Hitler.

Nah for real. Look up da Reichstag Fire and how Hitler declared a state of emergency and finessed Germany Pres and people so da Nazis could take over.


Lol @ da MSM believin a SOE bout da damn wall when a mf literally closed down da government, courts and aint got no defense sec, chief of staff, WH counsel or AG. A SOE pulls back on da consitutional limits on 45s power finna be da final step before shits straightup a dictatorship.

Errybody needs to wake up. Dis shit is fuckin history.


Atlantic knows whats up!

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

ELIZABETH GOITEIN JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 ISSUE

In the weeks leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald Trump reached deep into his arsenal to try to deliver votes to Republicans.

Most of his weapons were rhetorical, featuring a mix of lies and false inducements—claims that every congressional Democrat had signed on to an “open borders” bill (none had), that liberals were fomenting violent “mobs” (they weren’t), that a 10 percent tax cut for the middle class would somehow pass while Congress was out of session (it didn’t). But a few involved the aggressive use—and threatened misuse—of presidential authority: He sent thousands of active-duty soldiers to the southern border to terrorize a distant caravan of desperate Central American migrants, announced plans to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship by executive order, and tweeted that law enforcement had been “strongly notified” to be on the lookout for “ILLEGAL VOTING.”

These measures failed to carry the day, and Trump will likely conclude that they were too timid. How much further might he go in 2020, when his own name is on the ballot—or sooner than that, if he’s facing impeachment by a House under Democratic control?

More is at stake here than the outcome of one or even two elections. Trump has long signaled his disdain for the concepts of limited presidential power and democratic rule. During his 2016 campaign, he praised murderous dictators. He declared that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, would be in jail if he were president, goading crowds into frenzied chants of “Lock her up.” He hinted that he might not accept an electoral loss. As democracies around the world slide into autocracy, and nationalism and antidemocratic sentiment are on vivid display among segments of the American populace, Trump’s evident hostility to key elements of liberal democracy cannot be dismissed as mere bluster.

The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority.
It would be nice to think that America is protected from the worst excesses of Trump’s impulses by its democratic laws and institutions. After all, Trump can do only so much without bumping up against the limits set by the Constitution and Congress and enforced by the courts. Those who see Trump as a threat to democracy comfort themselves with the belief that these limits will hold him in check.

But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.

1. “A LOADED WEAPON”
The premise underlying emergency powers is simple: The government’s ordinary powers might be insufficient in a crisis, and amending the law to provide greater ones might be too slow and cumbersome. Emergency powers are meant to give the government a temporary boost until the emergency passes or there is time to change the law through normal legislative processes.

Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpus—that is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial review—“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.

Presidents can also rely on a cornucopia of powers provided by Congress, which has historically been the principal source of emergency authority for the executive branch. Throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries, Congress passed laws to give the president additional leeway during military, economic, and labor crises. A more formalized approach evolved in the early 20th century, when Congress legislated powers that would lie dormant until the president activated them by declaring a national emergency. These statutory authorities began to pile up—and because presidents had little incentive to terminate states of emergency once declared, these piled up too. By the 1970s, hundreds of statutory emergency powers, and four clearly obsolete states of emergency, were in effect. For instance, the national emergency that Truman declared in 1950, during the Korean War, remained in place and was being used to help prosecute the war in Vietnam.

Aiming to rein in this proliferation, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1976. Under this law, the president still has complete discretion to issue an emergency declaration—but he must specify in the declaration which powers he intends to use, issue public updates if he decides to invoke additional powers, and report to Congress on the government’s emergency-related expenditures every six months. The state of emergency expires after a year unless the president renews it, and the Senate and the House must meet every six months while the emergency is in effect “to consider a vote” on termination.

By any objective measure, the law has failed. Thirty states of emergency are in effect today—several times more than when the act was passed. Most have been renewed for years on end. And during the 40 years the law has been in place, Congress has not met even once, let alone every six months, to vote on whether to end them.

As a result, the president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions, as recently calculated by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, where I work. These laws address a broad range of matters, from military composition to agricultural exports to public contracts. For the most part, the president is free to use any of them; the National Emergencies Act doesn’t require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea. Many other laws permit the executive branch to take extraordinary action under specified conditions, such as war and domestic upheaval, regardless of whether a national emergency has been declared.

This legal regime for emergencies—ambiguous constitutional limits combined with a rich well of statutory emergency powers—would seem to provide the ingredients for a dangerous encroachment on American civil liberties. Yet so far, even though presidents have often advanced dubious claims of constitutional authority, egregious abuses on the scale of the Japanese American internment or the post-9/11 torture program have been rare, and most of the statutory powers available during a national emergency have never been used.

But what’s to guarantee that this president, or a future one, will show the reticence of his predecessors? To borrow from Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, each emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”

2. AN INTERNET KILL SWITCH?
Like all emergency powers, the laws governing the conduct of war allow the president to engage in conduct that would be illegal during ordinary times. This conduct includes familiar incidents of war, such as the killing or indefinite detention of enemy soldiers. But the president can also take a host of other actions, both abroad and inside the United States.

These laws vary dramatically in content and scope. Several of them authorize the president to make decisions about the size and composition of the armed forces that are usually left to Congress. Although such measures can offer needed flexibility at crucial moments, they are subject to misuse. For instance, George W. Bush leveraged the state of emergency after 9/11 to call hundreds of thousands of reservists and members of the National Guard into active duty in Iraq, for a war that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Other powers are chilling under any circumstances: Take a moment to consider that during a declared war or national emergency, the president can unilaterally suspend the law that bars government testing of biological and chemical agents on unwitting human subjects.

The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return pro-Trump content as the top results.
One power poses a singular threat to democracy in the digital era. In 1942, Congress amended Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” upon his proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States,” resurrecting a similar power Congress had briefly provided Woodrow Wilson during World War I. At the time, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams. Given the relatively modest role that electronic communications played in most Americans’ lives, the government’s assertion of this power during World War II (no president has used it since) likely created inconvenience but not havoc.

We live in a different universe today. Although interpreting a 1942 law to cover the internet might seem far-fetched, some government officials recently endorsed this reading during debates about cybersecurity legislation. Under this interpretation, Section 706 could effectively function as a “kill switch” in the U.S.—one that would be available to the president the moment he proclaimed a mere threat of war. It could also give the president power to assume control over U.S. internet traffic.

The potential impact of such a move can hardly be overstated. In August, in an early-morning tweet, Trump lamented that search engines were “RIGGED” to serve up negative articles about him. Later that day the administration said it was looking into regulating the big internet companies. “I think that Google and Twitter and Facebook, they’re really treading on very, very troubled territory. And they have to be careful,” Trump warned. If the government were to take control of U.S. internet infrastructure, Trump could accomplish directly what he threatened to do by regulation: ensure that internet searches always return pro-Trump content as the top results. The government also would have the ability to impede domestic access to particular websites, including social-media platforms. It could monitor emails or prevent them from reaching their destination. It could exert control over computer systems (such as states’ voter databases) and physical devices (such as Amazon’s Echo speakers) that are connected to the internet.

To be sure, the fact that the internet in the United States is highly decentralized—a function of a relatively open market for communications devices and services—would offer some protection. Achieving the level of government control over internet content that exists in places such as China, Russia, and Iran would likely be impossible in the U.S. Moreover, if Trump were to attempt any degree of internet takeover, an explosion of lawsuits would follow. Based on its First Amendment rulings in recent decades, the Supreme Court seems unlikely to permit heavy-handed government control over internet communication.

But complacency would be a mistake. Complete control of internet content would not be necessary for Trump’s purposes; even with less comprehensive interventions, he could do a great deal to disrupt political discourse and hinder effective, organized political opposition. And the Supreme Court’s view of the First Amendment is not immutable. For much of the country’s history, the Court was willing to tolerate significant encroachments on free speech during wartime. “The progress we have made is fragile,” Geoffrey R. Stone, a constitutional-law scholar at the University of Chicago, has written. “It would not take much to upset the current understanding of the First Amendment.” Indeed, all it would take is five Supreme Court justices whose commitment to presidential power exceeds their commitment to individual liberties.

3. SANCTIONING AMERICANS
Next to war powers, economic powers might sound benign, but they are among the president’s most potent legal weapons. All but two of the emergency declarations in effect today were issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or ieepa. Passed in 1977, the law allows the president to declare a national emergency “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat”—to national security, foreign policy, or the economy—that “has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” The president can then order a range of economic actions to address the threat, including freezing assets and blocking financial transactions in which any foreign nation or foreign national has an interest.

In the late 1970s and ’80s, presidents used the law primarily to impose sanctions against other nations, including Iran, Nicaragua, South Africa, Libya, and Panama. Then, in 1983, when Congress failed to renew a law authorizing the Commerce Department to control certain exports, President Ronald Reagan declared a national emergency in order to assume that control under ieepa. Subsequent presidents followed his example, transferring export control from Congress to the White House. President Bill Clinton expanded ieepa’s usage by targeting not just foreign governments but foreign political parties, terrorist organizations, and suspected narcotics traffickers.

President George W. Bush took matters a giant step further after 9/11. His Executive Order 13224 prohibited transactions not just with any suspected foreign terrorists, but with any foreigner or any U.S. citizen suspected of providing them with support. Once a person is “designated” under the order, no American can legally give him a job, rent him an apartment, provide him with medical services, or even sell him a loaf of bread unless the government grants a license to allow the transaction. The patriot Act gave the order more muscle, allowing the government to trigger these consequences merely by opening an investigation into whether a person or group should be designated.

Designations under Executive Order 13224 are opaque and extremely difficult to challenge. The government needs only a “reasonable basis” for believing that someone is involved with or supports terrorism in order to designate him. The target is generally given no advance notice and no hearing. He may request reconsideration and submit evidence on his behalf, but the government faces no deadline to respond. Moreover, the evidence against the target is typically classified, which means he is not allowed to see it. He can try to challenge the action in court, but his chances of success are minimal, as most judges defer to the government’s assessment of its own evidence.

Americans have occasionally been caught up in this Kafkaesque system. Several Muslim charities in the U.S. were designated or investigated based on the suspicion that their charitable contributions overseas benefited terrorists. Of course if the government can show, through judicial proceedings that observe due process and other constitutional rights, that an American group or person is funding terrorist activity, it should be able to cut off those funds. But the government shut these charities down by freezing their assets without ever having to prove its charges in court.

In other cases, Americans were significantly harmed by designations that later proved to be mistakes. For instance, two months after 9/11, the Treasury Department designated Garad Jama, a Somalian-born American, based on an erroneous determination that his money-wiring business was part of a terror-financing network. Jama’s office was shut down and his bank account frozen. News outlets described him as a suspected terrorist. For months, Jama tried to gain a hearing with the government to establish his innocence and, in the meantime, obtain the government’s permission to get a job and pay his lawyer. Only after he filed a lawsuit did the government allow him to work as a grocery-store cashier and pay his living expenses. It was several more months before the government reversed his designation and unfroze his assets. By then he had lost his business, and the stigma of having been publicly labeled a terrorist supporter continued to follow him and his family.

Despite these dramatic examples, ieepa’s limits have yet to be fully tested. After two courts ruled that the government’s actions against American charities were unconstitutional, Barack Obama’s administration chose not to appeal the decisions and largely refrained from further controversial designations of American organizations and citizens. Thus far, President Trump has followed the same approach.

That could change. In October, in the lead-up to the midterm elections, Trump characterized the caravan of Central American migrants headed toward the U.S. border to seek asylum as a “National Emergency.” Although he did not issue an emergency proclamation, he could do so under ieepa. He could determine that any American inside the U.S. who offers material support to the asylum seekers—or, for that matter, to undocumented immigrants inside the United States—poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, and authorize the Treasury Department to take action against them.

Americans might be surprised to learn just how readily the president can deploy troops inside the United States.
Such a move would carry echoes of a law passed recently in Hungary that criminalized the provision of financial or legal services to undocumented migrants; this has been dubbed the “Stop Soros” law, after the Hungarian American philanthropist George Soros, who funds migrants’-rights organizations. Although an order issued under ieepa would not land targets in jail, it could be implemented without legislation and without affording targets a trial. In practice, identifying every American who has hired, housed, or provided paid legal representation to an asylum seeker or undocumented immigrant would be impossible—but all Trump would need to do to achieve the desired political effect would be to make high-profile examples of a few. Individuals targeted by the order could lose their jobs, and find their bank accounts frozen and their health insurance canceled. The battle in the courts would then pick up exactly where it left off during the Obama administration—but with a newly reconstituted Supreme Court making the final call.

4. BOOTS ON MAIN STREET
The idea of tanks rolling through the streets of U.S. cities seems fundamentally inconsistent with the country’s notions of democracy and freedom. Americans might be surprised, therefore, to learn just how readily the president can deploy troops inside the country.

The principle that the military should not act as a domestic police force, known as “posse comitatus,” has deep roots in the nation’s history, and it is often mistaken for a constitutional rule. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit military participation in police activity. Nor does the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 outlaw such participation; it merely states that any authority to use the military for law-enforcement purposes must derive from the Constitution or from a statute.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides the necessary authority. As amended over the years, it allows the president to deploy troops upon the request of a state’s governor or legislature to help put down an insurrection within that state. It also allows the president to deploy troops unilaterally, either because he determines that rebellious activity has made it “impracticable” to enforce federal law through regular means, or because he deems it necessary to suppress “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” (terms not defined in the statute) that hinders the rights of a class of people or “impedes the course of justice.”

Presidents have wielded the Insurrection Act under a range of circumstances. Dwight Eisenhower used it in 1957 when he sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce school desegregation. George H. W. Bush employed it in 1992 to help stop the riots that erupted in Los Angeles after the verdict in the Rodney King case. George W. Bush considered invoking it to help restore public order after Hurricane Katrina, but opted against it when the governor of Louisiana resisted federal control over the state’s National Guard. While controversy surrounded all these examples, none suggests obvious overreach.

And yet the potential misuses of the act are legion. When Chicago experienced a spike in homicides in 2017, Trump tweeted that the city must “fix the horrible ‘carnage’ ” or he would “send in the Feds!” To carry out this threat, the president could declare a particular street gang—say, MS‑13—to be an “unlawful combination” and then send troops to the nation’s cities to police the streets. He could characterize sanctuary cities—cities that refuse to provide assistance to immigration-enforcement officials—as “conspiracies” against federal authorities, and order the military to enforce immigration laws in those places. Conjuring the specter of “liberal mobs,” he could send troops to suppress alleged rioting at the fringes of anti-Trump protests.

How far could the president go in using the military within U.S. borders? The Supreme Court has given us no clear answer to this question. Take Ex parte Milligan, a famous ruling from 1866 invalidating the use of a military commission to try a civilian during the Civil War. The case is widely considered a high-water mark for judicial constraint on executive action. Yet even as the Court held that the president could not use war or emergency as a reason to bypass civilian courts, it noted that martial law—the displacement of civilian authority by the military—would be appropriate in some cases. If civilian courts were closed as a result of a foreign invasion or a civil war, for example, martial law could exist “until the laws can have their free course.” The message is decidedly mixed: Claims of emergency or necessity cannot legitimize martial law … until they can.

Presented with this ambiguity, presidents have explored the outer limits of their constitutional emergency authority in a series of directives known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents, or peads. peads, which originated as part of the Eisenhower administration’s plans to ensure continuity of government in the wake of a Soviet nuclear attack, are draft executive orders, proclamations, and messages to Congress that are prepared in advance of anticipated emergencies. peads are closely guarded within the government; none has ever been publicly released or leaked. But their contents have occasionally been described in public sources, including FBI memorandums that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act as well as agency manuals and court records. According to these sources, peads drafted from the 1950s through the 1970s would authorize not only martial law but the suspension of habeas corpus by the executive branch, the revocation of Americans’ passports, and the roundup and detention of “subversives” identified in an FBI “Security Index” that contained more than 10,000 names.

Less is known about the contents of more recent peads and equivalent planning documents. But in 1987, The Miami Herald reported that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North had worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to create a secret contingency plan authorizing “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to fema, appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law during a national crisis.” A 2007 Department of Homeland Security report lists “martial law” and “curfew declarations” as “critical tasks” that local, state, and federal government should be able to perform in emergencies. In 2008, government sources told a reporter for Radar magazine that a version of the Security Index still existed under the code name Main Core, allowing for the apprehension and detention of Americans tagged as security threats.

Since 2012, the Department of Justice has been requesting and receiving funds from Congress to update several dozen peads first developed in 1989. The funding requests contain no indication of what these peads encompass, or what standards the department intends to apply in reviewing them. But whatever the Obama administration’s intent, the review has now passed to the Trump administration. It will fall to Jeff Sessions’s successor as attorney general to decide whether to rein in or expand some of the more frightening features of these peads. And, of course, it will be up to President Trump whether to actually use them—something no previous president appears to have done.

5. KINDLING AN EMERGENCY
What would the Founders think of these and other emergency powers on the books today, in the hands of a president like Donald Trump? In Youngstown, the case in which the Supreme Court blocked President Truman’s attempt to seize the nation’s steel mills, Justice Jackson observed that broad emergency powers were “something the forefathers omitted” from the Constitution. “They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation,” he wrote. “We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.”

In the past several decades, Congress has provided what the Constitution did not: emergency powers that have the potential for creating emergencies rather than ending them. Presidents have built on these powers with their own secret directives. What has prevented the wholesale abuse of these authorities until now is a baseline commitment to liberal democracy on the part of past presidents. Under a president who doesn’t share that commitment, what might we see?

Imagine that it’s late 2019. Trump’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. A disgruntled former employee has leaked documents showing that the Trump Organization was involved in illegal business dealings with Russian oligarchs. The trade war with China and other countries has taken a significant toll on the economy. Trump has been caught once again disclosing classified information to Russian officials, and his international gaffes are becoming impossible for lawmakers concerned about national security to ignore. A few of his Republican supporters in Congress begin to distance themselves from his administration. Support for impeachment spreads on Capitol Hill. In straw polls pitting Trump against various potential Democratic presidential candidates, the Democrat consistently wins.

Trump reacts. Unfazed by his own brazen hypocrisy, he tweets that Iran is planning a cyber operation to interfere with the 2020 election. His national-security adviser, John Bolton, claims to have seen ironclad (but highly classified) evidence of this planned assault on U.S. democracy. Trump’s inflammatory tweets provoke predictable saber rattling by Iranian leaders; he responds by threatening preemptive military strikes. Some Defense Department officials have misgivings, but others have been waiting for such an opportunity. As Iran’s statements grow more warlike, “Iranophobia” takes hold among the American public.

Proclaiming a threat of war, Trump invokes Section 706 of the Communications Act to assume government control over internet traffic inside the United States, in order to prevent the spread of Iranian disinformation and propaganda. He also declares a national emergency under ieepa, authorizing the Treasury Department to freeze the assets of any person or organization suspected of supporting Iran’s activities against the United States. Wielding the authority conferred by these laws, the government shuts down several left-leaning websites and domestic civil-society organizations, based on government determinations (classified, of course) that they are subject to Iranian influence. These include websites and organizations that are focused on getting out the vote.

Lawsuits follow. Several judges issue orders declaring Trump’s actions unconstitutional, but a handful of judges appointed by the president side with the administration. On the eve of the election, the cases reach the Supreme Court. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court observes that the president’s powers are at their zenith when he is using authority granted by Congress to protect national security. Setting new precedent, the Court holds that the First Amendment does not protect Iranian propaganda and that the government needs no warrant to freeze Americans’ assets if its goal is to mitigate a foreign threat.

Protests erupt. On Twitter, Trump calls the protesters traitors and suggests (in capital letters) that they could use a good beating. When counterprotesters oblige, Trump blames the original protesters for sparking the violent confrontations and deploys the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard in several states. Using the Presidential Alert system first tested in October 2018, the president sends a text message to every American’s cellphone, warning that there is “a risk of violence at polling stations” and that “troops will be deployed as necessary” to keep order. Some members of opposition groups are frightened into staying home on Election Day; other people simply can’t find accurate information online about voting. With turnout at a historical low, a president who was facing impeachment just months earlier handily wins reelection—and marks his victory by renewing the state of emergency.

This scenario might sound extreme. But the misuse of emergency powers is a standard gambit among leaders attempting to consolidate power. Authoritarians Trump has openly claimed to admire—including the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—have gone this route.

Of course, Trump might also choose to act entirely outside the law. Presidents with a far stronger commitment to the rule of law, including Lincoln and Roosevelt, have done exactly that, albeit in response to real emergencies. But there is little that can be done in advance to stop this, other than attempting deterrence through robust oversight. The remedies for such behavior can come only after the fact, via court judgments, political blowback at the voting booth, or impeachment.

By contrast, the dangers posed by emergency powers that are written into statute can be mitigated through the simple expedient of changing the law. Committees in the House could begin this process now by undertaking a thorough review of existing emergency powers and declarations. Based on that review, Congress could repeal the laws that are obsolete or unnecessary. It could revise others to include stronger protections against abuse. It could issue new criteria for emergency declarations, require a connection between the nature of the emergency and the powers invoked, and prohibit indefinite emergencies. It could limit the powers set forth in peads.

Congress, of course, will undertake none of these reforms without extraordinary public pressure—and until now, the public has paid little heed to emergency powers. But we are in uncharted political territory. At a time when other democracies around the world are slipping toward authoritarianism—and when the president seems eager for the United States to follow their example—we would be wise to shore up the guardrails of liberal democracy. Fixing the current system of emergency powers would be a good place to start.

speeches


https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/megalomania


I'd be shocked if he didn't study Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.

bout da border

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/trump-address-border-visit.html

All this over a "wall?"

A 1,954-mile wall? In 2018 with all sorts of powerful tools easily available at big box hardware stores?


It would probably be cheaper to hire 8,000 border guards and station them every 1/4 - 1/2 mile, rather than build a physical wall but fuck it... I doubt this is all really about a "wall" anyway.

who you think is gonna get the multibillion dollar contract to build the wall?

lol

Fuck is wrong this dude?

...anyway. Was looking forward to this game, but oh well... no cable. My homey has no cable either.

That Clemson quarterback is special. Hope the Giants or Redskins don't end up with him in a few years.

No DVR either. Still have the converter box to get regular TV on a big computer monitor to see Eagles games.

I swore it was Tuesday, all the way up until I read your last post.

Glad y'all let me know. I'd be home on Friday not going to work wondering why trash day is on Saturday all of a sudden.

Roll Tide

I had power teams

SF, DAL, Pats, Golden State, MJ Bulls, Lakers...

Hate all of them besides the Steelers but I’m from Pittsburgh. If I wasn’t, I would hate them too.

A few chips are aiight but every gotdamn year? Yawn.

But trust that I'd hate the Pats if I wasn't from NE. Think I'm more tired of 'bama than any of them cause I loathe Saban. And I know, I know, Saban is the CFB Belichick. I'm objective. I'd hate Belichick if I wasn't from NE, too. In fact I kinda already hate him, after the Butler thing in the Super Bowl last year.


>I had power teams
>
>SF, DAL, Pats, Golden State, MJ Bulls, Lakers...
>
>Hate all of them besides the Steelers but I’m from
>Pittsburgh. If I wasn’t, I would hate them too.
>
>A few chips are aiight but every gotdamn year? Yawn.

It's coming y'all.

and I am not sure it's because they study each other but rather they have the same instinct.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Curious what people think.

Trump doesn't give a damn about the wall or what its made of. He just wants to tell his base he got them the wall.

Of course, his racist base is too stupid to understand the wall is a complete waste of money.


But


I'm curious if people think a long shutdown will hurt Trump or Dems more.


If there's a chance it will hurt Dems more, and knowing his base will come out for him either way in 2020, should Dems play this idiot and get DACA (and more?) for a wall that is nothing but a racist symbol?

What else could they get out of the GOP for wall that won't even accomplish anything?


Or, if you think the Dems should not budge, do you think they have effectively made the case for just how stupid a wall is?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/politics/trump-dinner-schumer-pelosi-daca-obamacare.html

Trump is not bargaining in good faith - no reason to pretend that he is.

He's a shit bag who's using the leverage of shutting down the government to get money for a project that won't work and he only wants for his racist base.

Fuck him. There's no deal to be made.

And if ANYONE you know voted for him because 'hey, it might be good to shake things us' then tell them, from me - "Fuck you too."

with a reasonable person there would be a deal to be made. we could potentially get some real immigration reform and give him his precious wall, slabs, slats, fence, line but his base would start whining at the first mention of any immunity and he would go back on it.

and they still worship him?

No wall, no fence, nathan
He signed an amnesty bill

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

I’ve been a little checked out on things since the holidays.

For self preservation/family.


>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/politics/trump-dinner-schumer-pelosi-daca-obamacare.html
>
>Trump is not bargaining in good faith - no reason to pretend
>that he is.

I never, ever, ever said otherwise. Just thought he
might be desperate + was worried how the shutdown
is polling for Dems.

>
>He's a shit bag who's using the leverage of shutting down the
>government to get money for a project that won't work and he
>only wants for his racist base.

Right. No one is saying otherwise.


>
>Fuck him. There's no deal to be made.


I agree, I was operating without knowing that
deal had been offered.

I’m also concerned the Dems will get more of the
blame- but again, I haven’t paid close attention, so
I don’t know what the polls say.


>
>And if ANYONE you know voted for him because 'hey, it might be
>good to shake things us' then tell them, from me - "Fuck you
>too."

This statement is odd. What makes you think I wouldn’t
tell them that on my own?


Look, I was assuming he was desperate for his
stupid fucking racist wall, and I wondered what Dems
could fleece out of that desperation.

I didn’t know it was already offered.


I

plain n simple yo

he sayin fuck it n tryna consolidate power

rule without havin to worry bout no agencies, courts, or constitutional limits

he goin for it

none of dis shit actually bout no damn wall



>>
>>He's a shit bag who's using the leverage of shutting down
>the
>>government to get money for a project that won't work and he
>>only wants for his racist base.
>
>Right. No one is saying otherwise.
>

Trump is president. He is the one who everyone recognizes as the head of state. Pelosi will never lose her constituency standing up to Trump. What Trump forgets is that everyone is his constituency.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>What Trump forgets is that everyone is
>his constituency.

so much focus on his base dismisses the perspective of 2/3 of the country.

He declares a state of emergency to build the wall and sign a budget to reopen the Government, then Congress challenges the use and definition to the courts, who can rule it an abuse of power and without merit. Then Trump gets to pander to his dumbass base by saying he tried to do something but the "liberal courts" were against his vague idea that he's lied about, repeatedly. Theater of the highest order.

End of.

If it isn't challenged, watch the procession of Joint Chiefs resign. OR watch him use this as an excuse to quit.

damn threat its a coup lol

wit da convenient side effect of haltin half da lawsuits against him cuz da courts closed

he comfortable

Starting to see that he can't claim to be this "winning" President if his tax plan, which will blow up about this time next year, isn't tangible to the middle class who are waiting on refund checks. He goes this way to shakefree of having to actually do anything on the wall, can restart government, and then take a symbolic L when his use of executive power is, AGAIN, slammed by the courts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/democratic-response-trump-address.html

First up, fuck Chuck. All day.

I have come around on Nancy's effectiveness in Congress, but she shouldn't be the face of this response either.

This is the best they could think of?

You could throw a rock and hit a better spokesperson/team than these two.

F*ck it, let Obama do it.


But Nancy and Chuck?

Yeah, he's getting the wall. Fuck.

Listen to the message and the words- and get over your hate. (You know who hates them more than you? Republicans.)

Calm down.

P.S. You didn't even remember that Nancy and Chuck got a deal with Trump about DACA - a deal that Trump welshed on. Obama couldn't get a deal in principle.

>Listen to the message and the words- and get over your hate.

I don't need to listen to their words, I AGREE WITH THEM.

My point is Dems need better sales people- people to deliver their message/case to the Murrican public.


>(You know who hates them more than you? Republicans.)

Exactly. A lot of Americans hate these two. So...maybe...pick someone else to give the response...?

>
>Calm down.

I'm calm...just wish the Dems had their shit together.

>
>P.S. You didn't even remember that Nancy and Chuck got a deal
>with Trump about DACA - a deal that Trump welshed on.

You're absolutely right about this, I admitted it. So now I can't have an opinion on who responds to Trump?

Obama
>couldn't get a deal in principle.

Are you okay? I'm not saying Obama should deal with Trump. I'm not talking about who should deal with Trump.

I'm talking about who should give the nationally televised response to Trump's case for the wall.



You need to pump your breaks on your replies- you make a ton of assumptions and don't seem to have 100% reading comprehension.

should Dems pick?

current Repug love interest AOC so they can rip her to shreds?
Booker? Harris? Warren? some other Dem angling for the 2020 nomination?

No matter who it is, he or she will get called "obstructionist" and "soft on crime and borders" by repugs.

'Murricans. Definitely not AOC. Gillum? Castro? Hell, Jerry Brown?

Someone who can say "I've been to the border many times..." etc

Hell, on this specific issue, invite someone like Collin Powell or someone who can say "this isn't about party, this about sense"


Guys, people don't like Chuck (don't blame them) or Nancy (doesn't matter how effective she is at her job, unfortunately)


Nothing that happens tonight is going to change the minds of either base.

In fact, each side will probably just dig in more.


Its those people who don't really have an opinion yet (if they exist) or people who haven't paid attention.

I just don't think Chuck and Nancy can reach either of those groups. They aren't dynamic speakers and, again, aren't well-liked.

Lotta Murricans are going to tune out when they come on. This is Amerikkka.


I hope I'm wrong. I hope they do well, and I am on their side.


I just think Dems need to be more strategic and better at selling their ideas/points.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

dems gotta do better winning the media war (where elections are really won). and that includes vesseling your message through likeable faces/voices.

imo this would have been a great opportunity for beto...who is from the state with the longest length of border land...is a great deliverer of targeted relevant information and sound bytes...represents the future of the party...and already has tons of experience driving public support around the issue with his numerous campaign stops in the midterms. it would also provide a lot of moral/political clarity to a potential 2020 nominee should he ever run and need to draw a sharp contrast to trump/repubs.

but this is relatively short notice (unlike state of the union addresses) and im not sure of the logistics of prepping other people, running things past strategists/lawyers/etc, and so on.

chuck and nancy have been living and breathing this issue for the last 2 years and probably have more inside baseball knowledge than anyone. so technically they would prolly be the most qualified...especially when it comes to speaking on the legislative wranglings, constitutionality issues, etc. but like you...i worry about their effectiveness presenting that information to the public.

chuck just exudes mundane weakness and comes off as a detached manicured politician. and nancy...while a g in the chamber...is just a bad public persona (for various reasons) to look at and listen to.

in the end...it might not matter that much either way. and they might just be the best options available given the current constraints. but itd be nice to see dems really button things up on a regular basis...rise to the occasion...and start going for headshots when trump/repubs give them the opportunity (which is basically all the time now lol).

>dems gotta do better winning the media war (where elections
>are really won). and that includes vesseling your message
>through likeable faces/voices.

Exactly- I should have used the term media war. But this is exactly it.

>
>imo this would have been a great opportunity for beto...who is
>from the state with the longest length of border land...is a
>great deliverer of targeted relevant information and sound
>bytes...represents the future of the party...and already has
>tons of experience driving public support around the issue
>with his numerous campaign stops in the midterms. it would
>also provide a lot of moral/political clarity to a potential
>2020 nominee should he ever run and need to draw a sharp
>contrast to trump/repubs.

I thought about suggesting Beto for these very reasons...but figured giving this moment to a potential POTUS candidate might be seen as anointing someone.

Which is why I suggested someone like Gillum (who I assume isn't running) or Castro (the one who isn't running- Joaquin) or something.

But then again, I agree it could be an opportunity for a potential candidate to draw a line.

>
>but this is relatively short notice (unlike state of the union
>addresses) and im not sure of the logistics of prepping other
>people, running things past strategists/lawyers/etc, and so
>on.

Very good point.

>
>chuck and nancy have been living and breathing this issue for
>the last 2 years and probably have more inside baseball
>knowledge than anyone. so technically they would prolly be
>the most qualified...especially when it comes to speaking on
>the legislative wranglings, constitutionality issues, etc.
>but like you...i worry about their effectiveness presenting
>that information to the public.

Right. You know I go hard on some Dems, but I've learned a lot more on Nancy's effectiveness.

My only concern was/is how are these two going to do in trying to reach independents, a-political people, and the mythical moderate Republican...on national TV...when they are pissed that they are missing the latest episode of CSI: St Paul or whatever.

>
>chuck just exudes mundane weakness and comes off as a detached
>manicured politician. and nancy...while a g in the
>chamber...is just a bad public persona (for various reasons)
>to look at and listen to.

Thank you. That's all I'm saying.

I also wonder if having someone from a border state would play better.

>
>in the end...it might not matter that much either way.

This is probably the truest statement in this entire thread to be honest.

and
>they might just be the best options available given the
>current constraints.

Like I said this is a great point.

but itd be nice to see dems really
>button things up on a regular basis...rise to the
>occasion...and start going for headshots when trump/repubs
>give them the opportunity (which is basically all the time now
>lol).


I agree man. We'll see- maybe they'll do fine. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.


Hope you're doing well Reeq.

seeing how much we are in agreement that it should be someone from a border state...it just occurred to me that dems should broadcast *from the border*. on location.

while trump broadcasts from his posh lil distant oval office...dems could be right there on the ground. front lines of the supposed 'crisis'. preferably with some human props. landowners/ranchers who dont want trump to take their land, sheriffs who know the wall wont cut down on drugs/crime/etc, and/or just a diverse (ethnically and professionally) general group of people that make it look like the border wall is opposed by a wide range of demographics.

while the actual border is looking quiet and serene with a peaceful sunset on the horizon lol. no national emergency in sight.

to the casual observer...the optics of trump in some protected remote location vs dems really being outchea...would be a great device.

plus it would undercut trumps appearance at the border on thursday and basically deflate his ability to paint the narrative around whats really happening at the border. beat him to the punch.

i know thats a lot to tie together but that would have been really dope.

and im doing good playboy. hopefully all is well on your end.

that's what dems are missing

>My point is Dems need better sales people- people to deliver
>their message/case to the Murrican public.
>>(You know who hates them more than you? Republicans.)
>
>Exactly. A lot of Americans hate these two.
>So...maybe...pick someone else to give the response...?
>
>>Calm down.
>I'm calm...just wish the Dems had their shit together.

There's your FUCKING narrative bias. Republicans spent a decade sliming Pelosi then you say "We shouldn't have Pelosi respond because people don't like her."

Republicans are attacking the most potent people the most viciously - and so you want to switch to someone else? Guess what - they'll just vilify those fucking people too.

Republicans attack the strengths of the opponents - don't mistake Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Obama or Clinton or OCA or anyone else they attack as being weak. They'd praise an ineffective leader in the Democratic party --for their own goals.

If "they" hate them then they are effective.

(Clinton has a "likability problem' but still got 6 million more people to vote for her than her opponent.)

>>P.S. You didn't even remember that Nancy and Chuck got a
>deal
>>with Trump about DACA - a deal that Trump welshed on.
>
>You're absolutely right about this, I admitted it. So now I
>can't have an opinion on who responds to Trump?

Well you lack of knowing what's happened doesn't HELP your vague suggestion on who should give the rebuttal.


> Obama >>couldn't get a deal in principle.
>
>Are you okay? I'm not saying Obama should deal with Trump.
>I'm not talking about who should deal with Trump.


I'm saying those 2 did what Obama couldn't and now you want to "try someone else" to give the rebuttal? WTF man?! These are effective politicians who are leading the Democratic party in Congress. And you suggest trying to "find someone else" to give it? Obama's not a Democratic leader any longer - why would he give it?

>I'm talking about who should give the nationally televised
>response to Trump's case for the wall.

>You need to pump your breaks on your replies- you make a ton
>of assumptions and don't seem to have 100% reading
>comprehension.


You seem to follow the fucking narrative you hear from DUMMIES. Wise-up of come up with a better plan than "Someone else- or the old President that Republicans hate 1000% and who Bernie bros and Jill Steiner said wasn't good enough." Name some names and give some better reasons.

If Pelosi or Schumer were under criminal investigation I'd say let Steny Hoyer or Dick Durbin do it - but do either of those names get your pussy wet??????

Grow up. Or make better suggestions.

Why not have The Rock or Kevin Hart or Oprah give it? Because they aren't leaders in the Democratic party of course.

To me the Speaker of the House (and the 3rd in line of the presidential succession) and the minority leader in the Senate are the leaders of the party that matter when having a policy debate.

And to hell with people who don't think they are likable enough.

>>My point is Dems need better sales people- people to
>deliver
>>their message/case to the Murrican public.
>>>(You know who hates them more than you? Republicans.)
>>
>>Exactly. A lot of Americans hate these two.
>>So...maybe...pick someone else to give the response...?
>>
>>>Calm down.
>>I'm calm...just wish the Dems had their shit together.
>
>There's your FUCKING narrative bias. Republicans spent a
>decade sliming Pelosi then you say "We shouldn't have Pelosi
>respond because people don't like her."

I'm not talking about Republicans not liking her. I'm talking about all kinds of people.

You every talk to a-political people?

>
>Republicans are attacking the most potent people the most
>viciously - and so you want to switch to someone else? Guess
>what - they'll just vilify those fucking people too.

I'm not talking about Republicans- I'm talking about a wide range of people.

I'm also talking about Chuck and Nancy's ability to speak to a national audience and keep their attention.

I'm not talking about folks being attacked after the fact- I'm talking about folks listening tonight.

>
>Republicans attack the strengths of the opponents - don't
>mistake Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Obama or Clinton or
>OCA or anyone else they attack as being weak. They'd praise an
>ineffective leader in the Democratic party --for their own
>goals.
>

Can you read?

I'm not talking about Nancy's effectiveness. I'm talking about the policy sell. I'm talking about who should talk to Amerikkka.

Chuck? Chuck is a moron. Give me Harry back. I don't like Chuck. Is that okay with you?




>If "they" hate them then they are effective.
>
>(Clinton has a "likability problem' but still got 6 million
>more people to vote for her than her opponent.)

?? And lost the election. Not sure what your point is here playa. You want to rehash the election now?

I'm sorry you're having such a bad day, just remember we just disagree on a few points.


>
>>>P.S. You didn't even remember that Nancy and Chuck got a
>>deal
>>>with Trump about DACA - a deal that Trump welshed on.
>>
>>You're absolutely right about this, I admitted it. So now I
>>can't have an opinion on who responds to Trump?
>
>Well you lack of knowing what's happened doesn't HELP your
>vague suggestion on who should give the rebuttal.

Difference between you and me is I can admit I fucked up.

You have misread things, or made assumptions about me, and are apparently unable to pump the breaks and slow down.

You've had a few shots and now a full on tantrum, mostly based on assumptions you wrongly made about me and/or you are easily triggered.

Why you so mad at me dog? I don't remember you, do we have beef or something?

>
>
>> Obama >>couldn't get a deal in principle.
>>
>>Are you okay? I'm not saying Obama should deal with Trump.
>>I'm not talking about who should deal with Trump.
>
>
>I'm saying those 2 did what Obama couldn't and now you want to
>"try someone else" to give the rebuttal? WTF man?! These are
>effective politicians who are leading the Democratic party in
>Congress. And you suggest trying to "find someone else" to
>give it? Obama's not a Democratic leader any longer - why
>would he give it?

Again, I am not talking about their effectiveness in negotiating. You get that now, or nah?

I am talking about who should respond on national TV.

My Obama suggestion was tongue in cheek.

Like I said in my other response maybe someone like one of the Castros, Gillum, Jerry Brown, etc.

Or someone else who can speak as an expert on border security.

Maybe team one of them with Nancy and let Chuck sit this one out.


I want the same thing as you playboy.


>
>>I'm talking about who should give the nationally televised
>>response to Trump's case for the wall.
>
>>You need to pump your breaks on your replies- you make a ton
>>of assumptions and don't seem to have 100% reading
>>comprehension.
>
>
>You seem to follow the fucking narrative you hear from
>DUMMIES.

Who do you think I'm following smart guy?

I can be too hard on the Dems, I admit, because of my own personal experiences with the party.

That being said, doesn't mean I'm always wrong.

There are better people on the roster to respond to Trump.

Wise-up of come up with a better plan than "Someone
>else- or the old President that Republicans hate 1000% and who
>Bernie bros and Jill Steiner said wasn't good enough." Name
>some names and give some better reasons.
>

Oh okay, you're that guy. Just because I criticize of the Dems, doesn't mean I am a Bernie bro (far from it) and fuck Jill Stein.

There you go, though, making those assumptions again.


>If Pelosi or Schumer were under criminal investigation I'd say
>let Steny Hoyer or Dick Durbin do it - but do either of those
>names get your pussy wet??????

And you tell me go grow up? LOL


>
>Grow up. Or make better suggestions.

I made a few. Not sure if they are the best suggestions, but I think there are better SPEAKERS to SELL the DEMOCRAT point of view.

>
>Why not have The Rock or Kevin Hart or Oprah give it? Because
>they aren't leaders in the Democratic party of course.


>To me the Speaker of the House (and the 3rd in line of the
>presidential succession) and the minority leader in the Senate
>are the leaders of the party that matter when having a policy
>debate.

Finally you made an actual point that wasn't washed in emotion and assumptions about me and/or my character.

Okay, maybe Nancy deserves to be there because she is fighting this fight.

But team her with someone else in my opinion. Is that okay if I have an opinion, or are you going to talk more about my pussy and shit?

>
>And to hell with people who don't think they are likable
>enough.
>
>


Well here is the question smart guy. Do you want the wall built or nah?

Do you want Dems to win elections, or nah?


Because at some point you have to consider likability. I'm definitely not saying it should be the only thing, but you have to consider it- especially on a large stage.


Reminder that we are essentially on the same team. I don't want to see the wall built, and I want Dems to win. Just like you.

I just think there are better options on the bench that would better give a response.


I hope your day gets better.

>I just think there are better options on the bench that would
>better give a response.

Name them then

"You could throw a rock and hit a better spokesperson/team than these two. "

That's BULLSHIT, unless you can throw that rock and come up one that's in the Democratic party leadership.

Where's your idea? Jerry Brown the outgoing Governor of CA that TONS OF AMERICANS HATE FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON?? Governor Moonbeam?

AOC the youngest and most JR member of congress? She's the leader now??

Colin Powell is a REPUBLICAN - he should give the Democratic repsonse on Prime-time TV??? JESUS CHRIST MAN, WTF. Even KRS-ONE hates that dude.



Your comments are Republican right wing talking points - not saying YOU are a Republican - just saying you have parallel thinking OR they influenced you and you didn't notice:

>This is the best they could think of?
>I'm calm...just wish the Dems had their shit together.
>My point is Dems need better sales people- people to deliver their message/case to the Murrican public.
>Exactly. A lot of Americans hate these two. So...maybe...pick someone else to give the response...?
>I just don't think Chuck and Nancy can reach either of those groups. They aren't dynamic speakers and, again, aren't well-liked.

I mean you sound like Fox fucking news bro. Seriously, check yo self.

>>I just think there are better options on the bench that
>would
>>better give a response.
>
>Name them then

I named a few. So did Reeq. Why are you so angry about this? It is weird.

We just want the Dems to sell their ideas better. So they win.




>
>"You could throw a rock and hit a better spokesperson/team
>than these two. "
>
>That's BULLSHIT, unless you can throw that rock and come up
>one that's in the Democratic party leadership.

Are you not familiar with that saying? It isn't literal. It was another joke comment. Are you new to the internet?

Tons of Dems could give this response- or help Nancy give this response- Castro, Beto, Gillum, etc.

Is Nancy Pelosi your auntie or some shit? Not sure why you are so MAD at this.


>
>Where's your idea? Jerry Brown the outgoing Governor of CA
>that TONS OF AMERICANS HATE FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON?? Governor
>Moonbeam?
>
>AOC the youngest and most JR member of congress? She's the
>leader now??

Did I say that? Please point to where I said AOC should give the response. Oh, actually in fact I explicitly said she shouldn't.

You are projecting something on me and it is starting to creep me out. Did a Berni Bro f*ck your girl, and now everyone is a Berni Bro in your eyes? Where did you pull AOC out of your ass for this? Sheesh.


>
>Colin Powell is a REPUBLICAN - he should give the Democratic
>repsonse on Prime-time TV??? JESUS CHRIST MAN, WTF. Even
>KRS-ONE hates that dude.
>

Thanks for the KRS-ONE trivia. My Powell idea was just to show that, on this particular wall issue, its really only extreme Republicans who want it. And my idea wasn't "have Powell give the response" it was "have someone like Powell or some shit HELP"

Basically my idea was to frame it as an issue of decency and common sense- rather than Dem vs Republicans.

It was just an idea. I more favor someone from a border state- and I like Reeq's idea above that they broadcast from the border.

Either way, you can tell me you don't like my idea without all this other nonsense.


>
>
>Your comments are Republican right wing talking points - not
>saying YOU are a Republican - just saying you have parallel
>thinking OR they influenced you and you didn't notice:

Are you in the middle of a mental breakdown, because I don't want to make things worse.


I don't want the wall. I want Dems to win. While I don't like Chuck, I believe Nancy was and can be again an effective speaker. I absolutely loved some of her wall-related soundbites lately.

I am just nervous about Nancy and Chuck's ability to sell their ideas to a national audience. That is not an attack on their character- even Chuck's. I would just feel more comfortable with others giving this response if possible.

Its not a State of the Union, but it might be as big audience wise. So I would want Dems to put their best case out there. So they win. Simple as that.

You should really do some self reflection on why this angers you so much- because I'm not saying anything other than "Dems should find better sales people/strategy for their plan/ideas"




>
>>This is the best they could think of?
>>I'm calm...just wish the Dems had their shit together.
>>My point is Dems need better sales people- people to deliver
>their message/case to the Murrican public.
>>Exactly. A lot of Americans hate these two. So...maybe...pick
>someone else to give the response...?
>>I just don't think Chuck and Nancy can reach either of those
>groups. They aren't dynamic speakers and, again, aren't
>well-liked.
>
>I mean you sound like Fox fucking news bro. Seriously, check
>yo self.


Yeah...I don't, though. You know that, right?


Like, you know if Fox News could pick who gives the Dem response, Chuck and Nancy would be in their top 3 or 4.


Because, as you said, they have spent 10+ years programming people to hate them.

So when the response is over, they can turn to their audience and say "there they go again" or whatever. Half their battle (Fox) is already won with Nancy/Chuck because they have already put in work on the attacks.

Also, they aren't particularly polished at this sort of thing. That's not a knock on their character,



I'm done here. I think I got you figured out. In addition to not reading/comprehending responses, you assume that anyone who has something critical to say must be a Bernie Bro or Stein fan.

My advice would be to deal with that issue, because there is going to be a lot of internal debate- especially in the next 2 years- on how best to deal with cheetoh and win 2020. Can't get so triggered when someone on your side disagrees on the best way to win. And those people who disagree with you aren't necessarily Bernie Bros, Green party, Fox News viewers, etc.

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1082718299308331009

jesus christ. we can never just play as a team and present a unified front huh?

for attention.


I think you are right, I think folks are going to tire of his act this time around.

Not everyone, of course- but I could see this "look at me!" approach wearing down some people.

https://www.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1082697693875634176

dailykos is a progressive website. but not as many idealistic progressive types. mostly practical progressives with a real knowledge of state/federal government, historical precedence, feasible paths to passing policy, etc. like adult progressives lol.

but bernie is only in 5th place. thats not good for being the most well known candidate along with biden.

just look at the overwhelmingly negative replies to that tweet announcing bernies response. and thats a lefty audience that follows sam stein.

>https://www.twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1082697693875634176
>
>dailykos is a progressive website. but not as many idealistic
>progressive types. mostly practical progressives with a real
>knowledge of state/federal government, historical precedence,
>feasible paths to passing policy, etc. like adult
>progressives lol.
>
>but bernie is only in 5th place. thats not good for being the
>most well known candidate along with biden.

Yeah man I think you called it a while ago.


>
>just look at the overwhelmingly negative replies to that tweet
>announcing bernies response. and thats a lefty audience that
>follows sam stein.

I saw a few- some funny, but most of them 100% right. No point to him having his own address other than ego.

So he can give his own response. No one really gives a hit.

is a four lettered word on this website, and it's fair to question his decision to 'broadcast' his own individual response (I put broadcast in quotes because it wasn't on major networks), but the content of his response was on point, at least in my opinion.

https://youtu.be/Rf0cvSTMz_s?t=341

no wonder he freestyles so much

the post-game analysis on fox was brutal for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ljzg-koH5Y

usually when trump addresses the nation (like from the white house lawn)...its during the day. that silos any real criticism inside the least watched shows on fox news. then they have a few hours to spin coverage and get their talking points together for the most-watched primetime block.

by trump making this a special primetime event...fox had to put together an analysis team consisting of the 'straight news' squad...aka the only real journalists on the network. so fox news primetime viewers were hit with nothing but rightful criticism and lie debunking instead of their usual diet of fact-free pro-trump propaganda.

so instead of the usual high fiving and celebrating on social media that trump fans like to engage in after his public appearances...there was a bunch of cussing out lachlan murdoch for his secret plot to make fox news more liberal lol.

>so instead of the usual high fiving and celebrating on social
>media that trump fans like to engage in after his public
>appearances...there was a bunch of cussing out lachlan murdoch
>for his secret plot to make fox news more liberal lol.

I’m sure the morning spinsters will win them over.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-could-take-billions-disaster-areas-fund-wall-n957281

Trump could take billions from disaster areas to fund wall

Under the proposal, Trump could dip into money set aside to fund civil works projects all over the country including storm-damaged areas of Puerto Rico.

Jan. 10, 2019, 3:37 PM CST
By Courtney Kube and Julia Ainsley

President Donald Trump has been briefed on a plan that would use the Army Corps of Engineers and a portion of $13.9 billion of Army Corps funding to build 315 miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the briefing.

The money was set aside to fund projects all over the country including storm-damaged areas of Puerto Rico through fiscal year 2020, but the checks have not been written yet and, under an emergency declaration, the president could take the money from these civil works projects and use it to build the border wall, said officials familiar with the briefing and two congressional sources.

The plan could be implemented if Trump declares a national emergency in order to build the wall and would use more money and build more miles than the administration has requested from Congress. The president had requested $5.7 billion for a wall stretching 234 miles.

Under the proposal, the officials said, Trump could dip into the $2.4 billion allocated to projects in California, including flood prevention and protection projects along the Yuba River Basin and the Folsom Dam, as well as the $2.5 billion set aside for reconstruction projects in Puerto Rico, which is still recovering from Hurricane Maria.

Senior Defense Department officials discussed the proposal with Trump during his Thursday flight to the southern border, according to officials familiar with the briefing.

Trump was informed that the Army Corps could build 315 miles of border wall in about 18 months, according to officials familiar with the planning. The barrier would be a 30-foot bollard-style wall with a feature designed to prevent climbing, the officials said.

The Corps would focus first on the heavily trafficked border areas along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, in San Diego and El Centro in California, as well as Yuma, Arizona.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

A source on Capitol Hill said if the president moves to pull money from Corps of Engineers civil works projects, Democrats in Congress are likely to submit legislation to block the money from being reallocated.

Asked about the proposal, a Democratic staffer warned that taking money from civil works projects in the U.S. will put American lives at risk.

"Hundreds of thousands of people will be at risk if there is a strong or wet winter in these flood areas and the protection projects haven't been completed," the staffer said.

Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., said the Democrats would fight "with every ounce of energy we have" to stop the president from using Army Corps funds to build a southern border wall.

"It would be beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive and hateful wall," Velázquez said. "Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won’t fall for it."

lindsey graham went from:
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1083797038326792192

to 2 days later:
https://twitter.com/FoxNewsSunday/status/1084452512919363584

if you can wait 3 weeks to declare an emergency...is it really an emergency? lol. theyre killing any chance they have in court (not that they care about winning anyway i guess).


these poll numbers are pretty brutal for trump/republicans:
https://twitter.com/PhilipRucker/status/1084447526831431681

only 24% think there is even a crisis:
https://twitter.com/PostPolls/status/1084441020304187392

trumps approval has also dropped 5 points. now only 2 points higher than his all-time low:
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1084461475903746049

numbers like these show the limits to right wing media. you can only pull but so much shit out your ass that isnt based in part on objective reality.

pretty sure behind the scenes repubs are trying to get trump to back down without declaring a national emergency. the fortunes of the party rely on trump doing well carrying a lot of repubs across the finish line in 2020. this aint what you wanna be running on.

>if you can wait 3 weeks to declare an emergency...is it really
>an emergency? lol. theyre killing any chance they have in
>court (not that they care about winning anyway i guess).

BE PREPARED:Trump loves fighting, forcing people into submission. So he pulls emergency trigger, gets sued. If judge says no wall while case continues, Trump says he’ll veto bill to open govt without a green light to begin digging. He blames court & Congress for ongoing shutdown

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1084138977572151296

i think its pretty clear that he really wants to call a national emergency just to save face without looking like he backed down. it heads to courts (where it will get killed) and he ends the shutdown and opens the government. he/repubs can stop getting hammered for the shutdown and trump can *act* like he did everything possible to his base.

he was all but set to abandon the wall and fund the government a few weeks ago until limbaugh and coulter made him do a u-turn. he went 2 years with complete control of govt without hardlining for it like this. clearly he aint as committed as he pretends to be.

he went 2 years with complete control of govt without
>hardlining for it like this. clearly he aint as committed as
>he pretends to be.

Say it again.

Also if you have a link to the Limbaugh stuff please post

or a kind of a focused humiliation campaign about people who run Trump? (Limbaugh, Fox, Putin)

This kind of shit seems to get to him most. We saw it with Bannon, and to a lesser extent with The Mooch just hogging up too much media attention. Talking heads on the right are taking full advantage. If people could somehow flip that and hammer the point home that he's not his own man,
he'll always claim its ridiculous but it will eat at him enough to prove otherwise.

It probably won't work with Putin because Putin has dirt on him but i think it could be effective with Hannity and them.

Also completely leave Coulter out of the mix just to upset her

every time trump does something...characterize it as someone else pulling this strings. putin, stephen miller, rush/coulter, mcconnell/ryan, etc.

the puppet president.

https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1084821691136655360

apparently its not as much of a crisis as it was last week lol.

after those brutal poll numbers...you know theyre looking for a way out. itll be interesting to see how they cave.

cuz thats what trumps border speech was.

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1084892554469015552

he unilaterally 'negotiated' with republicans for the wall in exchange for extending temporary protections that he took away and just put back on the table lol. which is whatever. im sure some people will fall for it and i already see the press trending back to 'both sides' even more and saying dems need to compromise/negotiate.

but the point of the prez going to the american public is usually to harness popular consensus to move a reluctant (side of) congress into action.

not only will this not move public opinion much but you just handed over an entire negotiating tool too.

mcconnell basically said he was sitting out negotiations and would only bring a bill to a vote that the prez and pelosi/schumer agreed on. but now he said he would bring this repub-only bill to a vote. so this bill will get shot down in the senate and humiliate the prez...vulnerable repubs have to take a tough vote that could either piss off moderate voters or their hardcore anti-immigrant base...and mcconnell can no longer credibly use that same trump/pelosi/schumer agreement excuse in the future (not that blatant hypocrisy ever stopped him before).

and it says a lot that trump is now even willing to offer *any* concessions because he realizes just holding federal workers hostage isnt enough. daca/tps werent even anything that dems were really asking for this go round (courts have pretty much relieved any urgency there). but now trump has put them on the table. so we know he has a price.

this is following him completely backing down on the national emergency declaration.

at 1st i thought we would end up at some compromise with dems having to give up some lowered amount of 'wall' money just to open the government. and trump finding some way to spin it as a win.

now i think either dems gain a lot of concessions just for *any* border security funding or the government gets opened with no actual real immigration deal (just previous funding levels). trump is obviously tucking his tail either way. no win whatsoever. just a bunch of wasted time, spent political capital, and even less approval/popularity.

A lot of people are going to see these headlines that just say "Trump Offers Compromise on Wall: protection for DACA for funding" or whatever ...and then said dumb Amerikkkans will blame the Dems for not taking it.

Maybe I'm just fucking cynical at this point, but my guess is Dems are going to start taking heat. The press is on some both sides shit, and even Dubya put down the paint brushes to make a statement.


I hope I'm wrong...

>A lot of people are going to see these headlines that just say
>"Trump Offers Compromise on Wall: protection for DACA for
>funding" or whatever ...and then said dumb Amerikkkans will
>blame the Dems for not taking it.
>
>Maybe I'm just fucking cynical at this point, but my guess is
>Dems are going to start taking heat. The press is on some
>both sides shit, and even Dubya put down the paint brushes to
>make a statement.
>
>
>I hope I'm wrong...

just to build support for the wall (again).

but now its just devolved into yelling at random strangers and calling it a caravan lol
https://www.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1085663688701419525

when da right want some shit?

lol

i been said da caravan shit an op too

ol camp of da saints ass niggas

First caravan journeyed to the US between October 13 to November 13th.

Here is a quote from Trump from this article:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782

"On 2 November, just days before the mid-terms, he told voters at a rally that "if you don't want America to be overrun by masses of illegal aliens and giant caravans, you'd better vote Republican"."

Dems should be screaming that from the rooftops too.


Even IF one wanted to believe a caravan were on the way...so? It isn't illegal to ask for asylum.


And I've said this before, but if there actually was a caravan...they should head to Canada. lol Fuck this place.

"Are those 2 boys the big scary caravan ?" hahahahaha

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/trump-border-wall-emergency-draft/index.html

White House preparing draft national emergency order, has identified $7 billion for wall
By Priscilla Alvarez and Tammy Kupperman, CNN

Updated 5:57 PM ET, Thu January 24, 2019

Washington (CNN)The White House is preparing a draft proclamation for President Donald Trump to declare a national emergency along the southern border and has identified more than $7 billion in potential funds for his signature border wall should he go that route, according to internal documents reviewed by CNN.

Trump has not ruled out using his authority to declare a national emergency and direct the Defense Department to construct a border wall as Congress and the White House fight over a deal to end the government shutdown. But while Trump's advisers remain divided on the issue, the White House has been moving forward with alternative plans that would bypass Congress.

"The massive amount of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States each day is a direct threat to the safety and security of our nation and constitutes a national emergency," a draft of a presidential proclamation reads.

"Now, therefore, I, Donald J. Trump, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C 1601, et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States," the draft adds.

The draft was updated as recently as last week, a US government official told CNN.

According to options being considered, the administration could pull: $681 million from Treasury forfeiture funds, $3.6 billion in military construction, $3 billion in Pentagon civil works funds, and $200 million in Department of Homeland Security funds, the official said.

As lawmakers discussed a short-term measure to fund the government Thursday, Trump again raised the prospect of other ways to fund a border wall without congressional approval.

"I have other alternatives if I have to and I'll use those alternatives if I have to," he told reporters.

"A lot of people who wants this to happen. The military wants this to happen. This is a virtual invasion of our country," Trump said.

The Defense Department referred a request for comment from CNN to the White House.

If the declaration is made, the US Army Corps of Engineers would be deployed to construct the wall, some of which could be built on private property and would therefore require the administration to seize the land, which is permitted if it's for public use.

The administration's plans acknowledge the possibility for lawsuits if they move forward with acquiring private property. The documents also reflect a sense of urgency with administration plans, noting that environmental reviews can be skipped and DHS can use waivers to bypass contracting laws.

If the President proceeds with the declaration, it'll likely be challenged in court and by Democrats in Congress, as critics have argued that Trump cannot use the national emergency authority to free up taxpayer funds and build the border wall he has long promised his political supporters.

The question of legality and court challenges is still one of the main hang-ups in using executive action to secure the wall funding. Trump's advisers have cautioned that taking that route would lead to certain legal challenge, meaning the wall construction would still be delayed.

The draft document cites Title 10 of the US Code, which allows Trump to unlock a stash of Pentagon funds that are earmarked but have no signed contracts for spending that money. That would give the President authority to pull from military construction funds and civil works projects, like infrastructure repair projects.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, tweeted earlier this month that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, "assured Texans that he understood the deep concerns about using Harvey relief funds for the border." CNN previously reported that the Pentagon was asked to provide a list of those projects in anticipation of a national emergency.

The Pentagon has assisted the Department of Homeland Security in the past. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers, a federal agency within DOD that provides public engineering services, has helped evaluate prototypes of the border wall.

Options under consideration conceded that acquiring private property would take time. Even if voluntary, the land could take up to a year to be acquired. Land condemnation cases are known to take time because property owners have the right to sue. A national emergency declaration would not speed that process up, a government official says.

Customs and Border Protection has said that it would consider eminent domain in the future.

"It is always CBP's preference to acquire property through a voluntary, negotiated sale. The Government will attempt to negotiate an offer to sell using survey data and value estimates gleaned from the surveying process," reads an excerpt in a border wall Q&A on their site. "The Government will attempt to negotiate an offer to sell before moving forward with exercising eminent domain. However, if the Government and landowner are unable to reach a negotiated sale or if the Government is unable to obtain clean title, the Government will need to file an eminent domain action."

CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

That would be involved in that shit. Especially with no one being held accountable because 7 billion isn’t enough to do what they think they want to do.

Not to mention the impact on whatever plans those organizations had and local economies. Shifting those resources would mean dirt wouldn’t get moved and bridges wouldn’t get built in other places.

the govt gets reopened. trump gets sternly rebuked in court in a way that constrains executive power and prevents any prez from pulling similar bullshit in the future. and...having seen how bad politically this shutdown has played out...maybe trump/repubs stay away from that option for the rest of his term.

tell him to bring an end to the shutdown. this happened right before 6 repubs defected to vote for the dem cr proposal.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426896-gop-senators-read-pence-riot-act-before-shutdown-votes


my only question is...instead of pressuring pence to end this charade...why not just vote to open the government then override the prez veto if it comes down to that? you do have have the power to end the shutdown yourselves lol.

(obviously we know the answer to that. they dont wanna come out against trump in front of the base. but this just underscores who stupid this all is...that senators are willingly giving up power just to help continue a campaign stunt).