Fergasun

Trump Border Wall Post-Shutdown Discussion (Wall-Fight)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What is he going to talk about tomorrow then if it’s not declaring an emergency..

 

 

shhhh

 

it's a double secret probationary emergency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What is he going to talk about tomorrow then if it’s not declaring an emergency..

 

91MSmsppxJL._SX425_.jpg

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is long, AOC speaks truth here.

 

“Please allow me to frame the issues involved with "the wall" in its actual terms. Despite what the media is saying, this is not about Democrat vs. Republican. In short, the executive branch of our government is threatening to declare a national emergency since the legislative branch will not authorize the seizure of private American property for a federal works project nor will fund it. The executive branch has already shut down the federal government. It is currently threatening to extend this government shut down for however long it takes for the legislative branch to cave.

 

Let us break this down.

 

First of all, the framework of our government is based on checks and balances. Power is divided into three branches: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative branch controls the purse strings of government and creates laws. The Executive branch carries out those laws. The Judicial branch tells us whether the laws are constitutional or not. Each branch was designed to be able to balance the other branches.

 

Why? As shown by our original rebellion, Americans didn't want a King or a Dictator when we were setting up our government. We were not particularly thrilled with a House of Lords telling us what we could or could not do either.

In this case, the executive branch wants to:
(1) take governmental cash,
(2) create its own law,
(3) take away private property from American citizens
(4) create its own federal works project.

 

At least three of these functions fall within the power/ responsibility of the legislative branch. So, what is the problem? This is one of the most naked power grabs by the executive branch over the others in recent history. Once that power is exercised, it is going to be difficult or impossible to regain any balance again. The executive branch was never meant to have that much power (see our country's previous concerns about Kings and Dictators). Is this constitutional? Very doubtful.

Should all Americans be concerned? That is a question for you to answer yourself.

 

Second, a "National Emergency" is generally declared under these general conditions:
(1) Natural disasters including hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes to name a few.
(2) Public health emergencies such as significant outbreaks of infectious diseases.
(3) Military attacks.
(4) Civil insurrection.
(5) Any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy.

 

Now the first 4 aren't applicable. The last category was meant to be short-term only. It was designed to be reviewed by the legislative branch every year after it’s enacted (because again; the check and balance is fundamental to how we operate).

 

So, what is the problem here? If national emergencies can be declared by the executive branch for non-emergency purposes which vest power in one branch of the government why would that branch ever let go of that power again?

 

Third, the seizure of private property (known as “eminent domain”, a body of law which says the government cannot just take your home without due process). You are joking, right? No. The US/Mexican border is 1,933 miles long. It runs through 4 states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). Only 33% of that land is actually owned or managed by the Federal Government. A sizable percentage of that land is owned by the Indian nations. It is land preserved for those tribes by treaty and land given under treaty is not land owned by the United States. These tribes already have a lot of reasons to be angry at the Federal Government. This would be pouring additional gas on an open flame.

 

The other 64% of that land is privately owned.

 

How much land would have to be taken? The amount of land that the Federal Government would have to take would likely run 1,237 miles long to 12,371 miles deep (assuming a 1 to 10-mile DMZ from the border into the United States). Even if we could only take 100 to 500 ft of land in densely populated areas, that is a lot of private property that is going to be seized by the Federal government.

 

The land necessary for this project would also run through some highly populated areas in the US such as San Diego, Calexico, Nogales, El Paso, and Laredo. There will be a lot of Americans who are going to have their homes and businesses taken by the federal government. Which will also mean a lot of lawsuits.

 

In terms of the federal works project, these types of works include hospitals, bridges, highways, walls and dams. These projects may be funded by local, state, or federal appropriations. If they are federal, they are funded by the legislative branch of our government (the same branch that our executive branch is currently trying to take power from). Is the seizure of power constitutional? Not likely given the separation of powers discussed above.

 

Finally, these considerations do not take into account the sheer cost, human and monetary, that will be involved. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the current cost at $21 billion for construction alone (not counting costs of maintenance or costs associated with increased military/federal patrolling).

 

Ask yourself a simple question. When was the last time that you saw a governmental project brought in under time and under budget? Does anyone remember the “big dig” in Boston, Mass? The actual costs are likely to be much higher. This estimated cost also does not include compensating folks for taking their land or the associated impact upon their businesses.

 

The Federal budget deficit grew to $779 billion dollars in 2018 according to the Treasury Department. How are we, as a country, going to fund this project? How are we, as a country, going to deal with the additional debt? Unlike private businesses, our country cannot declare bankruptcy.

 

This is not about Democrat vs. Republican. It is not about who has the best zingers measured in 10 second sound bites. It is about our country. The core of this issue deals with the profound and immense changes the outcome will have on the structure of our nation. This is the way that we, as a country, should be framing these issues. Please think about it.”

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump going along with a Kushner, Pence, McConnell approach to ending the shutdown. Wonder how well Kushner can negotiate... Pence doesn't have relations outside of the House and with non Conservatives, McConnell (when he wants to work together) is also not too bad.

Most likely the "pass a CR and work through regular order in the Senate for a bill for X weeks" approach.
Why this is good: allows Federal employees to get paid.
What could go wrong? Pre-conditions such as "$5.7B and wall".... House not involved. Trump / McConnell will control legislation.

The GOP is going to have to give some pretty big priorities to get Dems to fund the wall.

Two questions with this approach: what if the House doesn't like the bill? What if Trump doesn't like the bill? Its going to be a "take it all" or "leave it all" type of thing.

Or I could be surprised...tomorrow.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue I have with the pelosi thing is that all these media outlets are outraged that trump leaked her travel plans but they (the media) are the same people that chose to release the leak...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money bills have to pass the House, Senate can't do it themselves, so McConnell will have to cave. It may take a while, meanwhile the people continue to blame Trump and Republicans in larger numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The only issue I have with the pelosi thing is that all these media outlets are outraged that trump leaked her travel plans but they (the media) are the same people that chose to release the leak...

i think the White house intentionally leaking information that purposely puts our delegation at sincere risk is a massive story.

MASSIVE.

 

If we had to guess,, what security level does anyone think the flight plan of a USAF jet carrying a US congressional delegation flying into an active war zone gets?

Top secret?
They just leaked that. The Commander in ****ing CHIEF just leaked that. Put the flight at risk. Put the landing at risk, put every soldier who will be near them at risk.

 

so yeah, report that ****. That is traitorous. In the extreme.

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from Trump, how much of a POS is Mitch McConnel?  This ****stain worked as hard as he could to ruin Obama, now he’s working as hard as he can to protect Trump.  His brain is as spineless as his body.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think of mcconnell and i realize that if i ever ran for potus i would have to do it on sort of a 'vlad the impaler' platform

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really curious what concessions Trump will make in the negotiations. The only 2 significant ones to me are:
1) Open the government for 3 weeks to negotiate.

2) Dropping demand for wall.

Anything less is "no concession" and then when he offers less he will say, "see I am reasonable and compromised -- the Democrats...". Just like the whole, "I compromised and we could have a steel wall."

I stand by my contention that Congress could negotiate to a number for Border Securitt, and no wall without Trump.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

I am really curious what concessions Trump will make in the negotiations. The only 2 significant ones to me are:
1) Open the government for 3 weeks to negotiate.

2) Dropping demand for wall.

Anything less is "no concession" and then when he offers less he will say, "see I am reasonable and compromised -- the Democrats...". Just like the whole, "I compromised and we could have a steel wall."

I stand by my contention that Congress could negotiate to a number for Border Security, and no wall without Trump.

I like your idea, McConnell ain't going for it yet. No way in hell Trump gives either of your concessions, my guess is some movement on DACA, but who knows, he is pretty much nuts IMO. Almost certainly it is a ploy to try to win some sympathy for the narrative that we wouldn't be in this mess if Pelosi wasn't under control of the radical left who love drugs and crime more than the safety of American citizens.

Edited by RedskinsFan44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In viewing this from a "gaming it out" political perspective, I first considered trump (and miller; others) making a totally unexpected uber-aggressive move like using the announcement to unveil a new severe anti-immigration policy, along the lines of "we're going to initiate a process to deport the daca people" (don't think it's legally an option, not sure, using it as an example in spirit) while still holding steadfast on his numbers for the wall....idea being now the dems will have to capitulate (winnning) give him the money (more winning) just to keep even worse **** from going down (would be the strategy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that he's going to give what was offered in exchange for 25 billion to get 5.7 billion seems extremely unlikely. If he did he'd get crushed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Which begs the question, should McConnell be holding talks with right wing talkers to find a solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

The idea that he's going to give what was offered in exchange for 25 billion to get 5.7 billion seems extremely unlikely. If he did he'd get crushed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Which begs the question, should McConnell be holding talks with right wing talkers to find a solution?

 

But “The Wall” is going to end up a $50+B boondoggle that will accomplish nothing.  

 

Its a non-starter.  Just like it was a non-starter in 2017 and 2018.

Edited by TryTheBeal!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** his deal.

His DEAL was to get Mexico to pay for it.

 

You morons who voted for him demanded it.

Now he is pointing his gun at you and holding the US hostage and you're still all ok with it

 

**** compromise. Treat him like the Mexicans did. Tell him to go **** himself.

Never a penny. 
the only compromise i'd ever be willing to give him is allowing him to shoot himself rather than waste the time of a military firing squad.

 

~Bang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.