simple as that. No different that a county attorney in the South who prosecutes blacks to the full extent of the law and gives whites probation.
And i think we largely agree there.
But then if those people are corrupt, and they're the source of the whole theory of Trump and Putin, then why would we believe them? And that's the rub.
I hear you. I get why folks see the double standard. And I also see how they would be suspicious.
I also see how the two FBI agents lose credibility based on their texts. A reasonable person could question their objectivity.
I am not charged with investigating trump. And based on what I have written, few one would think I don’t have a bias. That said I actually th8nk I could do my job objectively.
But their is a lot of corruption. And hypocrisy. And so often people on both sides cry wolf it is hard to believe them.
I could live with texts like "I hate the guy, but the job is the job" kind of things. They can have opinions.
But "we won't let him" kind of texts, and the connections of people like McCabe to Fusion GPS and texts they had meetings and had an "insurance policy"? That's beyond having an opinion.
We agree the Clintons got off extra light. Those are the exact same people then deciding to throw the book at Trump's people.
The bias is just too thick to give them any credibility.
If Trump were in Putin’s pocket would he be trying to take down Russia’s attempts to gain a stranglehold on European Energy sales by pushing sales of US LNG to Europe?
Also, getting the Saudis to increase oil production a few months ago, which in large part is why we have seen gas prices drop over 80 cents a gallon, is bad for the Russians as a large part of their income is from energy sales.
I think it is all a waste of resources. The FBI knew a Trump didn’t do anything, but set out to make it appear something was amiss. The FBI set out to downplay Hillary’s email situation because they know she is vengeful and would come after them if she were prosecuted and still managed to win the presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
It may prove to be a waste.
And then again perhaps some people support lying to law enforcement on matters of national security and bribery, and are not offended by a possibility of coordination between and enemy of the United States and a presidential candidate if it helps their "party" and maintains the perceived sanctity of their vote.
Even a candidate that is proven to often be void of the truth, even to his own constituency, and has went about to test the metal of every facet of the American system from the moment he assumed office.
Who has attacked the free press and hinted at forming his own "official news service, and attacked the very fabric of our democratic election process in both the electoral and popular voting system.
Who, in front of us all, called for the Russians to release illegally obtained, hacked information that would prove critical to his campaign hopes. And also was in the midst of secret negotiations to build a Trump property in Moscow despite denying it to Americans.
One who was subdued face to face with that enemy and sided with him against our own government's intelligence services.
Who has defended and supports a proven Saudi murderer for political gain. Who, against the advice of every military mind and member of congress who has a backbone, forsakes our partners in Syria effectively handing it over to Putin and endangering our nation.....and it goes on and on
So we should all want to know the truths and the proof as I see it. Not be praying and searching for reasons to hide those truths. Both sides had better see this thing through or be prepared to explain to future generations our negligence, first toward God, and then the flag.
And make no mistake, it's that simple
Yes, and that person is you.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Hillary is the one who black letter violated national security laws. Her husband got a $500,000 check from a Putin backed bank at the time she was signing off on Uranium one, and hundreds of millions of foreign money poured into their foundation.
It was Hillary who suggested the "reset" with Russia, who directly brought US tech investment to Moscow that has been part of what has helped them with their social media campaigns. it was Obama who pulled out of the middle east and gave room to Moscow, who refused to support the anti-Russian government in the Ukraine and allowed Crimea to be annexed. You cite the Syria move as being pro Putin, who the Hades do you think pulled out the last time from Iraq and Syria, and allowed ISIS to come to power? When Obama does it it's concern for our troops, when Trump does it it's evidence of conspiracy. Jeez.
Seriously, if you want to find someone who violated national security and was as good to Putin as you can get, you're looking in the wrong dang place.
And your repeated message that I or anyone else is just taking this position b/c we can't stand to admit we voted wrong is tiresome at best, insulting at worst. I could argue you are ignoring the FBI bias and everything else b/c you just can't stand to admit your vote for Hillary was wrong and she's actually the person who should be hauled off to jail. So where did that exchange get us? Nowhere, so how about we drop that part of it?
I'm taking this position b/c the evidence to date supports this position, overwhelmingly in fact. I have a hard money trail, text messages, a host of direct evidence of bias and plotting to simply get Trump whether he did anything wrong or not, and a concerted effort to thwart an investigation and prosecution of Hillary Clinton, who in fact WAS getting foreign money in truckloads while running for office.
I"m not so intellectually crippled that I am taking this position simply b/c I can't stand emotionally to deal with how I voted in an election. I'm 50 , not 5. I take positions b/c I think that's what the facts show. I may be wrong, we don't know and will never know all of the facts, but I dont' take positions simply b/c I like those positions or can't face a different one.
Right now the vast preponderance of facts suggests the FBI and DOJ are deeply political and biased. that much seems clear. Is it also true Trump did something wrong? Sure it's possible, but 2.5 years in we have very little despite a massive effort. Meanwhile known crimes that need to be addressed are utterly ignored by those same people, which tells me we can't trust a damned thing they do or say. Someone who lets a cabinet secretary with a home brew server with top top secret info on it get a pass b/c "gee she didn't mean it" is somoene you just flat can't trust b/c they're too smart to not know the law.
They throw ensigns in jail for something 1,000 times less, let Hillary and all her people take a pass. That's corruption, it's abhorrent to our values, and it means they could do about anything if they can do that.
And you Chuck. The guy who is first always to defend everything Trump, except for the occasional non story, so you can claim to be middle of the road politically.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I dont have the time to make long winded posts that are debate tactics although I appreciate and recognize the effort.
As for Hillary, prosecute her Your guys have held all three branches of government long enough to already have her in jail. And you know what, it would be little skin off my back. Fact is, those spins are beginning to look like "crying wolf" to direct attention away from the true story here...and a potential major embarrassment.
Im not at all angry, and I am also not foolish to think you ever would change your opinion on anything here. Only move along to the next talking point and lead any conversation to a safe place and defensible position.
I trust our system of laws and precepts to get to the bottom of things regardless. Thats because I am an American citizen who loves and trusts in this great country's constitution.
And I will never remain quiet when the system is constantly attacked to support a political agenda that includes a mythological "deep state" defense of raging attacks against that constitution. And supports lies as alternative fact.
The mingling lies and truth by both extremes is the greatest of lies. Thankfully God has prepared us for times such as this.
...and one other thing..
https://i0.wp.com/merrychristmas2017...as-picture.jpg
..love you folks
You love the Constitution, but yet, you back a party that has cast it aside and broke the laws of this country? A party that is willing to make the constitution null and void, if it will further their agenda and destroy their political enemies and a president that said the constitution constrained him. He swore to uphold the constitution, but it is very questionable if he really did that. You can't have it both ways! Oh and Merry Christmas to you!
I believe most of that is pure exaggeration, some hogwash, and all is right wing propaganda.
And isnt even shared by most in the republican party to include the former Republican President who respects former President Obama and his wife.
Republicans have had every chance to prosecute those who have broken any laws ..and everyone knows they would have done exactly that.
So to propagate such propaganda they rely on conspiracy theories and alternate facts ...and just when one might be convinced they have been misled, turn to the the old reliable deep state argument.
Going so far as to attack the very country they claim to love, most of its citizens, its intelligence gathering, law enforcement, court systems, plus its allies.
By the constitution, we are bound to question such lack of loyalty
Thankfully, criminals, the incompetent, and/or traitors face the laws and precepts our constitution sets forth and are not decided by those people.
And my faith is not in a party itself. But aligned with the one that most closely lends itself to the America I was raised in. In some ways I wish it was the republican party because of a few social issues. But I am way more concerned with maintaining democracy, protecting my personal rights, and walking in truth.
And maintaining democracy is something I believe many in the new republican party are undecided on. I believe they have forgotten the lessons history teaches and been led to say to themselves of America "this just isnt working anymore"
It is not every conservative, but a shockingly substantial part.
Not every Republican, because many are actually not represented by their party.
And it is not always obvious to those caught up in it.
God help us all.
EDIT:
"I believe most of that is pure exaggeration, some hogwash, and all is right wing propaganda"
I meant that towards the supplied talking points from right wing media sources and not you personally Dan.
You're a pretty good feller' .
If emergency powers are declared over the wall at this time, the Constitution has been shredded.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanISSELisdaman
I agree with you. This began with the I have a cell phone and a pen comment by Obama. Now it’s gone further down hill...Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
And yes the executive order, which Trump has used frequently, is a way to bypass Congress. It is not good. The imperial presidency always must be put in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Neither is Congress passing laws so vague that others have to draft more language to actually give them any weight at all.
Really? it's going to be done under a law passed by Congress. Shredded? Shredded sounds like permanent damage to me. May not be what you mean but it sure sounds like some kind of irreparable harm.
If we can survive the Japanese internment and many other actions taken during wartime relatively unscathed Constitutionally, we'll survive this just fine.
I'm not for the level of executive power that has concentrated, and I'm REALLY not for the overall concentration of power in Washington, most of it in a lifetime non-elected bureaucracy that in reality has more control over our elected officials than they have over their "staff".
But since I have always seen the border issue as a foreign policy issue and not a domestic issue, I find this far less troubling. If he was sending troops and declaring an emergency and sweeping door to door to address the opiod crisis that would be a massive deal, but declaring an emergency at a border that is already patrolled by armed agents with the job of stopping people who are not US citizens from illegally entering the nation?
Well, that's not really much different than 3,478 times we've invaded some country on pure executive power without any consent from Congress is it? It's OK to send troops to Syria or Grenada or Bosnia to defend against foreign non US citizens, but sending them to the Rio Grande is a crisis?
I know most people, for reasons I don't really get, see this as a domestic issue. The only thing domestic about it is that once someone does circumvent our national security at the border they are in fact inside the US so physically it's domestic, but at the point of entry it's not clear to me that's domestic at all. And yes I know SCOTUS generally disagrees with me. That's OK, they miss every now and again.
But like everything else, I'll wait and see the actual policy. Trump blusters and paints with a roller sized brush, but in the end it's usually nothing nearly so radical that actually gets implemented.
Besides, like I said elsewhere, Trump is too blunt a tool to be a threat to institutions. That's now how they become undermined and perverted. With the US it will be with subtle, non-threatening moves that liberty and democracy disappear. Liberty is in fact all but gone from the lexicon of public debate, and "democracy" has become synonymous with tyranny of the majority. The principles for which the Constitution was created are all dying already, and Trump has nothing to do with it.
We agree here. It's a complete dereliction of duty, but it's the only way to pass such huge amounts of regulations and implement such a vast bureaucracy. As you know all too well, no federal agency could really be very sizeable or get much done if they had to go to Congress for every procedure, every regulatory interpretation. They SHOULD have to, but if they did we'd have an old school limited government, and that's not what the politicians of this era want.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
I'm not for wielding executive power like this either, but neither do I think this instance is the end all and be all of threats. Historically it pales in comparison, and the real threats are far more subtle, b/c they are winning people over, and this won't.
Don't worry. Liberty in this country won't go out in some totalitarian seizing of power. IT's going out already, and it's going out with thunderous applause.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.28b03bb294c5
As of today there is some confusion within the Administration regarding our Syria policy, but this article is a strong statement that coincides with my perspective.