Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Trump to declare a national emergency

CNN

"I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he's prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time." -McConnell


Looks like Trump is trying to look tough while signing something he was so against. Trumpers rejoice.

Well we knew something like this might be coming. We also know the democrats are gonna try to fight it tooth and nail.

Remember when the Obama was supposed to declare emergencies to seize power so he could push his agendas through and all the people who eventually became Trumper hollered how that was akin to tyranny? Robtard remembers.

Call of duty

Building a wall is a bit difference then military operations

Originally posted by Robtard
Remember when the Obama was supposed to declare emergencies to seize power so he could push his agendas through and all the people who eventually became Trumper hollered how that was akin to tyranny? Robtard remembers.

I remember when Obama said he couldn't do DACA, and then he did DACA.

Your irrelevant topic deflection has been noted, Surt

*to note

Schumer, Pelosi, Hillary and President Obama all voted for a former fence. And President Clinton demanded illegal immigration stop as did President Obama. I can post the videos.

Democrats are for border security, that's just a silly Trump smear you're repeating.

A gigantic useless wall of concrete isn't it, that will only do two real things 1) Boost Trump's fragile ego and thereby Trumper's egos 2) Make Trump's mega contractor buddies richer when they're under the table awarded the contracts

It's like you people didn't learn a thing with Cheney

Originally posted by Robtard
Your irrelevant topic deflection has been noted, Surt

You mentioned Obama lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Democrats are for border security, that's just a silly Trump smear you're repeating.

A gigantic useless wall of concrete isn't it, that will only do two real things 1) Boost Trump's fragile ego and thereby Trumper's egos 2) Make Trump's mega contractor buddies richer when they're under the table awarded the contracts

It's like you people didn't learn a thing with Cheney

So name the kind of security they are for. They are on record saying they were in favor of barriers.

http://i68.tinypic.com/ehyhcn.png

Is this this you, Fly?

Can one talking head explain how a border wall will hurt anyone.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
http://i68.tinypic.com/ehyhcn.png

Is this this you, Fly?

Whomever wrote that sounds like a true Trump zealot

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Can one talking head explain how a border wall will hurt anyone. it's extremely expensive while having zero practical value.

Instead of spending 5 billion on a wall that won't work, you can spend 2 billion and hire more border patrol agents and give them better equipment, which will actually result in more illegal immigrants being caught.

So democrats supported barriers in the past cuz..?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
it's extremely expensive while having zero practical value.

Can you post the peer reviewed study that states barriers would have zero practical value?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
it's extremely expensive while having zero practical value.

Instead of spending 5 billion on a wall that won't work, you can spend 2 billion and hire more border patrol agents and give them better equipment, which will actually result in more illegal immigrants being caught.

7 trillion in pointless wars vs 20 billion for national security sounds like a win win.

We have like 20 billion we seized from El Chapo. Only makes sense to fund the wall with that. So it’s a free wall.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
it's extremely expensive while having zero practical value.

Instead of spending 5 billion on a wall that won't work, you can spend 2 billion and hire more border patrol agents and give them better equipment, which will actually result in more illegal immigrants being caught.

"5 billion" is not a realistic number. It's closer to 25-30 billion if we're doing Trump's initial mega wall idea, which he promised Mexico would pay for. That also doesn't account for upkeep cost.

80 billion murders. Deal with it Rob.

Originally posted by Surtur
80 billion murders. Deal with it Rob.

Huh? Are you having another Trumper moment?

80 billion. Deal. Wif. It.

20bil is still under the real cost and throwing money away when it could be used more intelligently is just that.

They've not taken shit from El Chapo, they're looking at possibly seizing upwards of 14billion in assets from him and his organization though.

You know what we could do with those 14billion? Hire more security, train and equip them better, invest in high-end drones/pilots that came cover larger areas of the border and then radio in so patrol can descend on specific points, build barriers in areas where it would make a difference. So much more than some giant concrete slab to honor Trump's fragile ego and tiny pecker.

Or invest that 14billion in our schools so American kids are less stupid. Another idea better than Trump's mega wall.

$14 billion to government run education sounds good to you? The government is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Why give them more money to teach failed policies and history that they never learn from?

To our underfunded as is public schools

Why not fund charter schools?

Anyhow though, I maintain that Trump declaring a National Emergency will just be an empty show to try and appease Trumpers so they can rationalize to themselves "well, he tried".

Not even all Republicans are onboard with his silly wall idea, notably congressmen from Texas, as they know the land the government would have to declare imminent domain on in order to build the Trump Wall would not sit well with their constituents, notable wealthy Texan land owners who would go "you want to seize how much of my land!?" They'd pull a NIMBY. "Build the wall, but not in my backyard", to quote Carlin.

Originally posted by Robtard
Anyhow though, I maintain that Trump declaring a National Emergency will just be an empty show to try and appease Trumpers so they can rationalize to themselves "well, he tried".

Not even all Republicans are onboard with his silly wall idea, notably congressmen from Texas, as they know the land the government would have to declare imminent domain on in order to build the Trump Wall would not sit well with their constituents, notable wealthy Texan land owners who would go "you want to seize how much of my land!?" They'd pull a NIMBY. "Build the wall, but not in my backyard", to quote Carlin.

Didn't he try though? Can you deny that?

lol
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
7 trillion in pointless wars vs 20 billion for national security sounds like a win win.

We have like 20 billion we seized from El Chapo. Only makes sense to fund the wall with that. So it’s a free wall. I'm not sure "we waste money already so why not waste more" is a solid precedent to work off of, let alone a sustainable one.

So he didn't try? Just trying to make sure what folk will say.

I mean if people are too stupid to see he tried...

Cue Star Wars line.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/you-may-be-disappointed-mueller-report-n971601

NBC: you may be disappointed by the Muller investigation

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/you-may-be-disappointed-mueller-report-n971601

NBC: you may be disappointed by the Muller investigation

This is why Dems are gonna bring their own investigations lol. It's so transparent. They will ride this until 2020.

Originally posted by Surtur
He will try though.

^ Back to shitting on Mueller. Didn't take long.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Back to shitting on Mueller. Didn't take long.

Can you explain why he shouldn't be shitted on?

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you explain why he shouldn't be shitted on?

Yes: He's done nothing thus far to warrant it. He was hired for a job and he's seemingly doing it.

Can you explain why he should be shit on? Since you've been doing it since about three weeks after he was appointed when the anti-Mueller campaign started.

we'll see, broly. we'll see.

do you even watch crime dramas, bro? the reason manafort was convicted was because he cracked or was cracked by damning evidence.

so all you have to hope for at this point is that he does his time without snitching, like a good caporegime.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you explain why he should be shit on? Since you've been doing it since about three weeks after he was appointed when the anti-Mueller campaign started.

For the same reason the usual suspects are suddenly preoccupied with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: they get their marching orders from right-wing media. They are being manipulated by conservative millionaires and billionaires who own media companies, many of whom are not even Americans, and they happily march over the cliff.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
do you even watch crime dramas, bro? the reason manafort was convicted was because he cracked or was cracked by damning evidence.

so all you have to hope for at this point is that he does his time without snitching, like a good caporegime.

Yes, but he was convicted of financial crimes. Nothing in any indictment says anything about collusion, coordination or conspiracy.

Are you trying to suggest, that at the end of this investigation Mueller is going to pull out fresh indictments after he's already been sentenced and in jail?

That just isn't how the law is practiced. I was on a grand jury as a foreman for 10 weeks. After we passed true bills, we never came back and passed more for people who had already been indicted and sentenced in court.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/838de6f1c8216f750b50a6ba14eb24c1/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
For the same reason the usual suspects are suddenly preoccupied with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: they get their marching orders from right-wing media. They are being manipulated by conservative millionaires and billionaires who own media companies, many of whom are not even Americans, and they happily march over the cliff.

Pretty much.

Surt should be allowed to explain himself though regardless. So waiting.

Robbie is such a Lying Hypocrite. Proves it with Ever post.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Robbie is such a Lying Hypocrite. Proves it with Ever post.

You gotta love how they pretend it's the right that is obsessed with AOC.

That is one of the key reasons why the Republican Party is split over him doing this. He's doing it to save face, imo, knowing nothing much will come out.

But the precedent has been set, now they have to deal with the possibility of a Democrat President declaring a national emergency on something like gun violence as a means to get around or partially around the 2nd Amendment. If that happens, I don't want to see any tears from Trumpers, you set the field.

Originally posted by Robtard
That is one of the key reasons why the Republican Party is split over him doing this. He's doing it to save face, imo, knowing nothing much will come out.

But the precedent has been set, now they have to deal with the possibility of a Democrat President declaring a national emergency on something like gun violence as a means to get around or partially around the 2nd Amendment. If that happens, I don't want to see any tears from Trumpers, you set the field.

Wow. That's a good point. I can smell a civil war.

A war that Republicans and Democrats will lose because the Libertarians are the most well-armed, intelligent, and prepared for doomsday scenarios like this.


Unfortunately, these same libertarians have more in common with Republicans.



You're welcome to stay at my Mom's house, Robtard. When the Dems start getting executed. We can hide you in her barn. It's 2 stories. Air Conditioned. When the GOP Police come over, we will put you in the tornado shelter. Just don't make a sound. While they drink their milk and interrogate us.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow. That's a good point. I can smell a civil war.

A war that Republicans and Democrats will lose because the Libertarians are the most well-armed, intelligent, and prepared for doomsday scenarios like this.


Unfortunately, these same libertarians have more in common with Republicans.



You're welcome to stay at my Mom's house, Robtard. When the Dems start getting executed. We can hide you in her barn. It's 2 stories. Air Conditioned. When the GOP Police come over, we will put you in the tornado shelter. Just don't make a sound. While they drink their milk and interrogate us. I don't think a Dem President would declare a national emergency to strip away gun rights, just that a precedent has been set now by the Trump admin for future admins.

There wouldn't be a civil war though, there would be a lot of tears and gripping, but the vast majority of gun owners would submit their weapons. Sure there would be scenarios here and there of people resisting and violence breaking out from those criminals.

And of course, gangs would still find a way.

Imports, CIA purchases. Maybe a 3d printer.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think a Dem President would declare a national emergency to strip away gun rights, just that a precedent has been set now by the Trump admin for future admins.

There wouldn't be a civil war though, there would be a lot of tears and gripping, but the vast majority of gun owners would submit their weapons. Sure there would be scenarios here and there of people resisting and violence breaking out from those criminals.

I disagree on both accounts.

I think a Dem president would declare the revocation of gun rights. Here's why:

If enough of the Americans who are butthurt about Trump vote, then a Dem president similar to Trump would get elected. Because it would be the direct Yin to Trump's Yang (insert Mushroom Wang pun, here).

There's actual partisan violence, already, happening. People are more polarized than ever according to actual research. We are in a similar "hot" position for a Civil War: II.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on both accounts.

I think a Dem president would declare the revocation of gun rights. Here's why:

If enough of the Americans who are butthurt about Trump vote, then a Dem president similar to Trump would get elected. Because it would be the direct Yin to Trump's Yang (insert Mushroom Wang pun, here).

There's actual partisan violence, already, happening. People are more polarized than ever according to actual research. We are in a similar "hot" position for a Civil War: II.

Do you really think the support is there, even among Dems?

Changing the constitution is a big deal. If nothing elss, the fear of losing something they care about, should motivate a position AGAINST changing the status quo.

Originally posted by cdtm
Do you really think the support is there, even among Dems?


No. Not unless the Yin version of Trump, from the dems, suddenly appears to rally the anti-Trumpers and Dems.

I think Trump will win another 4 years.

Originally posted by cdtm
Changing the constitution is a big deal. If nothing elss, the fear of losing something they care about, should motivate a position AGAINST changing the status quo.

This is about declaring a national emergency due to gun violence which might cause another civil war. It's a hypothetical.

Real talk:

Do you think Trump is more trouble then he's worth at this point?

E.g., would it bother you to see him impeached, if they can find a reason?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree on both accounts.

I think a Dem president would declare the revocation of gun rights. Here's why:

If enough of the Americans who are butthurt about Trump vote, then a Dem president similar to Trump would get elected. Because it would be the direct Yin to Trump's Yang (insert Mushroom Wang pun, here).

There's actual partisan violence, already, happening. People are more polarized than ever according to actual research. We are in a similar "hot" position for a Civil War: II.


Honestly, I heard very similar back in 2008 and again (but not as hard) in 2012 after Obama won and showed the true markings of a President by winning again, that a civil war was coming and a race war for that matter.

So I take all that with a grain of salt, so to speak.

Originally posted by cdtm
Real talk:

Do you think Trump is more trouble then he's worth at this point?

E.g., would it bother you to see him impeached, if they can find a reason?


I've posted many times about wanting Trump removed. Impeachment is the start. I actually want him removed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've posted many times about wanting Trump removed. Impeachment is the start. I actually want him removed.

Which is funny, as the Trumpers here don't really give you flack for it, while they'll get up in arms over very much less from others. Begs the question, just how good is the D that you're giving them

Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, I heard very similar back in 2008 and again (but not as hard) in 2012 after Obama won and showed the true markings of a President by winning again, that a civil war was coming and a race war for that matter.

I was alive, then, too, but did not hear it even remotely as often as I do, now. And the civil unrest and literal violence between the two sides is proof that it has gotten worse (disregarding the research that shows it has gotten worse).

Originally posted by Robtard
So I take all that with a grain of salt, so to speak.

The worst possible outcome is the Democratic version of Trump is elected in 2020. At least for maintaining peace.


Best outcome is a moderate or liberal Republican beats Trump in 2020 but that's probably the second most improbable outcome.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've posted many times about wanting Trump removed. Impeachment is the start. I actually want him removed.

Agreed.

The best thing the Republican party can do, is stop supporting the bastard.
Lynch him from the party. Make this one thing a non partisan issue.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agreed.

The best thing the Republican party can do, is stop supporting the bastard.
Lynch him from the party. Make this one thing a non partisan issue.

It'd be great if a great GOP leader held a press conference and talked about rallying enough GOP congressman, secretly, that they now have 2/3 ready to go.

The wall should have dispensers offering tortilla chips and salsa.

Originally posted by BackFire
The wall should have dispensers offering tortilla chips and salsa.

Build it out of immigrants.


If the flood is so bad, there should be enough.

This will never happen cuz Trump already screwed himself over with his words lol. It's already over. He made a comment about how he "didn't need to do this". ACLU and others are already preparing lawsuits and that one sentence will sink him.

"No, the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years." -Ann Coulter 2/15/19

"The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over." -Ann Coulter 2/15/19

"The Only National Emergency Is That Our President Is An Idiot" -Ann Coulter


LOLz, Ann agrees with me, she's nailing Trumpers to the fence. I love it when Trumpers eat each other.

Originally posted by Robtard
"No, the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years." -Ann Coulter 2/15/19

"The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over." -Ann Coulter 2/15/19

"The Only National Emergency Is That Our President Is An Idiot" -Ann Coulter


LOLz, Ann agrees with me, she's nailing Trumpers to the fence. I love it when Trumpers eat each other.

Pretty much proves Ann's smarter then she lets on.

Ann has been going after him over the wall literally every day lol. She keeps daily updates on how much of the wall has been built.

Originally posted by cdtm
Pretty much proves Ann's smarter then she lets on.

I never took her as being stupid, she's not, she's just vile.

Though I've said for years I don't really think she buys the hate-mongering she spews, she just knows there's a certain amount of the US population that are that way and will make her rich for being the voice of it. Still makes her garbage though.

But she nailed it right here:

"The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over." -Ann Coulter

Case in point:

Originally posted by Surtur
Didn't he try though? Can you deny that?

Comedy writes itself.

He did try, whether Ann likes it or not lol.

I don't even want a wall unless it can be shown to work and I can still acknowledge that.

We're going to ignore facts cuz TDS. Okay.

You're like an abused 50's housewife at this point, Surt and Trump is your uncaring abusive husband that you just keep standing by no matter what.

Joan Allen should play you (and the Trumper collective) in the made for TV film.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're like an abused 50's housewife at this point, Surt and Trump is your uncaring abusive husband that you just keep standing by no matter what.

Joan Allen should play you (and the Trumper collective) in the made for TV film.

What a sad attempt. Do better.

It was an accurate assessment, Joan.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was an accurate assessment, Joan.

Not really, but you tried.

Says the person who called leftwing people "morons" in his last OP.

but that was a whole other thread, so it doesn't count

Originally posted by cdtm
He completely pissed off the cia, fbi, and every agency.


Trump is ****ed.

Not really

Originally posted by cdtm
He completely pissed off the cia, fbi, and every agency.


Trump is ****ed.

Well that's not a true. Lots of people in all agencies like Trump if they didn't he'd be dead.

EDIT: In fact most of the ground level hardworking agents support Trump, the highier up you go the more corrupt it is.

Originally posted by Deadline

EDIT: In fact most of the ground level hardworking agents support Trump, the highier up you go the more corrupt it is.

i'll just take that statistic at face value, since you're from the internet

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i'll just take that statistic at face value, since you're from the internet

Well the reason why you know it's probably true is because they would have probably shot him or tried to kill him by now. That's what happened to Ronald Reagen he wasn't part of the establishment and didn't want to play ball, so they shot him.

Its Ok to try and Assassinate Republicans.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Its Ok to try and Assassinate Republicans.

I think there was another incident were a group of Republicans got ran off the road...or something like that.

And don't forget that time a bunch of them were just playing some B-Ball and a Leftists Loony tried to gun a bunch of them down...that got Poo Poo'ed by Leftards Like Bashy. Remember that?

Yea....

https://i.imgflip.com/1wnndu.jpg

Originally posted by Deadline
Well the reason why you know it's probably true is because they would have probably shot him or tried to kill him by now. That's what happened to Ronald Reagen he wasn't part of the establishment and didn't want to play ball, so they shot him.

It's not like there's audio of the feds talking to Malcom X and threatening that they "make people disappear".

The rules only protect us, if people play by the rules.

"Get your hand out of my Pocket"

This is a bad idea. Really not a fan of the expansion of executive power. Seems whenever either party has the president and congress, their congress is like "oh yeah it's for the greater good because our guy is in power" so they allow executive power to be expanded. Well what happens when your guy isn't in power?

Looking at the gleam in Nancy Pelosi's eye about how she considers gun violence a national emergency, I don't think this is a precedent we should desire to set.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
This is a bad idea. Really not a fan of the expansion of executive power. Seems whenever either party has the president and congress, their congress is like "oh yeah it's for the greater good because our guy is in power" so they allow executive power to be expanded. Well what happens when your guy isn't in power?

Looking at the gleam in Nancy Pelosi's eye about how she considers gun violence a national emergency, I don't think this is a precedent we should desire to set.

That's been noted and the precedent has now been set, Trump did it.

You people better pray nothing happens to Trump and Pence in the next two years. Pelosi is third in line

Originally posted by cdtm
It's not like there's audio of the feds talking to Malcom X and threatening that they "make people disappear".

The rules only protect us, if people play by the rules.

Not sure what you're getting at.

Originally posted by Deadline
Not sure what you're getting at.

There's audio of the cia admitting to Malcolm X they make people disappear.

I have no doubt if they wanted to assassinate a president, they would.

Originally posted by cdtm
There's audio of the cia admitting to Malcolm X they make people disappear.

I have no doubt if they wanted to assassinate a president, they would.

They do, for starters if they did it would start a Civil War Trump has too much support in the intelligance agencies to be assassinated like that.

Originally posted by Deadline
They do, for starters if they did it would start a Civil War Trump has too much support in the intelligance agencies to be assassinated like that.

Wow, that is the exact opposite of reality. Trump does not trust our intelligence agencies, and regularly insults them.

Trump would seem more paranoid were it not for the plans to evoke the 25th, the constant leaks, etc.

IMO if Democrats put country before party they'd have just given Trump his wall money before it got to this point. My reason is simple: everybody knew this would be a fight. Everybody knew if he did this it would immediately be challenged.

This is going to involve a shitload of people who are probably better off doing more important things(like government lawyers), but now they're gonna being dealing with settling this bullshit. And what if Congress gets involved? Do they not have better shit to do? No, I don't care if you hate Trump or Republicans. The fact is the guy is president. You could have spared 5 friggin billion, which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of a wall unless it is proven to work(and not gonna break the bank). I say this as someone who thinks this was a bad idea.

Originally posted by Surtur
IMO if Democrats put country before party they'd have just given Trump his wall money before it got to this point. My reason is simple: everybody knew this would be a fight. Everybody knew if he did this it would immediately be challenged.

This is going to involve a shitload of people who are probably better off doing more important things(like government lawyers), but now they're gonna being dealing with settling this bullshit. And what if Congress gets involved? Do they not have better shit to do? No, I don't care if you hate Trump or Republicans. The fact is the guy is president. You could have spared 5 friggin billion, which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of a wall unless it is proven to work(and not gonna break the bank). I say this as someone who thinks this was a bad idea.

You do not understand how government works. It is not the role of Congress to give the President whatever he wants.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You do not understand how government works. It is not the role of Congress to give the President whatever he wants.

Nah there are ways for them to try to get involved in this, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying the things would work, but they could try.

Odd when Obama was in office that was the complete attitude to give him whatever he wanted.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Odd when Obama was in office that was the complete attitude to give him whatever he wanted.

That wasn't the Republicans attitude.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Odd when Obama was in office that was the complete attitude to give him whatever he wanted.

Sometimes it truly does seem like their memories only go back as far as November 8th 2016.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That wasn't the Republicans attitude.

Obviously

Originally posted by snowdragon
That wasn't the Republicans attitude.

Indeed it's almost as if both sides are yuge hypocrites.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah there are ways for them to try to get involved in this, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying the things would work, but they could try.

CEO: I am going to withhold pay from employees until the CFO agrees to give me company funds to build a wall around the office.

CFO: We have a contract with employees to pay them for their work. Their pay is not a bargaining chip you can leverage to get funds from Accounting.

Surtur: Nah, the CFO should work with the CEO to give him what he wants.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
CEO: I am going to withhold pay from employees until the CFO agrees to give me company funds to build a wall around the office.

CFO: We have a contract with employees to pay them for their work. Their pay is not a bargaining chip you can leverage to get funds from Accounting.

Surtur: Nah, the CFO should work with the CEO to give him what he wants.

*shrugs* Okay, then don't give him what he wants. Then we can waste lots of energy on stupid bullshit.

Yes. Tear down All the Wall....Except for the ones around their neighborhoods.. Those walls are OK!!!



AOC don't get the Diff between Wall of Berlin and Border Wall....DERP!

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Which democrats have said that?

This is a legit question. I couldn't find anything to back up his point in less than 30 seconds so I gave up.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/15/kirsten-gillibrand-support-tear-down-border-barrie/

Originally posted by Silent Master
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/15/kirsten-gillibrand-support-tear-down-border-barrie/

There it is.


I always give up on fact-checking someone else's claims when it takes more than 30 seconds. Then I move the burden of proof onto the claimer. I don't think "citation needed" whining is contributing to a discussion unless it's a rather obscure fact/study that is hard to find. "Find it yourself" is my policy. You really can just "google it."

Gillibrand and O'Rourke

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wow, that is the exact opposite of reality. Trump does not trust our intelligence agencies, and regularly insults them.

Yes he does but who is he refering to? There are lots of people in intelligency agencies some good some bad. Like I've been saying the problem is the highier up you go the more corrupt it is. A lot of regular agents don't like what's going but are sometimes forced into doing things they don't want to do.

There is essentialy a cold Civil War going on in America right now.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Gillibrand and O'Rourke

Good thing they're not considering running for president!

Originally posted by Deadline
A lot of regular agents don't like what's going but are sometimes forced into doing things they don't want to do.



I vos onlee following odaaz.

This will fail... Just as the shutdown failed.. anyone who sees this as anything other than an autocratic grab for power by an impetous man child is naive beyond belief

Nah. Borders need empirical justification for their removal to be "retarded". There's no moral or principal need for borders. The only sort of case there's to be made is a pragmatic one. It's perfectly possible the lack of borders is bad for our economy or our citizens, in which case, the existince of such borders makes sense. If it isn't, then it doesn't really matter, and if it's bad, then they should be torn down.

Illegal immigration is a problem only as it may pose an economic or safety threat for us. That democrats and republicans both have agreed to increase border security suggests that this justification is present, but I would like to see a harrison-equse break down of the effect of illegal immigrants.

All that being said, the notion that we're in need of new policy against illegal immigration seems unfounded:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html

The current policy seems to be working fine. SO what exactly is the point of morally negative actions like the separation of families? A kid being sperated form their parents is indeed a moral wronging of the kid and hence such an act warrants an overwhelming empirical madate.

You mean get rid of the concept of borders in general and just let literally anyone come into the US?

The Left in their pursuit to Unite all Nations will first have to Destroy All that People have fought and Died to Create.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I vos onlee following odaaz.

I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt entirely but when people WANT to do something and the highier ups aren't letting them and theres a whole network of these people (they're not just agents, but politicians, judge etc) you gotta have some consideration.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
The Left in their pursuit to Unite all Nations will first have to Destroy All that People have fought and Died to Create.

I'm okay with humans figuring out how to be one planet, united in science and entertainment.

Best future for earth is main timeline Star Trek.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm okay with humans figuring out how to be one planet, united in science and entertainment.

Best future for earth is main timeline Star Trek.

A future where some arbitrary directive takes precedence over an entire world dying. A future where someone elses lifes work, and person unto himself, was drafted to create an army of disposable slaves.

Beautifully empathetic future, the Federation.

Originally posted by cdtm
A future where some arbitrary directive takes precedence over an entire world dying.

You mean the long and hotly debated Prime Directive that is constantly violated at almost every juncture when it comes up? You mean the episode where Data violates the Prime Directive and they save the planet, anyway, despite the ethics violation that this causes?

You mean the Prime Directive that violates morality but upholds ethics?

That Prime Directive?

Edit - This happens in Season 2, episode 15. It's a touching episode where Data's humanity is explored with a very nice capstone finish to the episode. I liked it a lot when I watched it as a kid.

Originally posted by cdtm
A future where someone elses lifes work, and person unto himself, was drafted to create an army of disposable slaves.

You mean Season 2 episode 9 where Data is put on trial to prove he has personhood/sapience and is not just a machine where he successfully defends himself as being sapient and autonomous?

Originally posted by cdtm
Beautifully empathetic future, the Federation.

Yes, sure seems like it. You brought up two great examples where the ruling is in the direction you think it should morally go. Not sure if you intended that.

Did you bring up the fact that money is useless, food shortages are no longer a problem, there's no such thing as gender inequality or racism (among humans, at least...but the humans are often seen as being speciest against other humanoids), etc?

A global government sounds absolutely ****ing awful.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean the long and hotly debated Prime Directive that is constantly violated at almost every juncture when it comes up? You mean the episode where Data violates the Prime Directive and they save the planet, anyway, despite the ethics violation that this causes?

You mean the Prime Directive that violates morality but upholds ethics?

That Prime Directive?

Edit - This happens in Season 2, episode 15. It's a touching episode where Data's humanity is explored with a very nice capstone finish to the episode. I liked it a lot when I watched it as a kid.



You mean Season 2 episode 9 where Data is put on trial to prove he has personhood/sapience and is not just a machine where he successfully defends himself as being sapient and autonomous?



Yes, sure seems like it. You brought up two great examples where the ruling is in the direction you think it should morally go. Not sure if you intended that.

Did you bring up the fact that money is useless, food shortages are no longer a problem, there's no such thing as gender inequality or racism (among humans, at least...but the humans are often seen as being speciest against other humanoids), etc?

That's the thing, though. It requires a Kirk or Picard to really cross that system. And even Kirk's been reprimanded, demoted, punished..


Imagine OUR world under that system. We don't have a Kirk, Picard, or Sisko to set things straight.

Just lots of Quarks, Gul Dukats, and *shudders* Janeways.

Originally posted by Surtur
IMO if Democrats put country before party they'd have just given Trump his wall money before it got to this point. My reason is simple: everybody knew this would be a fight. Everybody knew if he did this it would immediately be challenged.

This is going to involve a shitload of people who are probably better off doing more important things(like government lawyers), but now they're gonna being dealing with settling this bullshit. And what if Congress gets involved? Do they not have better shit to do? No, I don't care if you hate Trump or Republicans. The fact is the guy is president. You could have spared 5 friggin billion, which is not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of a wall unless it is proven to work(and not gonna break the bank). I say this as someone who thinks this was a bad idea.

Why should Democrats give Trump money for a wall which you've said yourself is not logical and will not work as promised to begin with?

Why should Republicans give Money to Democrats so they can ABORT/MURDER Unborn and in some cases even BORN Babies?

WHY DAT ROBBIE!?

You Ass PHUCKING BISH!!!!!!

Originally posted by cdtm
That's the thing, though. It requires a Kirk or Picard to really cross that system. And even Kirk's been reprimanded, demoted, punished..

And Data. And pretty much anyone who encounters the Prime Directive and acts in accordance with their conscience. Who said we have to use a Prime Directive, though? If that's your own real problem, poof, gone. Magical imagination land is amazing like that.


Originally posted by cdtm
Imagine OUR world under that system. We don't have a Kirk, Picard, or Sisko to set things straight.

Just lots of Quarks, Gul Dukats, and *shudders* Janeways.

Yes, we have far better and intelligent heroes in reality compared to the idealized an often short sighted heroes in a fictional sci-fi universe.

Edit - Janeway is awesome.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
You mean get rid of the concept of borders in general and just let literally anyone come into the US?
WTF are you responding to? Specific quotes plz

Originally posted by Emperordmb
A global government sounds absolutely ****ing awful. It only works well as a benign dictatorship from Perry Rhodan to Miracleman, with the exception of Star Trek that is... B5, I really don't fancy that.

Truthfully all of them are puppets to big business, like all of us. Trump is a Puppet to US business interests mostly to a point, and in truth is the most honest puppet in his collusion, in some ways. He like Presidents before him will and almost certainly has used the Presidency to line his pockets. The interests of the people are secondary.

The votes in favor of the resolution fell short of the two-thirds of the chamber needed to override a presidential veto. Trump has issued a veto threat on the measure.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-vote-trump-national-emergency/h_f580d72beab7069b360e9340bb38e7f0

"The resolution now moves over to the Senate, where it must be brought to the floor for a vote within the next 18 days." -snip

Poor Cocaine Mitch has to now fear that more Republicans than he cares to admit might be in favor of blocking Trump's fake national emergency and even if it's very likely not to pass the Senate; it might show clear signs of division amount the Republicans. He'll scrambling and promising BJs to secure as many votes as possible over the next 2+ weeks.