He wants to do it faster.  So do I.  I'd rather stop illegals coming here sooner than later.  This is one of the few core, legitimate functions of the Federal Government, and the President is totally within his authority.

If he wants to do it faster, then get Congress to pass funding faster. Don't boast about getting funding for the wall and then announce that he didn't need to do it because that was kind of the point of declaring a "national emergency". If he didn't need to do it, then it's not much of an emergency.

Also, there's a debate that's going to be had on the legalities of this. It's not a sure fire thing that it's completely legal. There's conservatives questioning the legalities of this; not just Democrats declaring it so.

The bright side is that it keeps the Dems and their their anti-American-citizen howlings and chest beatings in the bright sunlight.

They didn't need any help with this.

And I agree ... precedent with the Dems has already been set. They’ll do anything to stiff Americans and get control. What POTUS does today or next year won’t matter a jot.

Lots of precedents have been set by lots of presidents. This is a new one. What's to stop the next Democratic president from declaring climate change or gun violence to be a national emergency? What the president did today was outside of his authority. He made an end-run around Congress when he didn't get his way with Congress. He did the exact same thing Obama did and the right correctly called Obama out for it.

That is why many do not come here. They can not defend their positions with logic, facts, nor evidence.  Orange man bad!  Why?  Where are the facts and evidence?  Crickets.

If by "here" you mean PilotSpin, then I take issue with that logic. While I agree that many liberal positions are very hard to defend, especially on government run anything (the creep towards socialism), I think that if you start out by saying that liberal positions can't be defended, then there's no reason to even discuss it with you. After all, no matter what is said, nothing will be acceptable.

The reason we don't have many liberals here isn't because they can't defend their positions, it's because of how they're usually treated by a select few. The treatment part aside, why would they want to try and discuss their viewpoints when they won't be accepted by anyone to begin with? That seems to limit the ability to debate, I would think.

The National Review Editors have an article up regarding Trump's shutdown offer:

It was a reasonable proposal to exchange a temporary amnesty for beneficiaries of DACA (the so-called Dreamers) and TPS (illegal immigrants who supposedly couldn’t go home because of war or natural disasters) for $5.7 billion for border barriers, $800 million for humanitarian programs at the border, some changes in asylum rules, and more border agents and immigration judges.

Nancy Pelosi rejected it out of hand, even before hearing his formal televised offer. The progressive case against the deal is that it trades something temporary, the amnesty, which would theoretically last only three years, for something permanent: the fencing at the border. But this is an argument for making a counteroffer, not for refusing to negotiate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/trump-offer-government-shutdown-border-wall-immigration/

This isn't even a real issue. The Democrats have the right to change the rules for the chamber(s) they control as they see fit. Republicans lost the House so this shouldn't be a surprise. This article is really overplaying the issue. The Democrats can vote on whatever they want in the House but it has to make it past the Senate, and tax increases won't do that. This just gives the Democrats something to campaign on by saying, "See! We're trying to pass legislation but the Senate Republicans won't let us!"

Also, they cite Pelosi's hyperbole when she called the tax reform act Republicans passed "armageddon" but then say that the Democrats changing the House rules (not even something into law) a "disaster". Breathe, everyone.

It's the big weapons sale that is going to be a thorn. Trump was right that if we don't sell them F16s and tanks and other shit they are just going to buy from Russia or China. Of course, it'll be second rate equipment, but decent enough for the likes of the ME aggressors. I know Saud would prefer US built hardware as it's the best out there, and they can afford the best, but they could get other stuff too. That would certainly hurt LM and Boeing.

As the article asechrest posted noted, that's not likely to happen. They've bought not just our products, but bought into the systems that go with them. The training, the maintenance, the support, etc. That's not something you can just immediately switch away from. From the Reason article:

The Saudis, even under a gambler like the 33-year old bin Salman, would be unlikely to spark the ire of Congress and jeopardize their access to U.S. military hardware, training, and technology, particularly when Riyadh is currently fighting in the fourth year of a war in Yemen that, charitably put, is a stalemate. And while the Saudis could lessen their dependence on American equipment by switching to Russian and Chinese suppliers, such a transition would not happen overnight. It would require the kind of time Riyadh is unwilling to spend in the current threat environment.

He would not be wishing it if she would retire. It's only because she refuses to, so her death would be the only way to remove her. (Other than impeachment and I don't see that coming, not for her, maybe the left will try it for Kavanaugh though.)  Like it or not the SCOTUS is political and therefore has been drawn into the ideological battlefield. You are right, it is horrible that it has become what it is. When the stakes are this high, wishing defeat of an enemy by whatever means necessary is understandable. And wishing someone would die of natural causes is not at all the same thing as trying to kill them yourself and it's certainly not the same thing as wishing death by slow torture like some on the left are wishing for anyone on the right. One is sadistic and the other is just hoping God will hurry along what is in the near future anyway. Big difference.

I would hope people wouldn't wish death on a sitting Supreme Court justice for any reason. She is still capable of performing her duties, and is in good health so far as everyone knows (whether or not you agree with her decisions is not the same as her being capable of performing them).

It also doesn't "have" to come to anything. Decency can prevail and people can wish that she retire, but wishing for her death is extreme. It's very difficult to claim that conservatives are on the right side when they are wishing for the death of someone for political purposes. Conservatives rightly decry the left for their "the ends justify the means" mentality, and yet that is exactly what I am seeing here. We can be better, as conservatives, as Americans, and as people.