Thirteen Republicans Voted for Ending Trump’s National Emergency to Build the Wall

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Not that hard to believe that TWO of the thirteen SHIT STAIN RINO's that voted AGAINST our great president are from WISCONSIN, one from the Green Bay district and one from the TOILET of Milwaukee, and I just got done sending them both an email letting them know how disgusted I am with them to SIDE with the DEMOCRATS, and that I will NOT be voting for them again, EVER, and neither will any of my family.

Course I'm from neither of their districts and can't vote for them if I wanted, but they don't know that. I just want them to know that there are conservatives out here that find their behavior completely unacceptable and disgusting. These RINO's just really piss me off, and I need to let them know it.

===============

Thirteen House Republicans joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democrats to pass a resolution that would terminate President Donald J. Trump’s national emergency to build a wall along the southern border.

The thirteen Republicans who voted with Democrats to end the national emergency include:

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
Rep. Jamie Herrera Butler (R-WA)
Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX)
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/26/thirteen-republicans-voted-for-ending-trumps-national-emergency-to-build-the-wall/

[Kathianne]

It seems more like voting in keeping with the Constitution and separation of powers, rather than voting with the opposition party.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It seems more like voting in keeping with the Constitution and separation of powers, rather than voting with the opposition party.
So... what does that mean? Are you implying the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare a national emergency?

[STTAB]

It seems more like voting in keeping with the Constitution and separation of powers, rather than voting with the opposition party.

Yeah right, you mean like that time the GOP led Congress voted on a resolution to end Obama's DACA EO?

I'm sick of this nonsense. This is why Republicans get pushed around in Congress. These idiots think they'll be liked or admired for going against their own party, notice no Dem EVER does that

[Black Diamond]

So... what does that mean? Are you implying the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare a national emergency?

Well if it's trump we are talking about...

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Well if it's trump we are talking about...
Yeah... never mind the 31 national emergencies declared by other presidents that are STILL in effect, it's that ONE declared by President Trump that's NOT constitutional... got it... :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Yeah, I was against Obama’s DACA decision too, I don’t remember any of you disagreeing then it was wrong.

I know, it’s juvenile to think the Constitution was something worth a legacy.

It was, was being key.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yeah, I was against Obama’s DACA decision too, I don’t remember any of you disagreeing then it was wrong.

I know, it’s juvenile to think the Constitution was something worth a legacy.

It was, was being key.
I think there was plenty of opposition to the kenyan's DACA E.O. I may have been on the other board but I was very vocal of my opposition.

And you keep mentioning the constitution, so, are you saying President Trump doesn't have the constitutional authority to issue a National Emergency? I'm confused there what you're saying, and this is the second time I've asked...

[Kathianne]

I think there was plenty of opposition to the kenyan's DACA E.O. I may have been on the other board but I was very vocal of my opposition.

And you keep mentioning the constitution, so, are you saying President Trump doesn't have the constitutional authority to issue a National Emergency? I'm confused there what you're saying, and this is the second time I've asked...

WOW! Second time! What the heck happens if you don’t get catered to?

Constitutionality will be in court. He, like Obama has the power to declare an emergency, and I expect there will be many more attempts in the future.

I’m just surprised you all are so open and honest about it being ok now, since it’s this great president, not like all those past ones.

[STTAB]

Yeah, I was against Obama’s DACA decision too, I don’t remember any of you disagreeing then it was wrong.

I know, it’s juvenile to think the Constitution was something worth a legacy.

It was, was being key.

Disagreeing what is wrong?

Katherinne, these people are actually arguing that the President doesn't have the authority to declare a national emergency as he sees fit, even though they gave him the authority to do exactly that.

Think about that, they aren't suing over appropriations, because as of yet Trump hasn't even tried to spend any money that Congress hasn't appropriated , they are actually simply arguing "we don't agree with Trump that there is an emergency" which is actually irrelevnt because Congress themselves voted to allow the President to decide when a national emergency exists, which actually makes sense because if something is an emergency it needs to be handled right away, and Congress can't do anything right away.

Trump is actually using the law here.

[aboutime]

Doesn't matter what party they come from....POLITICIANS are only in it for their own profession as life-long politicians with ENDLESS sources of American Tax Payer Money.
I DO NOT TRUST ANY OF THEM, all the time. If their lips are moving...They are Generally Lying.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/349868/story_image/9a548f93833b5ce6a2393dd158b7bf50.jpg?1484404973

[Gunny]

Not that hard to believe that TWO of the thirteen SHIT STAIN RINO's that voted AGAINST our great president are from WISCONSIN, one from the Green Bay district and one from the TOILET of Milwaukee, and I just got done sending them both an email letting them know how disgusted I am with them to SIDE with the DEMOCRATS, and that I will NOT be voting for them again, EVER, and neither will any of my family.

Course I'm from neither of their districts and can't vote for them if I wanted, but they don't know that. I just want them to know that there are conservatives out here that find their behavior completely unacceptable and disgusting. These RINO's just really piss me off, and I need to let them know it.

===============

Thirteen House Republicans joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democrats to pass a resolution that would terminate President Donald J. Trump’s national emergency to build a wall along the southern border.

The thirteen Republicans who voted with Democrats to end the national emergency include:

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
Rep. Jamie Herrera Butler (R-WA)
Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX)
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/26/thirteen-republicans-voted-for-ending-trumps-national-emergency-to-build-the-wall/Will Hurd isn't exactly conservative. He's just more conservative than the wingnut he ran against. Complete RINO.

Anyone notice that from that list, only Benedict Hurd and maybe Rooney are from states that not only don't sport a border with these criminals, but few of them also have a lot of ag to attract illegal aliens.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

WOW! Second time! What the heck happens if you don’t get catered to?

Constitutionality will be in court. He, like Obama has the power to declare an emergency, and I expect there will be many more attempts in the future.

I’m just surprised you all are so open and honest about it being ok now, since it’s this great president, not like all those past ones.
I wasn't being nasty, Kathianne, but no surprise you had to go there... you don't have to reply to me if that's all you can do.

I don't know crawled up your ass and died but store it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Will Hurd isn't exactly conservative. He's just more conservative than the wingnut he ran against. Complete RINO.

Anyone notice that from that list, only Benedict Hurd and maybe Rooney are from states that not only don't sport a border with these criminals, but few of them also have a lot of ag to attract illegal aliens.
I also notice that the president is fully within his constitutional rights to declare a national emergency, and anyone that says there's no emergency with illegal immigration is a liar, even if you're a Trump hating teacher with an attitude.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/us-immigrant-population-hits-all-time-high-413-million-people-ryan-lovelace/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/border-surge-highest-since-2011-each-illegal-immigrant-costs-70-000-7x-deportation-price

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigration-democrats-open-borders/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/1-819-illegal-immigration-cases-per-judge-backlog-at-all-time-high-500-000

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/26/illegal-immigration-under-trump-on-track-to-hit-highest-level-in-a-decade/

[aboutime]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei


US Constituton Article 1, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union,
****suppress insurrections and repel invasions****

[Kathianne]

Disagreeing what is wrong?

Katherinne, these people are actually arguing that the President doesn't have the authority to declare a national emergency as he sees fit, even though they gave him the authority to do exactly that.

Think about that, they aren't suing over appropriations, because as of yet Trump hasn't even tried to spend any money that Congress hasn't appropriated , they are actually simply arguing "we don't agree with Trump that there is an emergency" which is actually irrelevnt because Congress themselves voted to allow the President to decide when a national emergency exists, which actually makes sense because if something is an emergency it needs to be handled right away, and Congress can't do anything right away.

Trump is actually using the law here.

This isn't an 'emergency' in the sense of 9/11, a sudden, unexpected event. This is a problem that has been ongoing for more than 45 years. In order to actually address the problem, all 3 branches need to be involved.

That there are 30 or 130 other examples of misuse of power, doesn't erase the error of the new or previous.

Is Congress dysfunctional? I bet we agree to a yes there.

Is the remedy a tyrant? It seems that many on both extremes vote yes on that, as long as it is their choice of tyrant. I'm of the opinion that no would be the correct answer, regardless of the 'leanings' of said tyrant.

Watched and agreed when we were at the mercy of Obama's pen. Still in awe of how quickly so many think the behavior is now ok, when it's in the hand of their favorite.

Be careful what you wish for..

[Abbey Marie]

I agree it’s not similar to 9-11. But to my knowledge, we didn’t previously have caravans of thousands spawning caravans of thousands, worming their way here with the intention of breaching our border.
The long-term problem of illegal immigration recently became a much more urgent problem.

And it’s not like Congress or the courts are trying to solve the problem in other non-emergency ways. In fact, they try to stymie it at every turn. So it has come to this.

[pete311]

I agree it’s not similar to 9-11. But to my knowledge, we didn’t previously have caravans of thousands spawning caravans of thousands, worming their way here with the intention of breaching our border.
The long-term problem of illegal immigration recently became a much more urgent problem.

And it’s not like Congress or the courts are trying to solve the problem in other non-emergency ways. In fact, they try to stymie it at every turn. So it has come to this.

Where are these massive caravans now? Seems Trump has gone silent on them since the Nov election. How weird....

[jimnyc]

A lot of wall is on it's way up. Enjoy! I know I am. They took down the temporary walls on display, to make room for the final version. Hopefully and quickly hit all of the worst problematic areas first with the $1.7 knowing it is approved already.

And the economy spiking? Great times!

[STTAB]

Where are these massive caravans now? Seems Trump has gone silent on them since the Nov election. How weird....

Shut the fuck up Pete, the caravans are forming and heading this way as we speak. This is called a fact. Stupid liberals "hey it's not an emergency until the caravan is actually here, then once that caravan is gone there is no emergency"

Stupid AND dishonest.

[STTAB]

This isn't an 'emergency' in the sense of 9/11, a sudden, unexpected event. This is a problem that has been ongoing for more than 45 years. In order to actually address the problem, all 3 branches need to be involved.

That there are 30 or 130 other examples of misuse of power, doesn't erase the error of the new or previous.

Is Congress dysfunctional? I bet we agree to a yes there.

Is the remedy a tyrant? It seems that many on both extremes vote yes on that, as long as it is their choice of tyrant. I'm of the opinion that no would be the correct answer, regardless of the 'leanings' of said tyrant.

Watched and agreed when we were at the mercy of Obama's pen. Still in awe of how quickly so many think the behavior is now ok, when it's in the hand of their favorite.

Be careful what you wish for..

We agree, not an emergency in the sense of 9/11. But an emergency in the nature of nothing we have tried has worked and the problem is getting worse. Add into that that I know you would agree that securing our border is a matter of national security and you would have to agree that that falls under the President's purview.

But, more importantly, Congress already abdicated this power to the President, they can't come back later and say "hey this President is an authoritarian, because he declared a national emergency we don't agree is an emergency" because THEY are the ones who passed a law "the President gets to decide what is and what is not a national emergency"

make sense?

[Kathianne]

I agree it’s not similar to 9-11. But to my knowledge, we didn’t previously have caravans of thousands spawning caravans of thousands, worming their way here with the intention of breaching our border.
The long-term problem of illegal immigration recently became a much more urgent problem.

And it’s not like Congress or the courts are trying to solve the problem in other non-emergency ways. In fact, they try to stymie it at every turn. So it has come to this.
Come to endorsing, rather than decrying tossing separation of powers?

[pete311]

Shut the fuck up Pete, the caravans are forming and heading this way as we speak. This is called a fact. Stupid liberals "hey it's not an emergency until the caravan is actually here, then once that caravan is gone there is no emergency"

Stupid AND dishonest.

Let me know when this invading force is less than 2000 miles away

[STTAB]

Let me know when this invading force is less than 2000 miles away



So once it's 2000 miles away it's an emergency, but you don't believe the government should plan ahead?

You're a fucking idiot, do we treat hurricanes that way, or is an emergency declared as soon as we realize a hurricane is forming?

[pete311]

So once it's 2000 miles away it's an emergency, but you don't believe the government should plan ahead?

You're a fucking idiot, do we treat hurricanes that way, or is an emergency declared as soon as we realize a hurricane is forming?

Pretty sure we would not declare a state of emergency for a hurricane that might or might not arrive at our borders 6 months from now.

[FakeNewsSux]

Pretty sure we would not declare a state of emergency for a hurricane that might or might not arrive at our borders 6 months from now.

Or for a hurricane that hit two days earlier as in the case of Governor Blanco after Katrina laid waste to her state.

[STTAB]

Come to endorsing, rather than decrying tossing separation of powers?

Kathianne, CONGRESS gave the President the authority to declare a national emergency years ago. Trump has merely exercised that authority.

He didn't usurp anything.

[Abbey Marie]

Come to endorsing, rather than decrying tossing separation of powers?

Odd that you would say that to me after all these years. So I’m going to not-reply.

[aboutime]

Pretty sure we would not declare a state of emergency for a hurricane that might or might not arrive at our borders 6 months from now.


You never pay attention to anything that takes place in this country...Do Ya?

Over the last several years. During all months of the year. State Gov's have asked the President of the U.S. to declare NATIONAL EMERGENCIES for possible hurricanes, known tornado's, snow storms, and even Crazy California....land of Earthquakes, mudslides, floods, and fires.

You really need to join the rest of us someday. No wonder you hate YOURSELF so much.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Here is a list of the national emergencies declared by the last seven presidents

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/national/here-list-the-national-emergencies-declared-the-last-seven-presidents/Fb5dM2Fy17mKyuo8jgMW9K/

And it appears that according to our anti American liberal and TDS board members, it's ok for any other president to declare a national emergency, but when it comes to President Trump, he's way otta line... this is your twisted, contorted, even retarded way their angry brain works, full of so much HATE that they are willfully dishonest and make outlandish statements that make no sense at all. I give you a person that one, has an irrational hatred for our president, and two, someone that has had their head filled nightly with the most egregious lies and hyperbole bashing of our president that we've ever seen in the history of this nation, and evidently, they ENJOY that, because they bring their hatred here right along with all that vile garbage their heads have been pumped full of by the unhinged, apoplectic democrat propaganda wing and regurgitate here.

The US is currently in 31 other national emergencies. Here's what that means.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-11/us-currently-31-other-national-emergencies-heres-what-means

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Evidently, it's even OK for southern state governors to declare a national emergency on the southern border for the exact same reason President Trump did. It's just wrong when TRUMP does it.

==============

Multiple Governors have declared states of emergency along the border in the past.


Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who became President Obama’s DHS Secretary, declared a state of emergency along the border in 2005.

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson also declared a state of emergency at the border in 2005.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-border-security-victory/

==============

This demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, the TWO FACED HYPOCRISY coming from the democrats and assorted other TDS individuals so full of HATE for our president, that they'll bash him and say he's wrong even when he's done nothing that someone else hasn't already done, and what he's doing is for the GOOD of America. It doesn't matter, their HATRED for our president OVERRIDES EVERYTHING else, even good things for our country.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Let me know when this invading force is less than 2000 miles away
When it comes to Darwin's farce about evolution, you'll actually attempted at debate. It was almost shocking. I had come to believe you didn't have it in you.

When it comes to the problem with the endless caravans that have formed, are forming, and will form in the future, and have already gotten here, are on their way here, or haven't left yet, you go right back to your old BULL SHIT self.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, CONGRESS gave the President the authority to declare a national emergency years ago. Trump has merely exercised that authority.

He didn't usurp anything.

I didn't go along with Obama, not going along with this. Doesn't matter which party controls, it's not the right play.

I KNOW, it's a grand new era, with the President one agrees with on everything, including those things many were 'always against.'

[Kathianne]

Odd that you would say that to me after all these years. So I’m going to not-reply.

In all honesty, didn't mean that the way it came out. However, it is what folks are doing, no?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I didn't go along with Obama, not going along with this. Doesn't matter which party controls, it's not the right play.

I KNOW, it's a grand new era, with the President one agrees with on everything, including those things many were 'always against.'

Note me.
I raised holy hell about Trumps Syria crap,standing against Assad and the fact he didnt force an investigation on the hillary traitor treason and the fact that he did not send troops to the damn border!, You see I dont cut ice my friend.
I dont change my core values for man or beast.
Please note I am certainly not with the Trump can do no wrong crowd. Just like I never was with the Bush can do no wrong crowd.
That being fact, no president was ever close to being as bad as was the obama.
the piece of shit obama was and is a ffking traitor!!! And should be tried , convicted and sentenced accordingly, IMHO.
I will happily cuss anybody out that tries to stand face to face with me and tell me otherwise about that piece shit ffking maggot..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Note me.
I raised holy hell about Trumps Syria crap,standing against Assad and the fact he didnt force an investigation on the hillary traitor treason and the fact that he did not send troops to the damn border!, You see I dont cut ice my friend.
I dont change my core values for man or beast.
Please note I am certainly not with the Trump can do no wrong crowd. Just like I never was with the Bush can do no wrong crowd.
That being fact, no president was ever close to being as bad as was the obama.
the piece of shit obama was and is a ffking traitor!!! And should be tried , convicted and sentenced accordingly, IMHO.
I will happily cuss anybody out that tries to stand face to face with me and tell me otherwise about that piece shit ffking maggot..-Tyr

I hear you on that. While you will always out color me on the descriptives, there's not one thing Obama did that I agreed with. While Trump is not on my favorites list, his term has so far included many things that I do think needed to be addressed.

What I don't agree with is the endorsements to repeating the processes that were wrong in the past and are still wrong today.

Those emergency declarations ARE for issues such as 9/11 or the sudden tanking of the economy. Not for dealing with a problem that has been in existence for nearly as many decades as most of us have been adults or longer.

Just because Congress is inert, doesn't change the Constitution. Indeed, the blame is more on the 'people' that keep voting for the dimwits.Then again, since voting has turned into a 'team' sport, having little to do with the actual process of governing, but rather winning, it's the present and future I guess.

[Noir]

Props to kathianne, who I think has dominated this conversation with a very clear and concise message -


Those emergency declarations ARE for issues such as 9/11 or the sudden tanking of the economy.

[STTAB]

I didn't go along with Obama, not going along with this. Doesn't matter which party controls, it's not the right play.

I KNOW, it's a grand new era, with the President one agrees with on everything, including those things many were 'always against.'


I'm confused as to what you are disagreeing with Kathianne. Are you disagreeing with the fact that Congress gave the President the authority to declare a national emergency? Remember, we're not talking about shifting funds from one agency to another, we're talking about a lawsuit which is arguing that Trump doesn't even have the authority to declare there is an emergency in spite of the fact that the law as passed by Congress says he does.

A real usurpution of power will be if a court says "a state or group of states can prevent the President from doing what Congress passed a law allowing him to do"

[STTAB]

I hear you on that. While you will always out color me on the descriptives, there's not one thing Obama did that I agreed with. While Trump is not on my favorites list, his term has so far included many things that I do think needed to be addressed.

What I don't agree with is the endorsements to repeating the processes that were wrong in the past and are still wrong today.

Those emergency declarations ARE for issues such as 9/11 or the sudden tanking of the economy. Not for dealing with a problem that has been in existence for nearly as many decades as most of us have been adults or longer.

Just because Congress is inert, doesn't change the Constitution. Indeed, the blame is more on the 'people' that keep voting for the dimwits.Then again, since voting has turned into a 'team' sport, having little to do with the actual process of governing, but rather winning, it's the present and future I guess.

You are fundamentally wrong. The Congress gave the President the authority to at his discretion declare a national emergency. That means by law a national emergency is what the President says it is. The fact that you or I might disagree on whether the particular item is a national emergency is really neither here nor there. POTUS has the SOLE authority to decide what is and what is not a national emergency.

[pete311]

You are fundamentally wrong. The Congress gave the President the authority to at his discretion declare a national emergency. That means by law a national emergency is what the President says it is. The fact that you or I might disagree on whether the particular item is a national emergency is really neither here nor there. POTUS has the SOLE authority to decide what is and what is not a national emergency.

The whole debate is how you define what a "national emergency is". The courts will decide. Trump waiting 2 years with caravans still 6 months away, then going to florida to golf and saying "I didn't really have to do this", won't look that this is a real emergency. btw, given what you said above, I can't wait for the next dem president to declare a national emergency on gun control and climate control and you'll be 100% on-board right, because it's the president's sole authority?

[Kathianne]

You are fundamentally wrong. The Congress gave the President the authority to at his discretion declare a national emergency. That means by law a national emergency is what the President says it is. The fact that you or I might disagree on whether the particular item is a national emergency is really neither here nor there. POTUS has the SOLE authority to decide what is and what is not a national emergency.
Actually there can be a difference between legal and right. I’ve never said it was illegal, I would argue that Congress cannot give away its powers. Since executives will take what they can get, and it’s not before the courts, we can be legal and unconstitutional.

[STTAB]

The whole debate is how you define what a "national emergency is". The courts will decide. Trump waiting 2 years with caravans still 6 months away, then going to florida to golf and saying "I didn't really have to do this", won't look that this is a real emergency. btw, given what you said above, I can't wait for the next dem president to declare a national emergency on gun control and climate control and you'll be 100% on-board right, because it's the president's sole authority?

That you're too stupid to understand the difference between having the authority to declare a national emergency and what actions are taken during that national emergency are of no concern to me.

Moron, these states aren't suing because they think Trump did something he doesn't have the authority to do during a national emergency, they are suing saying he doesn't even have the authority to declare a national emergency, which he most assuredly does.

Example, if the next Democratic President declares a gun emergency in the US, that's his prerogative, The law specifically allows him to do so,, now that doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants under the umbrella of "national emergency" but yes, he could declare that a national emergency.

Again, you are stupid.

[STTAB]

Actually there can be a difference between legal and right. I’ve never said it was illegal, I would argue that Congress cannot give away its powers. Since executives will take what they can get, and it’s not before the courts, we can be legal and unconstitutional.

Then these states should be suing that the law is unconstitutional, but that is NOT what they are doing. They are specifically suing and saying that they disagree with Trump about whether this is an emergency or not. Well, that's not their call. In point of fact, they shouldn't even standing to sue.

And in further point of fact, THE COTUS does not mention national emergencies at all, so Congress giving the President the authority to declare such doesn't violate the COTUS.

[Kathianne]

Then these states should be suing that the law is unconstitutional, but that is NOT what they are doing. They are specifically suing and saying that they disagree with Trump about whether this is an emergency or not. Well, that's not their call. In point of fact, they shouldn't even standing to sue.

And in further point of fact, THE COTUS does not mention national emergencies at all, so Congress giving the President the authority to declare such doesn't violate the COTUS.
The thread is about the Congressional vote, not the lawsuits.

[STTAB]

The thread is about the Congressional vote, not the lawsuits.

Fair point.

Okay well then still the point stands, this vote is these morons voting that they disagree with the President, fine, I believe the law actually allows them to do so, and if enough disagree the national emergency is cancelled. Now , can you name another instance where so many of the President's own party disagreed with him about a national emergency ? No you can't , because traditionally members of a party support their President. Good or bad, that's the way it always has been. That, in this case they aren't tells you that Trump is hurting the uniparty.

Those assholes all want illegal immigration to continue unabated. It's shameful.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Cutting to the heart of the matter, democrats want open borders, period.

Why? Because illegal aliens and refugees are their new voting base they're relying on to keep them in power. That's why they're fighting the wall. That's why they're suing the president when he undoubtedly has the powers to declare a national emergency, and it IS a national emergency, and yes, the democrats will lose in the SCOTUS. But the democrats need to keep that constant flow of permanent under class invading America to ensure they always have voters, and when the president wants to build a wall that will cut off those new undocumented democrat voters, the democrats know they have to fight for their survival. They KNOW walls WORK, that's why they DON'T want them.

I haven't seen one of the liberal moonbats or TDS patients here deny that. Why? Because they know it's the truth, they know that's what the HEART of this entire fiasco is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Props to kathianne, who I think has dominated this conversation with a very clear and concise message -
If your ASS KISSING was any more apparent, we'd have to fish your nose out of her BUTT crack.

I've provided a multitude of links already supporting my position, and as of this post, not one single fact backed REBUTTAL, only OPINIONS, but you have to pop in the thread and KISS ASS because... oh wait... that person HATES me about as much as YOU DO. Yeah... that one wasn't hard to figure out. You can two can be BFF's!

For all the BRILLIANCE you think you have, and you think you DAZZLE people here with it, you sure are EASY to figure out, just like the little leftist simpleton you are.

[STTAB]

Cutting to the heart of the matter, democrats want open borders, period.

Why? Because illegal aliens and refugees are their new voting base they're relying on to keep them in power. That's why they're fighting the wall. That's why they're suing the president when he undoubtedly has the powers to declare a national emergency, and it IS a national emergency, and yes, the democrats will lose in the SCOTUS. But the democrats need to keep that constant flow of permanent under class invading America to ensure they always have voters, and when the president wants to build a wall that will cut off those new undocumented democrat voters, the democrats know they have to fight for their survival. They KNOW wall WORK, that's why they DON'T want them.

I haven't seen one of the liberal moonbats or TDS patients here deny that. Why? Because they know that's the truth, they know that's what the HEART of this entire fiasco is.

And likewise the GOP wants open borders for cheap labor for their corporate donors. That's why BOTH sides play this game where they have approved this and that when they had Presidents who they knew wouldn't get serious about border security but now that they have a President who will build a fence if given the money, they are fighting him tooth and nail.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

And likewise the GOP wants open borders for cheap labor for their corporate donors. That's why BOTH sides play this game where they have approved this and that when they had Presidents who they knew wouldn't get serious about border security but now that they have a President who will build a fence if given the money, they are fighting him tooth and nail.
They're not equal. Republicans aren't looking for illegals aliens to keep them in power, democrats are. Whatever reason a republican might have to keep illegal aliens flowing into America, the biggest reason, recently, has been because of the never Trumper RINO's that simply want to oppose anything the president does. That little crap stain RINO Ryan was the reason why nothing got done while they controlled the house, he purposefully kept if off the floor. Most Wisconsinites I've talked to think Ryan is a disgusting little turd, and we're ashamed he's from WI.

But by no measure are the reasons for open borders and forces working against our president equal between the democrat and the republican party. EVERY democrat is against him, when it's just a handful of republicans.

[Abbey Marie]

And likewise the GOP wants open borders for cheap labor for their corporate donors. That's why BOTH sides play this game where they have approved this and that when they had Presidents who they knew wouldn't get serious about border security but now that they have a President who will build a fence if given the money, they are fighting him tooth and nail.

Except cheap labor can be obtained via temporary work visas, or whatever mechanism is preferred. No need for rampant illegal entries to accomplish this.

[STTAB]

Except cheap labor can be obtained via temporary work visas, or whatever mechanism is preferred. No need for rampant illegal entries to accomplish this.

Some can be yes, but not enough to drive down the cost of ALL labor, which is what illegal immigration does, and it would be naive to believe that Republicans in DC don't favor this . They are barely any better than the Democrats.

[Abbey Marie]

Some can be yes, but not enough to drive down the cost of ALL labor, which is what illegal immigration does, and it would be naive to believe that Republicans in DC don't favor this . They are barely any better than the Democrats.

I’m not sure why it couldn’t be enough. What’s to stop us from handing out work visas as much as is needed?
I can believe there are some Republicans who are doing this. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

[STTAB]

I’m not sure why it couldn’t be enough. What’s to stop us from handing out work visas as much as is needed?
I can believe there are some Republicans who are doing this. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

The law, there is a limit to how many work visas can be given out and in what industries and from what countries. Plus people who come over on work visas have to meet certain standards that those who simply sneak in and use fake papers, or none at all, don't have to worry about.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The law, there is a limit to how many work visas can be given out and in what industries and from what countries. Plus people who come over on work visas have to meet certain standards that those who simply sneak in and use fake papers, or none at all, don't have to worry about.
I don't believe it's congress that caps the number of migrants allowed a work visa. That's controlled by the Department of State. That can be changed as needed.

Of course congress might have oversight over the Dept of State, but if they want to change the number of visas, they just do it.

[STTAB]

I don't believe it's congress that caps the number of migrants allowed a work visa. That's controlled by the Department of State. That can be changed as needed.

Of course congress might have oversight over the Dept of State, but if they want to change the number of visas, they just do it.

You believe wrong

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42048.pdf

The numbers are set by law.

[Abbey Marie]

You believe wrong

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42048.pdf

The numbers are set by law.
Seems that could be changed if the will is there to do so.

The point is, it is very doable, and I’m sure these Republican Congress critters know it. I do get that it is easier to do it in the shadows.

[Gunny]

Trump is screwed because enough Republicans won't support him. His Senate majority means nothing. He's on his own. Our politicians on both sides just flat suck. None give a damn about what's in the best interest of this nation.

The left is winning, and is going to win. They've tied Trump up in court at every turn. Even if he gets through 2 terms, his decisions will be tied up in the courts for longer.

Where I disagree with @Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8) is when the Constitution is being abused, trying to stick to the Constitution and use it to defend against an enemy that knows and uses every loophole is suicide.

Lessons not learned: We tried fighting the enemy by our rules in Vietnam when the NV had no such notion of following anyone's rules. We're doing the same in Afghanistan/the ME. Conservatives/Republicans are doing the same thing with Democrats.

How many times are we going to do the same wrong thing hoping for a different result?

Idealistically, I agree with Kathianne. Practically, we're past the point of our government's elected officials doing their jobs as outlined in the Constitution. They don't serve us and this Nation. They serve themselves.

[Kathianne]

Y
Trump is screwed because enough Republicans won't support him. His Senate majority means nothing. He's on his own. Our politicians on both sides just flat suck. None give a damn about what's in the best interest of this nation.

The left is winning, and is going to win. They've tied Trump up in court at every turn. Even if he gets through 2 terms, his decisions will be tied up in the courts for longer.

Where I disagree with @Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8) is when the Constitution is being abused, trying to stick to the Constitution and use it to defend against an enemy that knows and uses every loophole is suicide.

Lessons not learned: We tried fighting the enemy by our rules in Vietnam when the NV had no such notion of following anyone's rules. We're doing the same in Afghanistan/the ME. Conservatives/Republicans are doing the same thing with Democrats.

How many times are we going to do the same wrong thing hoping for a different result?

Idealistically, I agree with Kathianne. Practically, we're past the point of our government's elected officials doing their jobs as outlined in the Constitution. They don't serve us and this Nation. They serve themselves.
Ultimately it comes down to “the people.” I used to think they usually get it right; maybe not on first try, but eventually.

Don’t believe it anymore.

[Gunny]

Y
Ultimately it comes down to “the people.” I used to think they usually get it right; maybe not on first try, but eventually.

Don’t believe it anymore.
I used to think that maybe "the people" just misunderstood, didn't understand, got bad info et al. I've come to the conclusion lately that yes, they ARE just that damned dumb.

[Elessar]

Let me know when this invading force is less than 2000 miles away

Do you let someone pound on your door, demanding entry?
Then wait and lock it while they are inside?

No...You stop them at the doorstep, turn their asses back with force if needed.

When will you liberal crybabies learn?

[Elessar]

I’m not sure why it couldn’t be enough. What’s to stop us from handing out work visas as much as is needed?
I can believe there are some Republicans who are doing this. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

There are literally thousands of 'homeless' bums on the streets that panhandle and harass other folks.
Put their asses to work in the fields and orchards and quit relying on illegals to harvest crops.

[STTAB]

Seems that could be changed if the will is there to do so.

The point is, it is very doable, and I’m sure these Republican Congress critters know it. I do get that it is easier to do it in the shadows.


Abbey, it's the same reason the Democrats won't just come out and admit that they want open borders outright even though we know that's what they want. If they admitted that they would lose support. If Republicans outright said "hey we want more foreigners here to lower wages" they would lose some of their support.

BOTH sides lie to voters about their true goals. Although Democrats are actually starting to just be up upfront about their crazy wants.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

You believe wrong

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42048.pdf

The numbers are set by law.
Those are LPR's, lawful permanent residents.

I was talking about those who come here to work seasonally, and it appears that number is set by congress...

https://www.apnews.com/e81e316194bdff85e56ec191b8ff9324

[High_Plains_Drifter]

https://i.ibb.co/kBPd0GD/no-border-walls-no-voter-id-laws-figured-it-out-yet-nancy-pelosi-chuck-schumer.jpg

[Kathianne]

If your ASS KISSING was any more apparent, we'd have to fish your nose out of her BUTT crack.

I've provided a multitude of links already supporting my position, and as of this post, not one single fact backed REBUTTAL, only OPINIONS, but you have to pop in the thread and KISS ASS because... oh wait... that person HATES me about as much as YOU DO. Yeah... that one wasn't hard to figure out. You can two can be BFF's!

For all the BRILLIANCE you think you have, and you think you DAZZLE people here with it, you sure are EASY to figure out, just like the little leftist simpleton you are.

I don't HATE you, I disagree with your choices and often the way you post. Oh well, it is what it is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I don't HATE you,
Could have fooled me.


I disagree with your choices
There's nothing wrong with that, but that would also put you at odds with the majority of active posters here, and I don't see you treating them the way you treat me.


and often the way you post.
I haven't changed my style since I started posting with this bunch, for what, 14-15 years now? I'd say I've even mellowed a bit, and you've known me for the better part of that time, we used to be friends. I guess Trump happened. You don't seem to like anyone that likes Trump.


Oh well, it is what it is.
I give what I get. I've told everyone I know that. Those who've treated me decent over the years, I've always treated them with the same respect. Those who have copped an attitude and gave me the business, they got it back, so yeah, it is what it is.

[Kathianne]

Could have fooled me.


There's nothing wrong with that, but that would also put you at odds with the majority of active posters here, and I don't see you treating them the way you treat me.


I haven't changed my style since I started posting with this bunch, for what, 14-15 years now? I'd say I've even mellowed a bit, and you've known me for the better part of that time, we used to be friends. I guess Trump happened. You don't seem to like anyone that likes Trump.


I give what I get. I've told everyone I know that. Those who've treated me decent over the years, I've always treated them with the same respect. Those who have copped an attitude and gave me the business, they got it back, so yeah, it is what it is.
Ah well, I have just responded to your snark, like “second time...” You can’t take half of what you dish out and go on attack when your whining is called out.

When I posted ina way that Abbey felt disrespected, I clarified. It’s what grown ups do.

We don’t have to agree, but seems since the “majority “ feels a certain way, you think it’s fine to chase others away.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Ah well, I have just responded to your snark, like “second time...” You can’t take half of what you dish out and go on attack when your whining is called out.

When I posted ina way that Abbey felt disrespected, I clarified. It’s what grown ups do.

We don’t have to agree, but seems since the “majority “ feels a certain way, you think it’s fine to chase others away.
So just saying "second time" triggered your poor little self? Rather delicate there aren't you? Pretty easily irritated if that's all it takes. Talk about whining and can't take it. I think we need to issue an irony alert here.

Please tell me who I've "chased away." You mods and admins are the ones with the power to ban people, not me.

Of course you won't admit it, but since Trump got elected, you've been a changed person. What is quite obvious is that you can't stand anyone here that supports him, especially those of us that defend him. You've expressed your hate for him many times, and it's pretty evident your hate is spilling over onto those of us who like him and see he's doing a great job.

I can take anything you or anyone else can dish out and then some. I've been taking it for 15 years, and as long as your attitude towards me continues, I'll continue to respond in kind.

[Kathianne]

:laugh:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

When the truth has been told and you've been exposed, just post a laughing smilie.

[Kathianne]

When the truth has been told and you've got nothing left to defend yourself, just post a laughing smilie.


What you fail to see, grasshopper, is that you were not the only one responding. For all the 'majority' you apparently feel part of, you are the only one totally intolerant of any dissent to what you perceive to be the truth.

Others manage to disagree, without being a prick. You cannot manage to perform at that level.

It's too bad, as often you make good points, it's the intolerance that makes you not worth engaging with. It always comes down to PR and his ego and inability to refrain from the dirt.

Be happy, I'll return to not responding with my opinions soon enough. Just ignore me and it will come true.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

What you fail to see, grasshopper, is that you were not the only one responding. For all the 'majority' you apparently feel part of, you are the only one totally intolerant of any dissent to what you perceive to be the truth.

Others manage to disagree, without being a prick. You cannot manage to perform at that level.

It's too bad, as often you make good points, it's the intolerance that makes you not worth engaging with. It always comes down to PR and his ego and inability to refrain from the dirt.

Be happy, I'll return to not responding with my opinions soon enough. Just ignore me and it will come true.
Pot meet kettle, and thanks for now showing you're not above LYING.

I'm the ONLY ONE HERE that's INTOLERANT? You see NO ONE ELSE, EVER, NEVER, respond to someone and be a little... INTOLERANT? I just got done disagreeing with Pete in another thread and it was ENTIRELY AMICABLE. How do you explain that? I'm as well behaved as anyone else here when I'm responding to someone that has been decent to me, PERIOD, and the proof of that is all over the board.

So how freakin' many examples do you want me to COPY AND PASTE on here to show that what you just said is a complete line of CRAP? Shall I start?

You're really hitting a new low with that kind of BS, Kathianne.

You've got a HARD ON for me, I get it. But you're no better than anyone else, because your snark is on the board just like everyone else's is, and there's been plenty of it since TRUMP GOT ELECTED.

What YOU can't take is anyone that DEFENDS President Trump, little miss hypocrite. That really seems to get in your craw, and since I'm one of his most ardent supporters here, I really get under your skin. Yeah... I'm a DEPLORABLE.

[aboutime]

We all know OTHER PEOPLE who would happily call us Intolerant, or racist, merely because we disagree. Real Intolerance appears when others refuse to honestly accept PROVEN TRUTH.

Which is why we call the MSM FAKE NEWS.

[Gunny]

I wonder if our "list" means the same thing as Ocasio-Cortez's list only different?

[Kathianne]

:laugh2:
I wonder if our "list" means the same thing as Ocasio-Cortez's list only different?

[STTAB]

Fundamentally , I See and concede Kathianne's point, our leaders SHOULD be voting based on their principles, regardless of party and consistently.

The problem I have is that it is clear that the one party has zero principles and the other only has principles when it suits them. We all know it would not take much effort to dig up multiple instances of the 13 Republicans in question forgetting all about their principles when it suited them to do so.

And for all the faults of their party and those within it, NO ONE can say the Democratic Party doesn't know how to toe the company line. That's a principle in and of itself.

[Gunny]

Fundamentally , I See and concede Kathianne's point, our leaders SHOULD be voting based on their principles, regardless of party and consistently.

The problem I have is that it is clear that the one party has zero principles and the other only has principles when it suits them. We all know it would not take much effort to dig up multiple instances of the 13 Republicans in question forgetting all about their principles when it suited them to do so.

And for all the faults of their party and those within it, NO ONE can say the Democratic Party doesn't know how to toe the company line. That's a principle in and of itself.Republicans like to call that thinking for themselves. That's all well and good in it's time and place.

When it requires an all-hands effort to man the line to win, nobody cares about their damned opinions and you don't get to sit out this go-round because it doesn't somehow suit you. When it's time to play for the team, it's as part of the team.

I can say and have said repeatedly in the past that exact same thing as it applies to voters. I get the whole "how it's supposed to be" thing. Now let's talk real world. It's as much voting to keep some people out as it is to vote for someone and that's just how it is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I wonder if our "list" means the same thing as Ocasio-Cortez's list only different?
What list is "our" list?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Republicans like to call that thinking for themselves. That's all well and good in it's time and place.

When it requires an all-hands effort to man the line to win, nobody cares about their damned opinions and you don't get to sit out this go-round because it doesn't somehow suit you. When it's time to play for the team, it's as part of the team.

I can say and have said repeatedly in the past that exact same thing as it applies to voters. I get the whole "how it's supposed to be" thing. Now let's talk real world. It's as much voting to keep some people out as it is to vote for someone and that's just how it is.
Well, I think there's a fundamental difference between democrats and republicans, that being that democrats are born, raised and indoctrinated into group think, and they don't dare deviate from that, whereas republicans are taught to be independent, to think for themselves, to be individuals, so when it comes to voting, the dems vote as a block and that's the only way Cuck Schumer and flower girl Nancy will have it, they'll tolerate nothing less, but republicans, they go off and vote whatever, sadly that even means whoever has BOUGHT their vote.

[Gunny]

Well, I think there's a fundamental difference between democrats and republicans, that being that democrats are born, raised and indoctrinated into group think, and they don't dare deviate from that, whereas republicans are taught to be independent, to think for themselves, to be individuals, so when it comes to voting, the dems vote as a block and that's the only way Cuck Schumer and flower girl Nancy will have it, they'll tolerate nothing less, but republicans, they go off and vote whatever, sadly that even means whoever has BOUGHT their vote.I don't see that much of a difference, myself. The dividing line with me is the difference between do-noting Republicans and completely insane and stupid Democrats.

There's a fine line at this point with me. When you're not smart enough to circle your wagons and everybody shoot at an indian, you deserve to lose.

[STTAB]

Republicans like to call that thinking for themselves. That's all well and good in it's time and place.

When it requires an all-hands effort to man the line to win, nobody cares about their damned opinions and you don't get to sit out this go-round because it doesn't somehow suit you. When it's time to play for the team, it's as part of the team.

I can say and have said repeatedly in the past that exact same thing as it applies to voters. I get the whole "how it's supposed to be" thing. Now let's talk real world. It's as much voting to keep some people out as it is to vote for someone and that's just how it is.



And even worse, how many of those 13 didn't vote out of principle, they voted cuz they hate Trump , and "principle" was just a convenient excuse? Will the GOP ever learn that they are are war with the DNC?

[jimnyc]

Fundamentally , I See and concede Kathianne's point, our leaders SHOULD be voting based on their principles, regardless of party and consistently.

The problem I have is that it is clear that the one party has zero principles and the other only has principles when it suits them. We all know it would not take much effort to dig up multiple instances of the 13 Republicans in question forgetting all about their principles when it suited them to do so.

And for all the faults of their party and those within it, NO ONE can say the Democratic Party doesn't know how to toe the company line. That's a principle in and of itself.

I agree. I'm all for the COTUS. But the Dems are stepping on it, and the majority of the R's are allowing for it, and then many judges (9th and more) are supporting them, and then you have tons of leftovers in government helping one side, and then even the media helping just one side. The right gets investigated right and left and allows for it, and they don't do shit to the left. We finally have someone in office with some nads, and the right doesn't support him. SMH

I'm not asking for laws to be broken, but dang straight I support Trump if he needs to do things the hard way. I'd rather not the emergency, but there is really no other way thanks to the left and the right together. And not by doing the right thing. A festering problem that no one wants to address - address it then, and if not, then don't complain when Trump does it his way - legally and across the board, just in a manner they disagree with. Well, folks in congress disagree daily. Knock it down in court then. I'll concede if the SC shoots him down. But I'm not conceding when the cards stacked as they are is what is preventing things from getting done.

I don't care if folks want to hear it or believe it or not - but this man has gotten SO MUCH more done as a president than others, and that's with every last card stacked against him. Has kept promise after promise after promise.

And emergency is very much so within his powers, just as it's within the powers of others to sue to block it, and if they want, for the SC rule against his emergency.

But now, would I/we "rather" this be done a different way? OF COURSE AND ABSOLUTELY! But you have to understand, we are dealing with a democrat congress that stated BEFORE they heard a single word in congress, that their intent was to obstruct every last thing that Trump was to try - and they have followed through with their word.

[jimnyc]

And the Democrats will just keep going and going and going - like an energizer bunny designed to obstruct and go after Trump until he leaves office, whether that be 2020 or 2024. It's an endless thing for them. But those on the left with PROVEN wrongdoing... well, nothing changes. So if someone on the right needs to take a harsher route to get things done, so be it. We KNOW the democrats won't stop, and the right would be foolish the continue as-is and allow them to prevent anything from getting done.

You had congressional investigation, and the Mueller investigation, of which we should get the results within the next month. But it's never enough.

---

Democrats Expand Investigations into Donald Trump Targeting His Family and Businesses

Democrats on Capitol Hill are significantly expanding their investigations into President Donald Trump, now openly targeting his family and businesses–in particular, the Trump Organization.

On Monday, House Democrats sent more than 80 separate document requests from the House Judiciary Committee to a wide-ranging slew of people affiliated with President Trump including most notably his two eldest sons Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump, who currently run the operations of the Trump Organization while their father serves as President of the United States.

They also targeted Trump’s son-in-law and current White House official Jared Kushner, who is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, and several others in Trump’s orbit like his former personal secretary Rhona Graff, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, and former top campaign and White House officials including Hope Hicks, Sean Spicer, and Stephen K. Bannon.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/04/democrats-expand-investigations-into-donald-trump-targeting-his-family-and-businesses/

[STTAB]

I agree. I'm all for the COTUS. But the Dems are stepping on it, and the majority of the R's are allowing for it, and then many judges (9th and more) are supporting them, and then you have tons of leftovers in government helping one side, and then even the media helping just one side. The right gets investigated right and left and allows for it, and they don't do shit to the left. We finally have someone in office with some nads, and the right doesn't support him. SMH

I'm not asking for laws to be broken, but dang straight I support Trump if he needs to do things the hard way. I'd rather not the emergency, but there is really no other way thanks to the left and the right together. And not by doing the right thing. A festering problem that no one wants to address - address it then, and if not, then don't complain when Trump does it his way - legally and across the board, just in a manner they disagree with. Well, folks in congress disagree daily. Knock it down in court then. I'll concede if the SC shoots him down. But I'm not conceding when the cards stacked as they are is what is preventing things from getting done.

I don't care if folks want to hear it or believe it or not - but this man has gotten SO MUCH more done as a president than others, and that's with every last card stacked against him. Has kept promise after promise after promise.

And emergency is very much so within his powers, just as it's within the powers of others to sue to block it, and if they want, for the SC rule against his emergency.

But now, would I/we "rather" this be done a different way? OF COURSE AND ABSOLUTELY! But you have to understand, we are dealing with a democrat congress that stated BEFORE they heard a single word in congress, that their intent was to obstruct every last thing that Trump was to try - and they have followed through with their word.


You're preaching to the choir.

As for the Dems, I think Trump is playing softball. I'd have the Justice Department so far up people like Adam Schiff's ass they wouldn't know what to do. I fully believe a RICO case could be made against the DNC ,they are ALL criminals. Every last fucking one of them. But , of course nothing ever happens.

If I were Trump I'd start with "why is Congress exempt from FOIA laws " and go from there. Two years later we still don't know which of those scumbas paid off employees they sexually harassed with taxpayer money.