Since https://t.co/1kK3Krq3yd still has no policies posted on it, the Trump campaign has created https://t.co/SIUuHELGP5 to lay out her platform for voters. https://t.co/2j2vmc260h
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 21, 2024
Since https://t.co/1kK3Krq3yd still has no policies posted on it, the Trump campaign has created https://t.co/SIUuHELGP5 to lay out her platform for voters. https://t.co/2j2vmc260h
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 21, 2024
Trump: Did you see Barack Hussein Obama last night? He was taking shots at your president. And so is Michelle. They always say, please stick to policy, don't get personal. Yet they are getting personal all night long, these people. Do I still have to stick to policy? pic.twitter.com/sEJHgUOWtf
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 21, 2024
The 2024 Democratic Party platform makes 20 references to what they propose for "President Biden's second term."
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 21, 2024
Couldn't a simple CTRL+F have easily updated this for Kamala Harris?
šš» https://t.co/YAYbV0NbNW pic.twitter.com/bb6zIAd1nL
its not hers, hers will be much more radical..boognish_bear said:The 2024 Democratic Party platform makes 20 references to what they propose for "President Biden's second term."
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) August 21, 2024
Couldn't a simple CTRL+F have easily updated this for Kamala Harris?
šš» https://t.co/YAYbV0NbNW pic.twitter.com/bb6zIAd1nL
KaiBear said:historian said:
Talk about conspiracy theories!
There is no evidence of such manipulation.
Of course there is.
Just one exampleā¦ā¦..
By refusing to give up possession of the fort to the newly sovereign stateā¦..its dozens of cannons threatened all the shipping in the harbor.
The critically important port was effectively at risk of being indefinitely closed to all shipping.
And risk of such a closer was an intolerable economic threat to South Carolina and the entire region.
Lincoln knew this which is why he publicly announced his intention to te enforce the existing garrison of the fort.
historian said:KaiBear said:historian said:
Talk about conspiracy theories!
There is no evidence of such manipulation.
Of course there is.
Just one exampleā¦ā¦..
By refusing to give up possession of the fort to the newly sovereign stateā¦..its dozens of cannons threatened all the shipping in the harbor.
The critically important port was effectively at risk of being indefinitely closed to all shipping.
And risk of such a closer was an intolerable economic threat to South Carolina and the entire region.
Lincoln knew this which is why he publicly announced his intention to te enforce the existing garrison of the fort.
That's a circular argument. The Confederacy was not a newly sovereign state. No other state had even recognized them & none in Europe ever did. Declaring themselves a new nation didn't make it a reality. They had to win a war to make it happen. The U.S. became a new nation with the Declaration of Independence but that only became official with victory a few years later. We were helped by recognition & an alliance with France.
What's more, most of the Confederate officers were guilty of treason, as defined by the constitution, from Robert E. Lee on down.
On @TheoVon, President Trump explains how his brother Fred's alcohol addiction influenced him to never touch drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. pic.twitter.com/xyLD1m414R
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 20, 2024
DDHQ Polling Average Update: Full Field National
— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) August 21, 2024
š¦ Kamala Harris (D): 48.3% (+4.6)
š„ Donald Trump (R): 43.7%
šŖ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I): 2.8%
This average is based on 57 polls.https://t.co/DSExArNot6
Trump has myths built around him that people promote. It was Obama that drew down troops in Afghanistan from 100,000 to less than 10,000 by the end of his tenure, effectively ending the active War in Afghanistan. Ironically, in one of his first foreign policy moves, Trump INCREASED the number of troops by nearly 50% and expanded aerial assault operations as part of a fight against the Taliban resurgence. After his surge strategy failed, including a successful attack on Bagram AFB, he signed the deal with the Taliban late in his term in essence handing Afghanistan back to them, and setting up the infamous failed exit he authorized as he left office.sombear said:While I totally disagree, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that he never intended to leave Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:You're smarter than this. The Senate Afghan vote was ceremonial. Trump as CIC could have done it anytime, just as Biden did.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.KaiBear said:
Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.
Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.
As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.
I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.
Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?
I hope not
Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters
That party would not even get 15% of the national voteā¦
But more fundamentally to your argument:
- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.
1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.
2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.
3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.
Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.
There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.
But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.
Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.
Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.
1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.
That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.
Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)
2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)
3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.
Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)
https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:
The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272
[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]
Come on now.....
The entire Senate leadership went over to the White House and told him point blank they would not support an Afghan war pull out.
And the Pentagon stymied him at every turn.
[When Trump was in office, Milley had no compunction about standing up to the president on Afghanistan. Axios reports that after the 2020 elections, unbeknown to his national security team, Trump had a presidential decision memorandum drawn up ordering all US forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Jan. 15, 2021. When news reached the Pentagon, Milley was "appalled" and swung into action. In the Oval Office, Milley, national security adviser Robert O'Brien and acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller "all aligned against the plan." They "painted a vivid picture of Kabul falling to the Taliban if US forces withdrew precipitously in the final days of the Trump presidency" and invoked the specter of America's withdrawal from Saigon, warning "this would be Trump's legacy if he rushed to the exit." In the end, they persuaded Trump to leave a residual force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan when he left office.]
Including not obeying his orders when Trump DID order the pull out! (something that is technically Constitutionally illegal to disobey the Commander in Chief of the armed forces)
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/
[President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss, but senior (Pentagon) officials never followed through on the plan, according to testimony released by the congressional January 6 committee on Thursday.]
The facts are just something you really don't want to deal with.
The the machine in DC worked tirelessly to prevent the withdraw
And if when given a Constitutional order by their Commander in Chief they did not follow it.
This is all to you evidence that Trump is the problem.....not an entrench and corrupt system in DC
Wow
historian said:KaiBear said:historian said:
Talk about conspiracy theories!
There is no evidence of such manipulation.
Of course there is.
Just one exampleā¦ā¦..
By refusing to give up possession of the fort to the newly sovereign stateā¦..its dozens of cannons threatened all the shipping in the harbor.
The critically important port was effectively at risk of being indefinitely closed to all shipping.
And risk of such a closer was an intolerable economic threat to South Carolina and the entire region.
Lincoln knew this which is why he publicly announced his intention to te enforce the existing garrison of the fort.
Modern parallels are September 11, 2001 & October 7, 2023. In both cases the terrorists started the respective conflict with their barbaric attacks on innocents, although some tried to blame the victims in both examples. The Confederate attack on Fort Sumter was not barbaric but they still were responsible for the conflict that followed. My earlier Pearl Harbor analogy still applies.
All true.ATL Bear said:Trump has myths built around him that people promote. It was Obama that drew down troops in Afghanistan from 100,000 to less than 10,000 by the end of his tenure, effectively ending the active War in Afghanistan. Ironically, in one of his first foreign policy moves, Trump INCREASED the number of troops by nearly 50% and expanded aerial assault operations as part of a fight against the Taliban resurgence. After his surge strategy failed, including a successful attack on Bagram AFB, he signed the deal with the Taliban late in his term in essence handing Afghanistan back to them, and setting up the infamous failed exit he authorized as he left office.sombear said:While I totally disagree, you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that he never intended to leave Afghanistan.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Red herring. He negotiated the deal with the Taliban at the beginning of 2020. He could have withdrawn anytime. Instead, in what Trump thought was a big FU to the establishment, he drafted a silly, hastily and sloppily drafted order for immediate withdrawal RIGHT AFTER he was declared the loser of the election. He consulted with nobody. He did not pay even lip service to the chain in command. It was a wholly inadequate document prepared out of sheer spite that he knew would do nothing.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:You're smarter than this. The Senate Afghan vote was ceremonial. Trump as CIC could have done it anytime, just as Biden did.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.KaiBear said:
Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.
Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.
As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.
I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.
Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?
I hope not
Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters
That party would not even get 15% of the national voteā¦
But more fundamentally to your argument:
- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.
1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.
2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.
3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.
Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.
There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.
But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.
Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.
Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.
1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.
That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.
Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)
2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)
3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.
Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)
https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:
The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272
[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]
Come on now.....
The entire Senate leadership went over to the White House and told him point blank they would not support an Afghan war pull out.
And the Pentagon stymied him at every turn.
[When Trump was in office, Milley had no compunction about standing up to the president on Afghanistan. Axios reports that after the 2020 elections, unbeknown to his national security team, Trump had a presidential decision memorandum drawn up ordering all US forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan by Jan. 15, 2021. When news reached the Pentagon, Milley was "appalled" and swung into action. In the Oval Office, Milley, national security adviser Robert O'Brien and acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller "all aligned against the plan." They "painted a vivid picture of Kabul falling to the Taliban if US forces withdrew precipitously in the final days of the Trump presidency" and invoked the specter of America's withdrawal from Saigon, warning "this would be Trump's legacy if he rushed to the exit." In the end, they persuaded Trump to leave a residual force of 2,500 troops in Afghanistan when he left office.]
Including not obeying his orders when Trump DID order the pull out! (something that is technically Constitutionally illegal to disobey the Commander in Chief of the armed forces)
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/
[President Donald Trump ordered a rapid withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the wake of his 2020 election loss, but senior (Pentagon) officials never followed through on the plan, according to testimony released by the congressional January 6 committee on Thursday.]
The facts are just something you really don't want to deal with.
The the machine in DC worked tirelessly to prevent the withdraw
And if when given a Constitutional order by their Commander in Chief they did not follow it.
This is all to you evidence that Trump is the problem.....not an entrench and corrupt system in DC
Wow
historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
historian said:
Treason is illegal.
Lee and the other Confederates were not tried for treason because Lincoln was gracious and practical:
Traditionally, the week of the political Party convention shows a bump for their candidate. Not so with the DNC convention. Trump is the one getting the bounce. America doesn't want any part of Marxists Harris/Walz and the insane Democrats. pic.twitter.com/0HUX5VvUwn
— Mike Englemanšŗš² (@RealHickory) August 21, 2024
historian said:
Still, the Confederacy had no legal standing, no recognition, and no legitimate reason to attack. From a legal perspective, it was a criminal act.
It was the winning of the war that legitimized the act. It's one of those interesting quirks of history replayed over and over again. Successful rebellions are legitimate while failed rebellions results in people being executed.
Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Still, the Confederacy had no legal standing, no recognition, and no legitimate reason to attack. From a legal perspective, it was a criminal act.
It was the winning of the war that legitimized the act. It's one of those interesting quirks of history replayed over and over again. Successful rebellions are legitimate while failed rebellions results in people being executed.
1. The Confederacy did not attack Ft. Sumter
The Sovereign State of South Carolina did....using their legally constituted militia.
Now if you want to argue that South Carolina had no right...then fine....but South Carolina had declared its totally and complete independence.
2. You believe in "might makes right" fair enough...at least you are honest that it was not the Constitution that prevents State secession....its the mass application of military power by the Federal government and the killing of men that keeps it together.
historian said:Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
You are obsessed with the word "secession" which is not mentioned in the constitution. You keep ignoring my larger point, that treason is clearly defined and condemned and the Confederates are clearly guilty. Case closed. Verdict: guilty.
historian said:Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
The U.S. never declared war against the confederacy because they were never a sovereign state. It doesn't matter what they thought: they were unable to make it a reality. Legally and constitutionally, it goes back to Lincoln doing his job as chief executive, enforcing the laws, and commander in chief, protecting Americans from a domestic threat. Again, these are facts not semantics or legal maneuvering.
You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
Daniel Webster rose to Hayne's challenge. In a packed Senate Chamber, Webster used his organ-like voice to great effect as he began a two-day speech known as his Second Reply to Hayne. In response to Hayne's argument that the nation was simply an association of sovereign states, from which individual states could withdraw at will, Webster thundered that it was instead a "popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it are responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be."FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...
J.R. said:did that check from Mexico clear yet. He's full of **** and anyone who believes anything out of his mouth is just foolish. I have never in my life seen a more habitual liar that fat boy. How and why do some of you boys support a liar, ***** chaser, convicted felon and a sexual abuser? Ser/ious question. Please don't give me...I like his policies or he's better than the other choice. please tell me whyFLBear5630 said:I actually thought he did a good job finding funding for the wall. He got creative, but there was definitely a nexxus between Authorization and use. We need more problem solving like that.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:The strongest critique of Trump's effort on the border wall is that it took him +2yrs to figure out how to do it with existing authorizations & funds.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:sombear said:GOP governors all over the U.S. have far outperformed Trump.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Plenty of Repubs have outperformed Trump electorally.Redbrickbear said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Add a bitter, re-tread 78-year-old who lost the last election as the R's candidate to the list. The Rs did themselves no favors when they once again hitched their horse to Trump. I suspect most any other R candidate at this point would be kicking Kamala's ass. As it stands, I suspect the Rs lose another close one.KaiBear said:
Such obsession with various polls is irrelevant.
Voter 'harvesting' in key precincts, the stupidity of much of our electorate, and the overwhelming Dem control of the national media will produce the same result as in 2020.
As the Republican hierarchy has learned nothing since 2020.
I just pray that Trump is gone, and the country is still here in 2028.
Will Trump return the Republican Party when he is through with it?
I hope not
Going back to "import the world/invade the world/cut corporate tax rates" is a non-starters
That party would not even get 15% of the national voteā¦
But more fundamentally to your argument:
- Trump cut corp taxes and regulations dramatically and ran on doing so.
- He talked a lot about "fair trade" but acted mostly as a free-trader. He actually did very little of what fair-traders wanted relative to tariffs, etc.
- I guess we didn't invade anyone, but he massively increased defense spending and kept us fighting in several regions, and he has since said he always planned on keeping a residual force and Bagram open in Afghanistan. In addition, he strongly supports Israel and Taiwan, and when push has come to shove, Ukraine.
1. But not where it matter in the actual GOP primary....some of you guys just won't face up to the fact that he won the primary and is now the candidate of choice for the party.
2. The last two Republicans before Trump lost the White House (Mitt and McCain) both of who for some "never-Trumpers" are the ideal type of Republican.
3. On issues of both war and trade Trump is as constrained as anyone by Congress....a Congress filled with Republicans (and Democrats) who love corporate tax cuts and wars in the foreign sandboxes of the world.
Trump at least tries to talk the talk...hopefully we might see him get the chance to do more in a 2nd term.
There are now more America 1st Republicans in Congress than there used to be so hopefully that well help.
But at the end of the day all we can do is hope...hope that DC can be changed and the Uniparty Consensus on War and Trade can be altered.
Plenty of politicians talk. So what. Trump's policies are what they are - Pro-corporate; cut corp taxes and regulation.
Congress had nothing to do with limiting Trump.
1. Maybe so....but they did not win the GOP primary.
That is the whole point....they were and are NOT the choice of the Republican voters.
Its simply a hypothetical if a insert name GOP governor would do better in a general (Mitt certainly did not)
2. Those are long term Republican priorities as well. Trump as at least made talked about reorienting America toward protecting & on-shoring manufacturing jobs (the sable of the American middle class)
3. Please, on everything from vetoing the Military base naming bill, to trying to pull out of Afghanistan, to trying to build the border wall Congress interfered and stymied Trump at every turn.
Even when the GOP held both the House and the Senate they refused to pass a new immigration law (that Trump supported), Refused to fund a border wall (that Trump supported), and refused to order an Afghan/Syria pull out (that Trump advocated for)
https://apnews.com/united-states-congress-0fa86263454f489fbeeb3c61363a4515
[Senate breaks with Trump on Afghanistan, Syria withdrawal:
The Senate voted Monday to oppose the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan, breaking with President Donald Trump as he calls for a military drawdown in those countries.]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46596272
[Democrats refuse funds for Trump's wall]
And your immigration article is from 2018. Trump had two years. And he basically repaired some wall and added some minor extensions. And, most importantly, offered amnesty and the same overall deal that virtually every other Republican had long supported (and that he criticized in the primary).
Buddy, he tried to get funding from Congress....they refused to act (but they did authorize billions for Israel and wars in the 3rd world)
He went around them and tried to use discretionary funding to build the Wall.
They sued him to stop it....and the Federal courts sided with the Regime to prevent the border wall from being built.
What else did you want him to do? Declare martial law and use the army to throw the bums out of Congress and install some actual Patriots that would build the wall?
I imagine if he did that you would be screaming about how it was un-Constitutional
[SAN FRANCISCO The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last night ruled that President Trump's use of emergency powers to divert $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border wall is unlawful. The ruling came in a lawsuit, Sierra Club v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging President Trump's use of emergency powers to build a border wall using funds Congress explicitly denied.]
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/appeals-court-rules-trumps-border-wall-illegal-blocks-further-construction
I don't fault a businessman from the outside for not knowing that backdoor existed when he walked into the office. I can criticize his staff for taking so long to find it.
I also do not understand how anyone interested in stopping illegal immigration could find anyone in their lifetime who has done more to stop it. Not one politician of either party ever spent the kind of political capital Trump did on the issue. Not one politician of either party ever accomplished anything remotely close to what he did. They all spent their time & money facilitating/regulating the flow. Not. One. was interested enough in stopping it, for good, when all of them had the opportunity to do so. The DOD pathway he used has been there for a long, long time.
Bingo....
If people want to attack Trump and his Presidency then go ahead.
But the idea that he did not try and stop mass immigration from the 3rd world is ludicrous.
He spend money, political capital, and fought for it all 4 years he was in office against the entire weight of the DC political class who wants the never ending spigot of mass immigration to continue
Osodecentx said:Daniel Webster rose to Hayne's challenge. In a packed Senate Chamber, Webster used his organ-like voice to great effect as he began a two-day speech known as his Second Reply to Hayne. In response to Hayne's argument that the nation was simply an association of sovereign states, from which individual states could withdraw at will, Webster thundered that it was instead a "popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it are responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be."FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Most_Famous_Senate_Speech.htm
Oh No! Man At DNC Thinking He Was In Line For Food Truck Accidentally Gets Vasectomy https://t.co/UIUqYuNxJ2 pic.twitter.com/BGeOijAGDL
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 21, 2024
Osodecentx said:Daniel Webster rose to Hayne's challenge. In a packed Senate Chamber, Webster used his organ-like voice to great effect as he began a two-day speech known as his Second Reply to Hayne. In response to Hayne's argument that the nation was simply an association of sovereign states, from which individual states could withdraw at will, Webster thundered that it was instead a "popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it are responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be."FLBear5630 said:You keep using quotes from people that were found to be wrong. Texas vs White settled this at the highest level, unilateral secession is illegal, period. You can quote every "Lost Cause" apologist you like, it does not change the ruling.Redbrickbear said:historian said:
Treason is illegal. It's even clearly defined in the constitution and there is no doubt that the Confederates were guilty: they made war on the U.S., a war they started.
But it was not treason and secession is not illegal.
You really should read the U.S. Constitution some time...secession is no where forbidden in the document.
"To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all of our political systems are founded."
- William Rawle
"The Constitution was to form a gov't for such States as should be willing to unite; it had no application beyond those who should voluntarily adopt it. Among the delegated powers there is none which interferes with the exercise of the right of secession by a State."
"Congress cannot declare war against a state or any number of states, by virtue of the constitution." Nor has the President any power to...declare a war of any sort. He is only authorized by law "to suppress insurrection against the government of a state."-Dunning
"Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug." He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border regions." Gutenberg's A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln, by John G. Nicolay
IF the States that wanted to secede brought it to Congress and attempted a vote and won. THEN you would be right, that is not illegal. It has to be in both party's best interest to break apart the Union. Can't just leave...
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Most_Famous_Senate_Speech.htm
The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
ATL Bear said:The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.
You're not ready for this video špic.twitter.com/nRcBcjqQuc
— Defiant Lās (@DefiantLs) August 21, 2024
The Khmer Rouge were "patriots" until the Vietnamese destroyed them.ATL Bear said:The Khmer Rouge were patriots fighting for their cause against imperialists. The Bolsheviks were patriotic Russians breaking the grip of monarchy.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Voice of Reality:
The colonial citizens are patriotic revolutionaries because they defeated Britain.
The Southerners are traitors because they lost to the North.
It is that simple. Reasons, initiating incidents, etc. do not matter.
Only outcome determines how the victors and losers are categorized.
Don't think it's that simple. Cause and purpose does matter.