Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

I expect at least one reply to the effect that Don is a sitting GOP president and as such the GOP must stand with him if he actually goes for a second term using the party label and facilities to get it.

However is it written in stone that the GOP must stand by him if he seeks to use the GOP label to get re-elected or is it just a customary practice in both parties? Is the GOP free to decide sometime in the next 9 months to refuse Don a run for re-election as a GOP party candidate and tell him they have a different candidate for the election?

If Don goes from bad to worse in the polls and annoys the vested interests who want a republican party name in the office, what actually is to stop them from withdrawing GOP facilities and funding from Don and sinking his dreams? If the Fox voices & his media pals were to be persuaded that there was a better GOP candidate than Don around, would they take the hint and stop promo-ing his every word, and cut off his media broadcasting sources?

Well I don't think a sitting US president has to run for a second term. A president can serve two four year terms as president, but it seems it's not a rule. The amendment(Can't remember the no of the amendment atm) that sets the number of terms just sets the limit, it doesn't I don't think make it mandatory for a president to seek a second term. LBJ could have run in 1968 and decided not to. There can be primary challengers to a sitting president but from what I've looked up about these challengers it's been a token gesture and a sitting president always has won as far as I know.

I wouldn't think there is a rule about a party having to endorse a candidate, but the optics of not doing so probably wouldn't be good so it's probably just a practice from over the years. Now, depending on how the next year goes, individual GOP candidates can and will decide how close or not they want to tie themselves to President Trump. That's probably a personal call and not tied to the GOP national party.

SoundsRight

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That he said Mexico would pay for.

It doesn't have to be cash up front. Build it, and hold onto the receipt.

Christy42

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's a pity he had to use this measure, but he was voted in with a mandate to build a wall. The Dems need to respect that.

Donald Trump needs to respect the fact that Democrats were voted into the house to stop him building a wall.

Trump had two years for his wall and didn't really bother.

To be fair he couldn't as there was no one to blame when it failed. Now the Democrats are there. Likely he does not want funding for the wall. The full thing would be crazy expensive and get bogged down in all sorts of issues He just needs to say he tried.

Indeed he seems to have a new strategy of claiming the wall has already been started which people seem to be lapping up so he may switch to simply claiming there is a wall and assuming his base won't check this and will disbelieve CNN when they report on the distinct lack of a wall.

Ultros

He got into a spat with Acosta over the percentage of Aliens committing crimes, does anyone know if these figures are accurate?

"https://cis.org/Huennekens/DOJ-26-Federal-Prisoners-Are-Aliens

DOJ: 26% of Federal Prisoners Are Aliens"

Texas released crime data..

"The report notes that this data does not include all aliens in the Texas criminal justice system, but only those who have had prior interaction with DHS. Over 250,000 criminal aliens were booked in Texas local jails between June 2011 and April 2018. These individuals were charged with more than 663,000 offenses, including:

1,351 homicide charges
79,049 assault charges
18,685 burglary charges
79,900 drug charges
815 kidnapping charges
44,882 theft charges
50,777 obstructing police charges
4,292 robbery charges
7,156 sexual assault charges
9,938 weapons charges."

They are not obscure numbers the way Acosta tried to paint it.

Pa8301

SoundsRight wrote: »

It doesn't have to be cash up front. Build it, and hold onto the receipt.

That post doesn't make any sense.

SoundsRight

Pa8301 wrote: »

That post doesn't make any sense.

Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall. They will, maybe not up front but eventually.

Pa8301

SoundsRight wrote: »

Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall. They will, maybe not up front but eventually.

I highly doubt it.

Timberrrrrrrr

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's a pity he had to use this measure, but he was voted in with a mandate to build a wall. The Dems need to respect that.

That Mexico would pay for, how's that working out for him?

everlast75

SoundsRight wrote: »

Trump said Mexico will pay for the wall. They will, maybe not up front but eventually.

What are we going to build?

A WALL

Who is going to pay for it?

MEXICO

When are they going to pay for it?

EVENTUALLY

dudara

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's a pity he had to use this measure, but he was voted in with a mandate to build a wall. The Dems need to respect that.

A National Emergency constitutes well....an actual emergency. Something like a war, invasion or massive natural disaster, it’s not to be used because the president is a diva and is having a hissy fit. That’s not an emergency, except in the mind of Trump.

Everything single thing Trump does demeans the office he holds, it demeans all the previous incumbents who tried to honor the office they held, and drags the reputation of the USA further into the mud.

pixelburp

How about putting the payment aside for like, 30 seconds; building a wall across the US-Mexico border is absurd, unfeasible and the stuff of bad SciFi.

And speaking of El Chapo, his thing (IIRC) was to get across the border using TUNNELS. Aka, the killer of walls.

The construction alone would be tied up in the courts for decades, good luck Washington pulling Eminent Domain on thousands of KMs of private land. Would the wall stop at the Rio Grande, or would the river be blocked off? Same question re. any mountains or highground.

It's a demonstrably, quantifiably stupid idea.

Itssoeasy

pixelburp wrote: »

How about putting the payment aside for like, 30 seconds; building a wall across the US-Mexico border is absurd, unfeasible and the stuff of bad SciFi.

And speaking of El Chapo, his thing (IIRC) was to get across the border using TUNNELS. Aka, the killer of walls.

The construction alone would be tied up in the courts for decades, good luck Washington pulling Eminent Domain on thousands of KMs of private land. Would the wall stop at the Rio Grande, or would the river be blocked off? Same question re. any mountains or highground.

It's a demonstrably, quantifiably stupid idea.

Well the wall would have to be built back from the Rio Grande due to a rule that nothing like a barrier can "obstruct the normal flow of the river." The eminent domain cases from the Bush administration(a fence not a wall in those cases) are still not settled I think and bush is gone from office over a decade. So, and brace yourselves for a shock lads, this hasn't been taught through properly.

James Brown

Christy42 wrote: »

Donald Trump needs to respect the fact that Democrats were voted into the house to stop him building a wall.

Trump had two years for his wall and didn't really bother.

To be fair he couldn't as there was no one to blame when it failed. Now the Democrats are there. Likely he does not want funding for the wall. The full thing would be crazy expensive and get bogged down in all sorts of issues He just needs to say he tried.

Indeed he seems to have a new strategy of claiming the wall has already been started which people seem to be lapping up so he may switch to simply claiming there is a wall and assuming his base won't check this and will disbelieve CNN when they report on the distinct lack of a wall.

Maybe cleverly. He might not have gotten the support, now he can blame Democrats for blocking. It's a win win for Republicans.

theguzman

Trump is courting a landslide in 2020 the Democrats got rid of the Amazon HQ in NYC and that alone will turn NY Red, Occasio-Cortez had her brain fart of a New Deal and other climate change fakenews. He is a master of divide and conquer and he will make mince meat of the upcoming Dem candidates. History will judge him as probably the most divisive president ever but the best for security, patriotism and economic growth. He managed to turn the Democratic party in a hard-left rabid Marxist mouthpeice which will drive even the moderates over to Trump as they fear for the wealth and way of life from nutjobs like Occasio-Cortez and others.

Ultros

theguzman wrote: »

History will judge him as probably the most divisive president ever

Divisive you say? He just tweeted this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1096485376087097344

BabyCheeses

theguzman wrote: »

Trump is courting a landslide in 2020 the Democrats got rid of the Amazon HQ in NYC and that alone will turn NY Red, Occasio-Cortez had her brain fart of a New Deal and other climate change fakenews. He is a master of divide and conquer and he will make mince meat of the upcoming Dem candidates. History will judge him as probably the most divisive president ever but the best for security, patriotism and economic growth. He managed to turn the Democratic party in a hard-left rabid Marxist mouthpeice which will drive even the moderates over to Trump as they fear for the wealth and way of life from nutjobs like Occasio-Cortez and others.

Turn NY red...


Not even trying anymore.

20Cent

Emergency Powers. Isn't that how most authoritarian govs or dictatorships start?

I used to think the laws and processes would stop such a thing in the US, but not so sure now.

Ultros

20Cent wrote: »

Emergency Powers. Isn't that how most authoritarian govs or dictatorships start?

I used to think the laws and processes would stop such a thing in the US, but not so sure now.

Ultimately, it will probably end up in the Supreme court and most likely be blocked even with the recent Conservative appointments. Ruth Ginsburg seems to be back in good health but I don't think she'll last a second Trump term.

SoundsRight

dudara wrote: »

A National Emergency constitutes well....an actual emergency. Something like a war, invasion or massive natural disaster, it’s not to be used because the president is a diva and is having a hissy fit. That’s not an emergency, except in the mind of Trump.

Everything single thing Trump does demeans the office he holds, it demeans all the previous incumbents who tried to honor the office they held, and drags the reputation of the USA further into the mud.

There's been 58 previous national emergencies since the law was enacted. Prohibiting rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, sanctions against Burma and Haiti....it's not simply for big events. I fail to see who exactly would have an issue with securing a nation's borders, outside of criminals and their acolytes.

20Cent

Ultros wrote: »

Ultimately, it will probably end up in the Supreme court and most likely be blocked even with the recent Conservative appointments. Ruth Ginsburg seems to be back in good health but I don't think she'll last a second Trump term.

Hopefully you are right.
They could use him saying that it isn't really an emergency in his speech announcing this as evidence.

pixelburp

SoundsRight wrote: »

There's been 58 previous national emergencies since the law was enacted. Prohibiting rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, sanctions against Burma and Haiti....it's not simply for big events. I fail to see who exactly would have an issue with securing a nation's borders, outside of criminals and their acolytes.

People have no issue with securing borders, people do have a problem with Trumps sudden declaration that it be an emergency, despite controlling both Houses for 2 full years and possessing no roadblocks to securing that funding sooner - were it ever a viable project. The Tax Plan & attempted Repeal and Replace demonstrated the GOP controlled government didn't lack enthusiasm for Trumps other key pillars.

Even stats from US departments themselves show the land border is not the unfettered stream of crime and terrorism the President would otherwise claim.

And as mentioned already, Walls would do nothing to prevent the next El Chapo, being as he was, fond of merely tunnelling under the issue of a border.

The Wall is a boondoggle.

salmocab

SoundsRight wrote: »

There's been 58 previous national emergencies since the law was enacted. Prohibiting rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, sanctions against Burma and Haiti....it's not simply for big events. I fail to see who exactly would have an issue with securing a nation's borders, outside of criminals and their acolytes.

Are these declared national emergencies or executive orders?

circadian

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's a pity he had to use this measure, but he was voted in with a mandate to build a wall. The Dems need to respect that.

Maybe Trump needs to respect that the mid terms showed that a lot more people don't give a flying monkeys about the wall.

20Cent

SoundsRight wrote: »

There's been 58 previous national emergencies since the law was enacted. Prohibiting rough diamonds from Sierra Leone, sanctions against Burma and Haiti....it's not simply for big events. I fail to see who exactly would have an issue with securing a nation's borders, outside of criminals and their acolytes.

Trump said himself that he could do it anyway and was calling it an emergency just to get it done quicker.

Ultros

pixelburp wrote: »

People have no issue with securing borders, people do have a problem with Trumps sudden declaration that it be an emergency, despite controlling both Houses for 2 full years and possessing no roadblocks to securing that funding sooner - were it ever a viable project. The Tax Plan & attempted Repeal and Replace demonstrated the GOP controlled government didn't lack enthusiasm for Trumps other key pillars.

Really? That's not the vibe I've gotten from the Democratic party especially over the past year or two, bit of a leap to be fair.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html

"More Democrats have joined the growing list of names who want to abolish US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more commonly known as ICE.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley of New York in the primary last week, ran on a platform of abolishing the agency, and so far, more lawmakers have echoed her call."

Here's Keith Ellison with a T-shirt saying "I don't believe in borders".

Chocolate

I've just finished watching House of Cards.

Trump's declaration of an emergency to secure funding for the wall is remarkably similar to Frank Underwood declaring an emergency to secure funding for his AmWorks initiative.

It was farcical in the television series too.

SoundsRight

salmocab wrote: »

Are these declared national emergencies or executive orders?

Those are declared emergencies under the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

Thepoet85

Chocolate wrote: »

I've just finished watching House of Cards.

Trump's declaration of an emergency to secure funding for the wall is remarkably similar to Frank Underwood declaring an emergency to secure funding for his AmWorks initiative.

It was farcical in the television series too.

I was just going to post the same thing. This is a real case of the truth being stranger than fiction.

Itssoeasy

The White House press secretary Sarah sanders has been interviewed by the special counsel Robert mueller according to Pamela brown of CNN. Was it under oath I wonder and can her lying to them get her in trouble ? If true she can't keep saying "this has nothing to do with the White House" anymore.

Water John

I presume she quickly worked out the diff between news and fake news. Otherwise she's in trouble.