Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If there is enough congressional opposition to what Trump did or is doing all they have to do is change the law allowing it with enough margin to override a veto.Probably not. Congress tends to not want to do their jobs anyway, so they'll probably rely on the courts to stop this. I'm sure some measures may pass the House, but they probably won't get passed the Senate.
But now he’s declaring his emergency to raid the govco piggy bank. And that lands straight into separation of powers. And you’d better pray to your fuzzy white god that he doesn’t get away with it. Because if he does most presidents will be able to do anything they want. Our government was set up to avoid giving any one person too much power, and the Founders were wise in so doing.Where were you when Obama picked up his "pen and phone" and went around Congress, after admitting he couldn't do that, but then did it anyway? How is that not, at the very least, on the same level as this, if not worse?
Who is breaking the law?That's a bold statement. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court broke the law because he didn't rule the way you and millions of others (myself included) wanted him to?
Justice Roberts when he said he didn't want to strike down Obamacare out of emotion, not law?
Obama when he chose not to enforce immigration law, and others he didn't like?Obama didn't just refuse to enforce immigration law, he used his "pen and phone" to bypass Congress, even after admitting that he knew he couldn't do it. He just wanted to do it faster. He tried to write, pass, and enforce laws that he wanted.
Let's look at the real reason the dims and the establishment republicans are so butthurt over this. Let's stop pretending that the President has done something sooooooo bad and something against the law (it's not).But it might be. You saying it's legal does not make it so (the same holds true for me, just so we're clear).
Do you beleive border security is a national security issue or not? What is the President's role and responsibilty in these matters of national security?You know where I stand on this because I've said so before. A national security matter is not always a military matter, but you know that.
I'm sure the President didn't consult National Review before making his decision, rather he relied on his team of lawyers. Hard to imagine, huh?I'm sure all presidents have listened to their team of lawyers and yet that doesn't make all of their actions legal. We can reference a number of Obama's decisions, but for the purposes of this conversation, DAPA works as a great example since it's related.
As far as McCarthy? Yes, he does most of the time give insightful opinions. Unlike you, that doesn't make me believe or follow everything he writes. He's been off base before.I'm not sure where you get the "unlike you" bit from. I read a variety of sources, as most people here do. I just happen to think he's right on this, along with the others who say the president is wrong and that this was unnecessary (which Trump said himself he didn't need to do).
He said he didn't "need" to do it this quickly but WANTED to do it this quickly. He said it is an emergency which you acknowledge. You are really arguing semantics, not issues, or actions. He did the right thing. He is a man of action unlike most politicians. It is an emergency, we need to stop the illegal invasion. The fact that both Republicans and Democrats don't like it speaks volumes, and underscores that it is the right thing to do.What he said was, "I didn't need to do this". If you want to accuse me of arguing over semantics, at least get his quote right. This is all about the issue of immigration and his actions to address it. If you want to argue he's a "man of action" then we can say the exact same thing about Obama. Obama felt it was necessary and proper to protect millions of illegal aliens through DACA and DAPA and Republicans cried foul, as they should have. But somehow when Trump goes around Congress, he's completely justified in doing so. This is clearly partisan and hypocritical.
If you had bother to actually research the applicable laws you'd see how preposterous it is to make such a post.I have. I'll post some links, which I'm sure you'll promptly dismiss because they didn't come from an author you approve of, but here they are nonetheless:
How about doing some reading and not using the MSM talking points.
Where is Trump saying it's not an emergency? He said he could have done it slower, but wanted to do it faster. You are grabbing at straws because you just don't like Trump. Admit it. You let your dislike of Trump cloud your judgement.Read what I wrote. I never said that Trump isn't saying it's an emergency. I'm saying it's either an emergency or it isn't. If it is truly an emergency, legalities aside, then he wouldn't have said at a press conference that he didn't "need" to do it.
I'll take the actions of a President his own Party hates as much as the opposition. Tells me the action is correct. The Republicans, and their corporate masters, and orgs like the Chamber of Commerce LOVE the flood of cheap labor illegally into the U.S. They are fine with the risks they bring to the average citizen. They are insulated from it.You are deflecting and trying to change the narrative and it's not working. It's either an emergency or it isn't.
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.
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.
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.
I gotta admit, I'm not necessarily supportive of this method. Next thing you know, President OAC will be declaring a national emergency over guns and climate change. Of course, if she gets elected, she would probably do that anyway.This is one of the big reasons why this was an ill-advised course of action. That, and the dubious legal reasons he's citing for authorities to declare the emergency.
