fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

And with her taking credit for stopping Amazon from building a headquarters in NY, she's got bigger balls than he does.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Roughly 80% of all voters say U.S. needs secure borders, including 68% of Democrats: Harvard poll

---

If you can't understand the difference between border security and a wall, then you deserve the ridicule you get.

---

If you are claiming that border security does not include a serious wall, you deserve all sorts of ridicule yourself.

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

Not sure why calling it a political reason changes what he said: he opposes the wall.

YoakDaddy said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

And with her taking credit for stopping Amazon from building a headquarters in NY, she's got bigger balls than he does.

---

I know she gloated, did she actually take credit?

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

Beto is not going to win ****. Let him come down to South Texas. He has no idea what he is saying. Come and take it!!! Beto

---

Ahhhh, he's been to all the counties in Texas. He's been to all the border counties. He lives in a border city. So you're wrong.

---

He also says that the wall works in El Paso...so there's that.

---

He says that it doesn't... so there's that.

---

If he had stopped there, he might've been okay; instead, he continued and ended up accidentally making the case for those who argue that walls do in fact work: "And it has pushed migrants and asylum seekers and refugees to the most inhospitable, the most hostile stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring their suffering and death."


In other words, the walls do deter illegal crossings where they are built. It's also worth noting that those "asylum seekers" O'Rourke references would be deliberately attempting to cross at illegal points instead of seeking out legal ports of entry where they would apply for asylum. In other words, they are not would-be "asylum seekers" by definition: they are would-be illegal aliens

---

Work = dead people.

Ok pal.

---

Surely your're not that off. He's saying that the wall prevents people from crossing so they try to cross at more dangerous places where there is no wall.

Don't be blinded by politics.

---

That's an argument against it, not for it.

---

No, you see the wall prevents people from coming here illegally so they go other places...hence, more wall, less places.

---

Con. O'Rourke opposes the wall.. He said he opposes the wall, did you miss that part?

---

Did you miss the part where he describes how it does what it's supposed to do? He's against it for political reasons, but in reality he knows it works. He's the male version of AOC.

---

And with her taking credit for stopping Amazon from building a headquarters in NY, she's got bigger balls than he does.

---

I know she gloated, did she actually take credit?

---

Ok. Gloated as being part of that group that stopped Amazon.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

---

Basically nothing, unless you're assuming that every declaration of emergency is equally valid and justifiable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

---

Basically nothing, unless you're assuming that every declaration of emergency is equally valid and justifiable.

---

Too late in the day for waffles, Sam.

Come on, you're better than base evasion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

---

Basically nothing, unless you're assuming that every declaration of emergency is equally valid and justifiable.

---

Too late in the day for waffles, Sam.

Come on, you're better than base evasion.

---

I'm just trying to focus your attention on the present controversy. The issue is not whether presidents have the power to declare emergencies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

---

Basically nothing, unless you're assuming that every declaration of emergency is equally valid and justifiable.

---

Too late in the day for waffles, Sam.

Come on, you're better than base evasion.

---

I'm just trying to focus your attention on the present controversy. The issue is not whether presidents have the power to declare emergencies.

---

Or whether the legislation granting that authority is constitutional. And if it is found to be so it is still an erosion of legislative power to the benefit of the executive.

It won't be easy to pass legislation putting the genie back in the bottle.

TexasScientist said:

---

It won't be easy to pass legislation putting the genie back in the bottle.

---

Not with the current officeholders, no. The Two Party sees spoils.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Declaration of a National Emergency to fund something Congress explicitly WOULD NOT fund is without precedent.

Right?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Declaration of a National Emergency to fund something Congress explicitly WOULD NOT fund is without precedent.

Right?

---

Half of Congress you mean, and it was indeed funded, just at a level too low for the need.

By the way, was desegregation "without precedent"?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Quick guess: 31?

---

And what does that fact do to the complaints that Trump is "over-reaching" by declaring a national emergency?

---

Basically nothing, unless you're assuming that every declaration of emergency is equally valid and justifiable.

---

Too late in the day for waffles, Sam.

Come on, you're better than base evasion.

---

I'm just trying to focus your attention on the present controversy. The issue is not whether presidents have the power to declare emergencies.

---

You are posturing, and frankly you look silly doing it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Declaration of a National Emergency to fund something Congress explicitly WOULD NOT fund is without precedent.

Right?

---

Half of Congress you mean, and it was indeed funded, just at a level too low for the need.

By the way, was desegregation "without precedent"?

---

Half of Congress is not all of Congress. And it was specifically omitted. It was "border fencing."

Are you going to admit this is unprecedented, or not?

Find your other sources that show this is exactly as ho-hum normal as you said it was, and I'll back off.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

Your "history lessons" have led you to fear an intransigent group of people who literally have to reach some sort of agreement before moving forward with laws over an increasingly powerful single executive?

What ****ing history books are you reading?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

Your "history lessons" have led you to fear an intransigent group of people who literally have to reach some sort of agreement before moving forward with laws over an increasingly powerful single executive?

What ****ing history books are you reading?

---

He read it on twitter; must be true

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I agree, it's a dangerous precedent.

---

Quick question. Do you know how many 'national emergencies' are in effect right now?

A lot of people don't even understand that these are not uncommon, and have a history which will stand up to judicial scrutiny rather well.

I will discuss this with the adults paying attention.

---

Quick answer. Yes.

---

Bonus points - do you know the two national emergency acts signed by Obama, which allow Trump to allocate money right now for building a border wall?

---

I never said he wasn't allowed to do it. I'm just not sure it's a good idea. It expands the subject matter of emergency action under circumstances where the urgency is debatable.

---

Nope. Take a look at the wording in all those other declarations.

This is not extraordinary or an expansion at all.

It's simply applying a tool to a serious domestic crisis. Really no different than Ike making sure kids could go to school without getting attacked by mobs.

---

The wording isn't the issue. It's the nature of the supposed emergency. All those other declarations weren't about immigration.

---

Neither is this one. This is about a crisis fomented by constant border incursions.

---

Use whatever wording you want. None of the other declarations was about "a crisis fomented by constant border incursions" either. That includes Obama's.

---

To use your own choice of words, 'use whatever wording you want', the crisis is real and meets the clear and present danger standard.

Hating Trump is no reason to abandon defense of our borders.

---

I tend to agree that the crisis is real. I've said as much in my recent posts. I voted for Trump and plan to vote for him again, so Trump hate isn't a factor here.

The question is still the same: whether this is a dangerous precedent.

---

My point is that if Trump is thwarted here, that in no way impedes another President from using powers as he/she deems fit.

What so many fail to grasp, is that the Constitution has granted vast powers to the President, and the matter is not now to deny that power, but how for each branch to exercise its own powers and duties.

And for the record, a Congress which cannot be held accountable frightens me far beyond what a single Chief Executive might do. I have studied too much history to not know where the greater peril lies.

---

Your "history lessons" have led you to fear an intransigent group of people who literally have to reach some sort of agreement before moving forward with laws over an increasingly powerful single executive?

What ****ing history books are you reading?

---

Go read up on the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China, for openers.

All started by taking power away from a central executive, and trusting the wisdom of a crowd of political lickspittles.

You do not know the peril you invite.

And no, a central executive is far, far different from a demagogue.

Monsters rise from mobs, not service to duty.

For years now, both houses of Congress have been more than willing to cede powers to the executive branch because of political expediency.

Congress is weak and getting weaker. It's easier to get re-elected when you haven't taken a firm stand.

This has occurred on both sides of the aisle.