So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[anisotropy]

And the fact that this supposedly rare thing has happened twice in our lifetimes, once for W. and then again Trump, is both weird and upsetting and is exactly what's driving the current push for reform.  Any system that routinely elects the candidate with the least support is obviously flawed.

It is rare, but its occurrences also tend to concentrated within a short timeframe, at least given past occurrences: 1876, 1888; 2000, 2016. Is some reform warranted? Maybe, I don't really know. But I wouldn't necessarily call the EC system deeply flawed either.

[Kris]

Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.

I was around then. I don’t remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).

Right.

That’s what I thought.

And what I thought you would think as well.

Believe it or not, both liberals and conservatives suffer from many of the same human behavioral issues.

That statement, though true, does not detract from the fact that your entire argument quiver has only whataboutist false equivalency arrows with pretty much nothing to back them up.

Thanks, I won buzzword bingo with your answer!

Callin’ it like I see it, MDM.

Tossing out BS whataboutist claims with absolutely no attempt to bother to back yourself up is the easiest, laziest thing in the world to do.

Which is why there is no reason at all for any thinking person to pay those kinds of claims any attention whatsoever.

[MDM]

Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.

I was around then. I don’t remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).

Right.

That’s what I thought.

And what I thought you would think as well.

Believe it or not, both liberals and conservatives suffer from many of the same human behavioral issues.

That statement, though true, does not detract from the fact that your entire argument quiver has only whataboutist false equivalency arrows with pretty much nothing to back them up.

Thanks, I won buzzword bingo with your answer!

Callin’ it like I see it, MDM.

Tossing out BS whataboutist claims with absolutely no attempt to bother to back yourself up is the easiest, laziest thing in the world to do.

Which is why there is no reason at all for any thinking person to pay those kinds of claims any attention whatsoever.

OK, it was worth the ~2 minutes it took to do 2000 election predictions popular electoral - Google Search and find references such as http://www.columbia.edu/~ks20/Erik-sig-web-battleground.pdf in which one finds "Moreover, a Gore Electoral College win would almost certainly be accompanied by a popular vote loss."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just weren't aware of these things.

[Kris]

Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.

I was around then. I don’t remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).

Right.

That’s what I thought.

And what I thought you would think as well.

Believe it or not, both liberals and conservatives suffer from many of the same human behavioral issues.

That statement, though true, does not detract from the fact that your entire argument quiver has only whataboutist false equivalency arrows with pretty much nothing to back them up.

Thanks, I won buzzword bingo with your answer!

Callin’ it like I see it, MDM.

Tossing out BS whataboutist claims with absolutely no attempt to bother to back yourself up is the easiest, laziest thing in the world to do.

Which is why there is no reason at all for any thinking person to pay those kinds of claims any attention whatsoever.

OK, it was worth the ~2 minutes it took to do 2000 election predictions popular electoral - Google Search and find references such as http://www.columbia.edu/~ks20/Erik-sig-web-battleground.pdf in which one finds "Moreover, a Gore Electoral College win would almost certainly be accompanied by a popular vote loss."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just weren't aware of these things.

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

[MDM]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

[Kris]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

Polls going as far back as 1968 show majorities of Americans favorable to abolishing the electoral college.

Here’s an article that will help you learn more.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx

[MDM]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

I think not, but you are entitled to your opinion.

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

[Kris]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

I think not, but you are entitled to your opinion.

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

Luckily, you don’t need to use your imagination. You have Gallup polls instead.

[LennStar]

I think you guys are
A) spamming a thread with personal bickering and
B) confusing that "just fine" and "disawowing" are not the same. Saying a process is flawed and wanting to change it, and ignoring the results are two different things.

[MDM]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

I think not, but you are entitled to your opinion.

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

Luckily, you don’t need to use your imagination. You have Gallup polls instead.

OK, your turn.  Are you saying that Gore would have disavowed the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote?

I don’t remember that.  Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

[MasterStache]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

I think not, but you are entitled to your opinion.

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

It’s the classic argument from incredulity. You need some hard numbers to back up your claim, not an imagination. The desire to abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote goes back a long ways. Not ironically though the biggest shift recently is that now the majority of Republicans no longer favor the popular vote as much. Dems haven’t really shifted their views too much over the decades.

[MDM]

I think you guys are
A) spamming a thread with personal bickering and

Quite possibly. ;)

Not that the other ~6000 posts are all paragons of erudite exposition, but you do have a point. :)

B) confusing that "just fine" and "disawowing" are not the same. Saying a process is flawed and wanting to change it, and ignoring the results are two different things.

Indeed they are.

[Kris]

Thank you for bothering to back up your claims.

However, I am not seeing the part where Dems were thinking that is just fine.

Are you really saying that Dems would not have thought Gore winning the electoral college would be just fine, regardless of the popular vote?

What I’m saying is that your whataboutism is blinding you.

I think not, but you are entitled to your opinion.

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

Luckily, you don’t need to use your imagination. You have Gallup polls instead.

OK, your turn.  Are you saying that Gore would have disavowed the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote?

I don’t remember that.  Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

Lol. Nice goalpost moving.

However, I’ll take LennStar’s point about spamming the thread, though I’m not sure I 100% agree. Still, I certainly don’t want to irritate other forum members who don’t want to read this.

So, sorry, LennStar, if I offended.

[MDM]

It is true that my imagination is not good enough to picture Gore and leading democrats disavowing the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Others may have imaginations good enough to picture this with a straight face.

It’s the classic argument from incredulity. You need some hard numbers to back up your claim, not an imagination. The desire to abolish the electoral college in favor of the popular vote goes back a long ways. Not ironically though the biggest shift recently is that now the majority of Republicans no longer favor the popular vote as much. Dems haven’t really shifted their views too much over the decades.

As LennStar noted, we probably need to agree on what "your claim" means, otherwise we're pretty much guaranteed to talk past each other.

How people felt about Bush v. Gore just prior to, and just after, the 2000 election, and how various opinion poll results might have changed among 2000, 2013, 2019, etc., are a variety of things.

[MDM]

OK, your turn.  Are you saying that Gore would have disavowed the results of the 2000 election had Gore won the electoral college but lost the popular vote?

I don’t remember that.  Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

Lol. Nice goalpost moving.

Goalposts are firmly rooted.

The original back and forth:

Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.

I was around then. I don’t remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

But if you want to call this sidebar quits, that's ok too.

[Glenstache]

I speculate that Trump will continue his trend of doubling down on insults and, somehow, managing to make them even more offensive and unpalatable. See his recent invocation of the Trail of Tears:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26272910/trump-warren-native-americans-rob-low-trail-of-tears/

Ugh.

[Kris]

I speculate that Trump will continue his trend of doubling down on insults and, somehow, managing to make them even more offensive and unpalatable. See his recent invocation of the Trail of Tears:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26272910/trump-warren-native-americans-rob-low-trail-of-tears/

Ugh.

Yeah, that was pretty sick, even for him.

His POS son loved it, too.

That family is fundamentally ill.

[Just Joe]

Curious about your thoughts about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/07/rutger-bregman-winnie-byanyima-anand-giridharadas


From the article: "My view from the US, and I bet it’s true in Britain to a certain extent, is that you have two big things happening to a lot of white working-class communities. On the one hand, they have been victims of a great plutocratic theft, like everybody else over the last generation. To the extent that they feel like they can’t raise children who will have a better life than them, they can’t get the kind of education that gives them a piece of the dream, they can’t have the kind of healthcare that allows them to not think about healthcare all the time, they feel that theft.

The problem is that those people also feel a second theft, which is not actually a theft, which is the rise of women and minorities, and immigrants and African Americans. In fact that’s not a theft at all, it’s a wave of rising equality; it is justice. But I think we have to accept that the psychological experience of this change may also be felt as a theft. What Donald Trump did is to exploit the pain caused by the real theft, and to divert blame for it on to the non-theft. He made it all about the cultural ascendancy of others – they are the ones who stole the dream from you.

And instead of encouraging people to punch up at the powerful, he encouraged them to punch out, at women and minorities and the Other. I think the political challenge for us is to go to those communities and not to pander but to speak compellingly to both of those experiences of feeling wary of the future, and to identify the real reasons why it has happened."

[Glenstache]

Curious about your thoughts about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/07/rutger-bregman-winnie-byanyima-anand-giridharadas


From the article: "My view from the US, and I bet it’s true in Britain to a certain extent, is that you have two big things happening to a lot of white working-class communities. On the one hand, they have been victims of a great plutocratic theft, like everybody else over the last generation. To the extent that they feel like they can’t raise children who will have a better life than them, they can’t get the kind of education that gives them a piece of the dream, they can’t have the kind of healthcare that allows them to not think about healthcare all the time, they feel that theft.

The problem is that those people also feel a second theft, which is not actually a theft, which is the rise of women and minorities, and immigrants and African Americans. In fact that’s not a theft at all, it’s a wave of rising equality; it is justice. But I think we have to accept that the psychological experience of this change may also be felt as a theft. What Donald Trump did is to exploit the pain caused by the real theft, and to divert blame for it on to the non-theft. He made it all about the cultural ascendancy of others – they are the ones who stole the dream from you.

And instead of encouraging people to punch up at the powerful, he encouraged them to punch out, at women and minorities and the Other. I think the political challenge for us is to go to those communities and not to pander but to speak compellingly to both of those experiences of feeling wary of the future, and to identify the real reasons why it has happened."

The first part is spot on. The second part is overly optimistic.

[nereo]

Curious about your thoughts about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/07/rutger-bregman-winnie-byanyima-anand-giridharadas


From the article: "My view from the US, and I bet it’s true in Britain to a certain extent, is that you have two big things happening to a lot of white working-class communities. On the one hand, they have been victims of a great plutocratic theft, like everybody else over the last generation. To the extent that they feel like they can’t raise children who will have a better life than them, they can’t get the kind of education that gives them a piece of the dream, they can’t have the kind of healthcare that allows them to not think about healthcare all the time, they feel that theft.

The problem is that those people also feel a second theft, which is not actually a theft, which is the rise of women and minorities, and immigrants and African Americans. In fact that’s not a theft at all, it’s a wave of rising equality; it is justice. But I think we have to accept that the psychological experience of this change may also be felt as a theft. What Donald Trump did is to exploit the pain caused by the real theft, and to divert blame for it on to the non-theft. He made it all about the cultural ascendancy of others – they are the ones who stole the dream from you.

And instead of encouraging people to punch up at the powerful, he encouraged them to punch out, at women and minorities and the Other. I think the political challenge for us is to go to those communities and not to pander but to speak compellingly to both of those experiences of feeling wary of the future, and to identify the real reasons why it has happened."

I would just add that [specific to the US] - we benefited tremendously from being the only large nation still standing after WWII and got rich off helping the world rebuild.  For many it feels 'unfair' to have watched the rest of the world rise up and become prosperous, right around the time when our annual gains were tapering off.  Suggestions that the United STates is no longer the 'greatest nation on earth [in which to live]' is heresy to them.  How dare European (or Canadian) countries earn top spots in categories from health to safety to happiness - we saved your asses! (the feeling goes)" . What right does China have to become as powerful as the US? [ignoring entirely size, population, resources and history].

These feelings run deep among many Trump supporters. Its hard when you've grown up accepting that America is the Greatest to acknowledge that other countries can and will exceed the US and that its ok and (gasp) an opportunity for us to improve.

[talltexan]

I saw the "Trail" nashing of teeth on Saturday. I didn't think it was nearly as bad as Trump presenting medals of Honor to the Navajo code-talkers in front of Andrew Jackson's portrait.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politics/donald-trump-andrew-jackson/index.html

I cannot stand Trump, but it just doesn't feel like Elizabeth Warren has figured out how to make him look foolish, yet. Trump criticizing Warren simply looks like politics between two powerful people. Trump dishonoring Veterans feels much worse.

[ysette9]

Very interesting, if depressing observations

[Glenstache]

Things are about to get spicy. According to McConnell, Trump plans to sign the budget, and then declare an emergency in order to build his wall. This could set up a constitutional crisis on several fronts. It will be interesting to see if this is resolved legislatively (unlikely unless McConnell has a shift), or though court challenges, that would likely quickly go to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS option is particularly interesting as Roberts seems to have shifted into a stance in which he keeps a firm eye on legitimacy of the judiciary, and on checks and balances. What constitutes an emergency, and would that be ruled narrowly or broadly?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-border.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1xa-VbH9pjCLEW7QplPfGMRp4Qd_7EfGRcTS8v9YMlglYoZ7Hi449kvxI

[OtherJen]

Things are about to get spicy. According to McConnell, Trump plans to sign the budget, and then declare an emergency in order to build his wall. This could set up a constitutional crisis on several fronts. It will be interesting to see if this is resolved legislatively (unlikely unless McConnell has a shift), or though court challenges, that would likely quickly go to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS option is particularly interesting as Roberts seems to have shifted into a stance in which he keeps a firm eye on legitimacy of the judiciary, and on checks and balances. What constitutes an emergency, and would that be ruled narrowly or broadly?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-border.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1xa-VbH9pjCLEW7QplPfGMRp4Qd_7EfGRcTS8v9YMlglYoZ7Hi449kvxI

Yep, just spotted this on BBC. Fuckity fuck. Here we go.

[bacchi]

Things are about to get spicy. According to McConnell, Trump plans to sign the budget, and then declare an emergency in order to build his wall. This could set up a constitutional crisis on several fronts. It will be interesting to see if this is resolved legislatively (unlikely unless McConnell has a shift), or though court challenges, that would likely quickly go to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS option is particularly interesting as Roberts seems to have shifted into a stance in which he keeps a firm eye on legitimacy of the judiciary, and on checks and balances. What constitutes an emergency, and would that be ruled narrowly or broadly?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/trump-national-emergency-border.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1xa-VbH9pjCLEW7QplPfGMRp4Qd_7EfGRcTS8v9YMlglYoZ7Hi449kvxI

Yep, just spotted this on BBC. Fuckity fuck. Here we go.

McConnell is the ultimate Trump toady. Jfc. He's abdicating Congressional responsibilities as the Senate Majority Leader.

"I've indicated to him that I'm going to support the national emergency declaration.

Roberts can read the tea leaves, unlike the new Kingmaker Justice. Opening up the emergency declaration power to Trump's "emergency" is a bad move. Emergency wind turbines and solar panels, anyone?

[nereo]

If this president can declare the situation at our southern border a "national emergency' after 2 years of doing nothing about it, and after saying twice that he had decided to NOT declare it a national emergency, and despite all the evidence showing reduced crossings, reduced crime and already increased enforcement --- than the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue.

Emergency global climate change action?  Emergency trade with china?  Emergency abortion declaration?  Emergency national debt?

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

[MasterStache]

This is exactly what Hannity told him to do. On the bright side, Hannity hasn't implored Trump to nuke any countries....yet.

[OtherJen]

If this president can declare the situation at our southern border a "national emergency' after 2 years of doing nothing about it, and after saying twice that he had decided to NOT declare it a national emergency, and despite all the evidence showing reduced crossings, reduced crime and already increased enforcement --- than the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue.

Emergency global climate change action?  Emergency trade with china?  Emergency abortion declaration?  Emergency national debt?

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

I'm not sure how any of them could justify it (except Kavanaugh, who was hired to be Trump's lackey). Any Supreme Court justice who votes to uphold such an order should be stripped of the title.

[anisotropy]

we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

I concur!

[ncornilsen]

I think the wall should be built, ocean to ocean... and it's immoral not to do so.*  However, Trump failed to control the narrative around the shutdown, failed to accept a reasonable deal a year around, and squandered 2 years of a friendly house/senate. It is NOT legitimate to call it an emergency now... especially for the precident it will set, as Nero explained.


*if you buy into the narrative that law enforcement is inherently racist/biased or whatever, any scenario where they can cross freely and subsequently are tracked down with drones or intercepted by patrols just creates opportunities for that racism to play out. A passive wall, on the other hand, will make it harder for bad actors (there are some, and you're intellectually dishonest to deny it) from passing through freely; it will make it easier to detect and foil where they are getting through the wall; and it will direct legitimate people to ports of entry and eliminate the viability of these coyotes to escort people across illegally while sexually assaulting 30% of the women who hire them.

[sol]

Despite the fact that the Senate has approved the compromise bill and Trump has promised to sign it in exchange for McConnell's support of an illegal emergency declaration, I think democrats in the house should vote it down.

Why did they negotiate in good faith to give him almost 1.4 billion dollars if he was just going to declare an emergency anyway?  If that was going to be the outcome, they should have offered him diddly squat and said "if you want to the government open, then pass the spending bills we've already given you."  Because the only thing in this "deal" was 1.4 billion extra dollars in exchange for funding the rest of the US government. 

It just seems silly.  You can't negotiate with a man who is goes back on his word at every opportunity.  The whole point of the congressional negotiations was to AVOID an emergency declaration that conservatives in the senate deeply opposed on philosophical grounds. 

If Trump is going to declare a national emergency to build his wall, democrats should rescind their offer of 1.4 billion dollars.

[RetiredAt63]

I think the wall should be built, ocean to ocean... and it's immoral not to do so.*  However, Trump failed to control the narrative around the shutdown, failed to accept a reasonable deal a year around, and squandered 2 years of a friendly house/senate. It is NOT legitimate to call it an emergency now... especially for the precident it will set, as Nero explained.


*if you buy into the narrative that law enforcement is inherently racist/biased or whatever, any scenario where they can cross freely and subsequently are tracked down with drones or intercepted by patrols just creates opportunities for that racism to play out. A passive wall, on the other hand, will make it harder for bad actors (there are some, and you're intellectually dishonest to deny it) from passing through freely; it will make it easier to detect and foil where they are getting through the wall; and it will direct legitimate people to ports of entry and eliminate the viability of these coyotes to escort people across illegally while sexually assaulting 30% of the women who hire them.

Someone pointed out earlier that there are long stretches where a wall is simply impractical because of terrain.  Not to mention seizing private property to build it.   What do you suggest for places where towns are side by side (basically one town with a border running through it) and there is a wall, and people tunnel?

[Kyle Schuant]

the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue. [...]

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

There are already 31 current "national emergencies". Mostly they're foreign affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

US Presidents have been bypassing Congress for decades.

[sol]

US Presidents have been bypassing Congress for decades.

Not to the tune of five billion dollars they haven't. 

Go head, look at the list you linked.  They're mostly sanctions, not multi-billion dollar symbolic monuments that fundamentally undermine Americanism.

[Glenstache]

Seems like the deployment of the military to the border may have been strategic.
From: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legislation/AGuideToEmergencyPowersAndTheirUse_2.13.19.pdf

[nereo]

I think the wall should be built, ocean to ocean... and it's immoral not to do so.*  However, Trump failed to control the narrative around the shutdown, failed to accept a reasonable deal a year around, and squandered 2 years of a friendly house/senate. It is NOT legitimate to call it an emergency now... especially for the precident it will set, as Nero explained.


*if you buy into the narrative that law enforcement is inherently racist/biased or whatever, any scenario where they can cross freely and subsequently are tracked down with drones or intercepted by patrols just creates opportunities for that racism to play out. A passive wall, on the other hand, will make it harder for bad actors (there are some, and you're intellectually dishonest to deny it) from passing through freely; it will make it easier to detect and foil where they are getting through the wall; and it will direct legitimate people to ports of entry and eliminate the viability of these coyotes to escort people across illegally while sexually assaulting 30% of the women who hire them.

Someone pointed out earlier that there are long stretches where a wall is simply impractical because of terrain.  Not to mention seizing private property to build it.   What do you suggest for places where towns are side by side (basically one town with a border running through it) and there is a wall, and people tunnel?

Most of California and Arizona already have some sort of barrier - something like 90% of the border there is already covered.  It's Texas where very few barriers exist, and much of that is because it sections are 1) extremely remote, 2) bordered by the Rio Grande (which like any river meanders over time and 3) is private property.
Building a wall along these sections will involve eminent domain (the seizing of private property for government use) on a massive scale, plus some massive ecoogical distruction to build a permanent barrier in these locations.

[nereo]

the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue. [...]

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

There are already 31 current "national emergencies". Mostly they're foreign affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

US Presidents have been bypassing Congress for decades.

Seriously?  Your own link shows a false equivalence if ever there was one. No executive action has claimed this much money or required the forced forfeiture (i.e. eminent domain) of this many landholders based on reasons that have already been proven erroneous even at the time the order was issued.

[bacchi]

If this president can declare the situation at our southern border a "national emergency' after 2 years of doing nothing about it, and after saying twice that he had decided to NOT declare it a national emergency, and despite all the evidence showing reduced crossings, reduced crime and already increased enforcement --- than the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue.

Emergency global climate change action?  Emergency trade with china?  Emergency abortion declaration?  Emergency national debt?

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

The real problem is if the Court sides with Trump on this declaration in a 5-4 decision, RBG dies, and then sides against the next Dem President for, say, a climate change emergency (even with Roberts on the "yay" side in order to follow precedent).

The Court, or at least some of the members, is then exposed as an extension of the Republican party. The shit hits the fan, there are major protests, and Justice impeachments follow.

[OtherJen]

If this president can declare the situation at our southern border a "national emergency' after 2 years of doing nothing about it, and after saying twice that he had decided to NOT declare it a national emergency, and despite all the evidence showing reduced crossings, reduced crime and already increased enforcement --- than the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue.

Emergency global climate change action?  Emergency trade with china?  Emergency abortion declaration?  Emergency national debt?

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

The real problem is if the Court sides with Trump on this declaration in a 5-4 decision, RBG dies, and then sides against the next Dem President for, say, a climate change emergency (even with Roberts on the "yay" side in order to follow precedent).

The Court, or at least some of the members, is then exposed as an extension of the Republican party. The shit hits the fan, there are major protests, and Justice impeachments follow.

I can’t imagine Roberts siding with this bullshit. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg won’t. Breyer, likely not. Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas...not if they have any respect for the Constitution. Kavanaugh is Trump’s only sure bought-and-paid bet on this.

[Kyle Schuant]

Seriously?  Your own link shows a false equivalence if ever there was one.

There was a time when a US President carrying out a foreign policy independently of Congressional oversight was considered a bad thing.

But of course, this is totally different, and every action of this particular President is totally unprecedented and without merit.

This failure to learn from the past is why your President is able to pull such stunts, and this "s/he is my opponent and therefore pure evil" division is a fundamental weakness in your country which has been ably exploited by the Russians, and will be exploited by other countries in the future.

[sequoia]

Despite the fact that the Senate has approved the compromise bill and Trump has promised to sign it in exchange for McConnell's support of an illegal emergency declaration, I think democrats in the house should vote it down.

Why did they negotiate in good faith to give him almost 1.4 billion dollars if he was just going to declare an emergency anyway? If that was going to be the outcome, they should have offered him diddly squat and said "if you want to the government open, then pass the spending bills we've already given you."  Because the only thing in this "deal" was 1.4 billion extra dollars in exchange for funding the rest of the US government. 

It just seems silly.  You can't negotiate with a man who is goes back on his word at every opportunity.  The whole point of the congressional negotiations was to AVOID an emergency declaration that conservatives in the senate deeply opposed on philosophical grounds. 

If Trump is going to declare a national emergency to build his wall, democrats should rescind their offer of 1.4 billion dollars.

+1.

[talltexan]

If this president can declare the situation at our southern border a "national emergency' after 2 years of doing nothing about it, and after saying twice that he had decided to NOT declare it a national emergency, and despite all the evidence showing reduced crossings, reduced crime and already increased enforcement --- than the door is opened for pretty much any President to circumvent congress for any reason on any issue.

Emergency global climate change action?  Emergency trade with china?  Emergency abortion declaration?  Emergency national debt?

Take your pick of issues from either side - we will have lost congressional oversight of the executive branch permanently.  I pray SCOTUS blocks this.

All Trump has to do to get McConnell on board is convince McConnell he can use these power to ensure there will never be another Democratic President.

[MasterStache]

Seriously?  Your own link shows a false equivalence if ever there was one.

But of course, this is totally different, and every action of this particular President is totally unprecedented and without merit.

Actually yes, it is totally different. Not every action is unprecedented and without merit. Nice red herring though.
 

This failure to learn from the past is why your President is able to pull such stunts

Umm what? This is simply a proposal. He hasn't "pulled" anything. If it manages to make it's way through the courts then we'll talk about what he was able to pull off and why. And, if applicable, what events from the past allowed it to happen. Until then you have pure conjecture.

[talltexan]

I think the wall should be built, ocean to ocean... and it's immoral not to do so.*  However, Trump failed to control the narrative around the shutdown, failed to accept a reasonable deal a year around, and squandered 2 years of a friendly house/senate. It is NOT legitimate to call it an emergency now... especially for the precident it will set, as Nero explained.


*if you buy into the narrative that law enforcement is inherently racist/biased or whatever, any scenario where they can cross freely and subsequently are tracked down with drones or intercepted by patrols just creates opportunities for that racism to play out. A passive wall, on the other hand, will make it harder for bad actors (there are some, and you're intellectually dishonest to deny it) from passing through freely; it will make it easier to detect and foil where they are getting through the wall; and it will direct legitimate people to ports of entry and eliminate the viability of these coyotes to escort people across illegally while sexually assaulting 30% of the women who hire them.

This is an interesting point about ICE being racist while a wall is not racist. I've never seen anyone make this before. But, logically, a race-neutral wall would be built over both the Southern and Northern borders, wouldn't it?

[partgypsy]

I think the wall should be built, ocean to ocean... and it's immoral not to do so.*  However, Trump failed to control the narrative around the shutdown, failed to accept a reasonable deal a year around, and squandered 2 years of a friendly house/senate. It is NOT legitimate to call it an emergency now... especially for the precident it will set, as Nero explained.


*if you buy into the narrative that law enforcement is inherently racist/biased or whatever, any scenario where they can cross freely and subsequently are tracked down with drones or intercepted by patrols just creates opportunities for that racism to play out. A passive wall, on the other hand, will make it harder for bad actors (there are some, and you're intellectually dishonest to deny it) from passing through freely; it will make it easier to detect and foil where they are getting through the wall; and it will direct legitimate people to ports of entry and eliminate the viability of these coyotes to escort people across illegally while sexually assaulting 30% of the women who hire them.

This is an interesting point about ICE being racist while a wall is not racist. I've never seen anyone make this before. But, logically, a race-neutral wall would be built over both the Southern and Northern borders, wouldn't it?

And we know that illegal immigration would be enforced equally for all countries, not just for "brown people" countries.

[Poundwise]

My disgust for this presidency knows no bounds. It hits low after low after low...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/trump-national-emergency-declaration-border-wall-spending-bill.html

[nereo]

Interesting commentary even from the GOP -
After failing to secure wall funding with a GOP held congress Trump tried to get it through a government shutdown, which didn't work. It's unpopular with the general public, unpopular in congress and unpopular with his own intelligence chiefs.

So he faced two choices - admit defeat or declare an emergency.  He's chosen the latter

What's interesting is that apparently even his own legal team has told him its unlikely stand up in court (which is no doubt why he's said, repeatedly, that 'we can do this, it's all very legal, it's in my power as President').  He's actually expecting the courts to block him at every turn - which I expect he'll use as a foil for the next 21 months.

Ironically his right-wing pundits (e.g. Coulter) are publicly lambasting him for declaring a national emergency to get his funding.  Says Coulter: it's "designed for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for another 2 years"

[Glenstache]

Ironically his right-wing pundits (e.g. Coulter) are publicly lambasting him for declaring a national emergency to get his funding.  Says Coulter: it's "designed for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for another 2 years"

I think this is just Coulter being jealous that someone else is scamming the stupidest people in the conservative base.

On a more serious note, Trump did give the opposition lawyers some really good material in the Rose Garden with this quote:

I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster…. I just want to get it done faster, that’s all.

That's about as close to saying that you are circumventing Congress for convenience as you can get without using those actual words. I'm really looking forward to how Sanders will spin this. My money is on, "If Congress had done their job to address this emergency, Trump wouldn't have had to make this declaration."

[nereo]

Once again, Trump's own words and conduct will be used against him in legal challenges (much as they were for his first two travel bans).

What's interesting to me is that fight will take place almost entirely in Texas (red) and is already very unpopular among border towns like El Paso. It's going to get a heck of a lot less popular as private citizens are told they have to cede land and big ugly roads are built across national parkland in preparation for more barriers.

If you wanted to nudge deep-red Texas more purple I'm not sure you could devise a better way than unilaterally forcing a border wall through these towns.

[GuitarStv]

Interesting commentary even from the GOP -
After failing to secure wall funding with a GOP held congress Trump tried to get it through a government shutdown, which didn't work. It's unpopular with the general public, unpopular in congress and unpopular with his own intelligence chiefs.

So he faced two choices - admit defeat or declare an emergency.  He's chosen the latter

What's interesting is that apparently even his own legal team has told him its unlikely stand up in court (which is no doubt why he's said, repeatedly, that 'we can do this, it's all very legal, it's in my power as President').  He's actually expecting the courts to block him at every turn - which I expect he'll use as a foil for the next 21 months.

Ironically his right-wing pundits (e.g. Coulter) are publicly lambasting him for declaring a national emergency to get his funding.  Says Coulter: it's "designed for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for another 2 years"

So weird to agree with something that Anne Coulter says.  I feel like I need a shower.