National emergency

[Ken ken]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/i-didnt-need-to-do-this-donald-trump-declares-a-national-emergency

Any number of sites quote, or show on video, Trump saying that he didn't need to declare a national emergency. Finally a topic of which I know something-emergencies. If you bring a loved one to my ER and a little while later I come out to talk to you, this is a conversation that should never occur. "I thought your wife/son/daughter/mother might be having a serious heart problem. He/she was stable, and we had plenty of time to run some tests; but decided it was better to just crack the chest open and see how his/her heart was functioning. Well, turns out it was just indigestion; no real emergency. But, hey, we got the answer really quickly". 

If a doctor does that, it's at least malpractice, perhaps an assault. This is a pretty good analogy of Trump's position. How do we know? Because HE TOLD US. It doesn't take some shithole lefty media site to interpret this for you. He said he could do things differently. That is sort of the definition of NOT an emergency. See you in court, Don. 

[ClayC]

Meh. This doesn't mean anything. He is in essence saying, "I would have liked to have avoided this by taking care of the issue another way."

I don't like the move, BTW. POTUSes use the national emergency thing too much. Thanks, Congress of 1976 for that. But I don't think it's illegal in the context of how liberal WtP have let POTUSes use that power.

In other words, I am not a fan of this power in general, but I don't see how this specific case can be considered illegal if WtP and congress have given the room for all the others before this.

Politically, the Democrats ought to just stop talking about it, and let him build the darn wall. Take if off the issue table. Let the wall be built. Send it to Page 51 in the newspaper. That would take away his and the GOP steam. Take away their talking points. If it keeps a few more "bad people" from entering illegally, then fine. In the meantime, press the issue to overhaul legal immigration so that the regular hard-working south-of-the-border families who want to enter the US legally (as I'm sure most would prefer) can do so. IOW, change the narrative.

[Ken ken]

It's not an emergency if it's a choice. An emergency implies a crisis that has no other solution. This is in no way an emergency. It is instead an embarrassment to Trump. His own words betray him. The reason that this needs to be kept afloat is so that the whole provision gets revised. Otherwise, future Presidents will certainly use this law for obviously political purposes. Climate change? Certainly an emergency to those who feel that way. Gun violence? People are actually dying due to this. Hey, one could even declare abortion a national emergency and take steps. This provision needs to be changed. In the meantime, the wall is a joke. It won't stop people from passing drugs across the border to accomplices on the other side. Not even a second of wasted time. And then there's that thing about eminent domain. An awful lot of people are going to lose their property for the wall. And the going feeling is that many are not so inclined. 

If walls are so cool, ask BK about how well China's Great Wall worked. He's chimed in awhile ago that history suggests it did little or nothing. I'm not inclined to disagree. 

The problem with Trump is that anything that happens becomes HIS victory. The word "we" isn't in his vocabulary. No credit to anyone but him. That's why nobody wants to work with him unless it helps them get re-elected. He actually signed bipartisan legislation about prison reform; but even Trump won't talk about it; because he'd have to share credit. Just to appease Trump deranged people, I'll let you know that Bill Maher gave Trump specific credit on live TV last night. But you won't hear about it on Fox, at least not yet, because Dems get credit, too. 

I truly do not trust Trump to  be handed any extra power. I think that he is incapable of returning any power that is temporarily ceded to him. I'm in favor of the House doing everything legal to keep a leash on him. Pelosi is my BFF!!

My final answer is that this is distraction to keep people's focus away from the reality of what is happening in the world of Manafort and Stone. Stone is denying events that were recorded. He's some specimen. 

[ClayC]

Ken. Yes. It is a terrible provision that congress needs to address.

But it is has so much latitude in it, I think any legal battle against this specific application would fail.

Again, Republicans have been saying for 20 years, “Secure the border and then we can talk immigration reform.” Democrats ought to just give the wall. Take the wind out of Trump and GOP sails. Then hold them to immigration reform. That was WJC’s brilliance. He didn’t get partisan. He saw opportunities to get some good out of GOP and took credit for it.

[Ken ken]

The actual wall would cost like 50+ billion. The current debate is over enough money to build about 55 miles of wall. The current debate is political only; it doesn't involve anything real. It has zip to do with border security.  If the prez were anyone else, then compromise would be reasonable. Trump is a crazed narcissist, with all the trappings of a wanna-be tyrant. He's a bad person to compromise with. 

There is plenty of history of Congress and POTUS working together. Clinton is one good example; but the classic is Reagan and Tip O'Neill. They agreed on little; but worked things out. Trump won't compromise; and as such is not a legitimate partner in political give and take.  He made his own bed decades ago, and brought it with him to office. Until he offers up compromises on some legislation, he'll be thought of as such by thinking people. 

As for the wall; it's a symbol, nothing else. Almost useless as a structure, especially 55 miles. By the way, Trump had like 25 billion in wall money and refused it. Then he had like 1.9 bil, and refused it. Now he's stuck with 1.4 bil and is screaming victory. If Dems just say "okay" to any of his demands, another will follow, then others. This is not politics as usual; it's not even politics. It's a one man circus, nothing more. Don't believe me; plenty of the clowns in his own admin think so. A large of proportion of his appointees have quit, those that aren't arrested mind you. 

[ClayC]

The wall is an emotional item for too many people who really don’t get reality.

There are places along the border where we already have physical barriers. Then there are places where physical barriers are impractical. In college, I had an opportunity to go rafting on the Rio Grande in Big Ben NP. Beautiful place. High canyon walls in places. Sandy beaches and scrub brush in others.

But the “Wall” is now a sign...

1. For Republicans to stick it to the Dems and keep all those “bad people” out.
2. For Democrats to stick it to a Trump and stand up against “racists”.

[Ken ken]

This is well said, Clay. Now that you got it, we can agree that such a symbol cannot possibly be a true emergency. Also, having seen the place, it must be clear that a wall isn't needed along the entire border. And, most of the land along the border is in private hands. That's going to be fun, acquiring the rights to that land. 

Then there's the issue of places like El Paso and it's sister city. People there cross the border every day as part of their routine job and commute. Supposing that the wall will have large doors. 

[CL]

There is nothing good about allowing Trump to squander taxpayer money on a wall or fence.

Craig Lubow

913-963-2534 (cell)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/3339ba05-658d-4910-af0c-7191c4aac1d6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ClayC]

Thanks, Ken. I'm not sure what you mean by "now that you got it" as if I learned something or changed my position.

[David Fairchild]

Exactly. Or a space program.

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:02:01 AM UTC-6, Alanskoalas wrote:

There is nothing good about allowing Trump to squander taxpayer money on a wall or fence.

Craig Lubow

913-963-2534 (cell)

On Sunday, February 17, 2019, 11:39:49 AM CST, 'ClayC' via Kansas City Diversity Coalition <kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ken. Yes. It is a terrible provision that congress needs to address.

But it is has so much latitude in it, I think any legal battle against this specific application would fail.

Again, Republicans have been saying for 20 years, “Secure the border and then we can talk immigration reform.”  Democrats ought to just give the wall. Take the wind out of Trump and GOP sails. Then hold them to immigration reform. That was WJC’s brilliance. He didn’t get partisan. He saw opportunities to get some good out of GOP and took credit for it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity-coalition+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to kansas-city-diversity-coal...@googlegroups.com.

[Ken ken]

Yes, you read me correctly, Clay. I am of the notion that you favored the wall, as if it would actually do something. Maybe that was not correct. In this last post you speak of the wall as a symbol rather than a tool meant to accomplish something. Was that always your opinion? We certainly shouldn't be building symbols for this kind of money. 

[ClayC]

Ah, Dave. You stole my thunder. Presidents have been "squandering" money for years. I have only suggested to Ken that it might be a good political move by the Left to let the man squander the wall money. Then…

1. Push for legal immigration reform because the GOP can no longer say, "secure the borders first, and then we'll talk reform."

2. If the wall doesn't stop drugs, sex-traffickers, etc. the Democrats can run on "we told you so". OR if the wall helps stop drugs and sex-traffickers, the Dems can say, "We let him have the wall because we wanted to protect the American people from drug and sex traffickers. It worked. So we get credit for that."

[Ken ken]

Clay, this issue isn't really about money any more, is it? 1.4 Billion is pocket change/rounding error in our budget. If that amount of money could really do some good, it could be found. This is an issue of who gets to spend our money. That task rests with Congress. Trump is looking for a way to get around this. And, yes, it's been done before. Once again, one should go to the tape on this. You can see more than a few Republicans, like McConnell, Graham and others shaming Obama for his presidential overreach, his imperial approach to his office. It's really a laugh to watch these tapes and then see them grovel in front of Trump. 

I'm not a fan of hypocrites. Sauce goose-gander and all that. I didn't pay attention to Obama's actions. Maybe because he didn't spend every waking moment drawing attention to himself. Perhaps it would have been appropriate to scrutinize his executive decisions more carefully. But, I didn't ever worry that Obama would aspire to Tyrant in Chief. Can't say the same about Don T. 

[Ken ken]

Update for Clay, and anyone else reading; recent poll on the wall shows that it is truly as political as it seems. Currently running about 60-32 against the wall. But the party votes are strongly biased. Dems are 94% against, Reps about 88% in favor. This is about as politicized as something can be. 

[ClayC]

Ken, again. Why are you singling me out? I’m very aware of the political nature of this. I’ve been saying that for weeks.

Smh

[Ken ken]

This time I was backing you up. It was a shout-out, not a critique. Paranoia makes for strange answer; but, hey, it's treatable. Honestly, the poll lent a lot of heft to your opinion. I wasn't really surprised about the level of division here. Well, perhaps a little, actually. A lot of people along the border, including people that I would peg as Republicans (rural Texans), really don't want the wall or think it's needed. 

[ClayC]

Thanks for the clarity.

[Ken ken]

Welcome; the snark is elsewhere. But credit where it's due.