+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Just so one thing is clear (/Thread-Just-so-one-thing-is-clear)
Pages:
1
2
Just so one thing is clear - fredtoast - 01-15-2019
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-senate-minority-leader-chuck-schumer-house-speaker-designate-nancy-pelosi/
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Twenty times you have called for, “I will shut down the government if I don’t get my wall.” None of us have said —
THE PRESIDENT: You want to know something?
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: You’ve said it.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, you want to put that on my —
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: You said it.
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll take it.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Okay, good.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what I’ll say: Yes, if we don’t get what we want, one way or the other — whether it’s through you, through a military, through anything you want to call — I will shut down the government. Absolutely.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: Okay. Fair enough. We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: And I am proud — and I’ll tell you what —
SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: We disagree.
THE PRESIDENT: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - GMDino - 01-15-2019
...also the right's still trying to push the narrative that the President is willing to negotiate.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - BrownAssClown - 01-15-2019
I don't really watch a lot of the cable news networks, but the other day I turned on Fox News and the headline read, "Democrats, the new party of no!" All they were talking about was how unfair the Democrats were being for not giving into the Presidents demand for border wall funding. I will admit, I did get a chuckle out of it.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Dill - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: SENATE MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER: You said it.
THE PRESIDENT: I am proud to shut down the government for border security, Chuck, because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it. The last time you shut it down, it didn’t work. I will take the mantle of shutting down.
Everyone knows this.
But will a Trump-owned, then denied, shutdown peel off even one Trump supporter--even the government workers who voted for him?
Will a single Trump supporter in this forum step forward and say Trump is wrong, endangering national security, hurting America first?
To them, so long as the Dems don't cave, this will still look like "both sides" are to blame.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Dill - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 06:19 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: I don't really watch a lot of the cable news networks, but the other day I turned on Fox News and the headline read, "Democrats, the new party of no!" All they were talking about was how unfair the Democrats were being for not giving into the Presidents demand for border wall funding. I will admit, I did get a chuckle out of it.
That's what I'm sayin'--for Trumpsters and Fox will not frame this as extortion, or as a swerve from the Constitution's separation of powers.
Democracy, separation of powers, rule of law--all obstructions to their agenda.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 06:32 PM)Dill Wrote: That's what I'm sayin'--for Trumpsters and Fox will not frame this as extortion, or as a swerve from the Constitution's separation of powers.
Because it's not and it's not. It's a shut down based on a fundamental disagreement . No one is doing something unconstitutional. I'm not a fan of the shutdown, but your characterization of it is laughable.
Quote:Democracy, separation of powers, rule of law--all obstructions to their agenda.
Again, please point out how the Constitution or the rule of law are being subverted here. Pro tip, you can't.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Mike M (the other one) - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Everyone knows this.
But will a Trump-owned, then denied, shutdown peel off even one Trump supporter--even the government workers who voted for him?
Will a single Trump supporter in this forum step forward and say Trump is wrong, endangering national security, hurting America first?
To them, so long as the Dems don't cave, this will still look like "both sides" are to blame.
?? Why would anyone for better security or for a wall turn against him?
So you approve of $55B in foreign aid, but can't approve $5B for national security?
Do you not see the irony of this? $55B what building a wall has been estimated at, cut the aid by the amount Trump wants, but they are not willing to compromise at all, so why should he?
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Belsnickel - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 08:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ?? Why would anyone for better security or for a wall turn against him?
So you approve of $55B in foreign aid, but can't approve $5B for national security?
Do you not see the irony of this? $55B what building a wall has been estimated at, cut the aid by the amount Trump wants, but they are not willing to compromise at all, so why should he?
Yeah, what's a few billion more than the $650+ billion we already spend on national security? If you're going to throw around numbers, feel free to be more truthful about it. Defense and DHS spending, which combined is our national security, is over half of the discretionary budget spending, which is what is appropriated by Congress. I think the wall is a stupid idea, but if it is going to happen I am perfectly fine with it coming from all of that pork.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Mike M (the other one) - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 08:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, what's a few billion more than the $650+ billion we already spend on national security? If you're going to throw around numbers, feel free to be more truthful about it. Defense and DHS spending, which combined is our national security, is over half of the discretionary budget spending, which is what is appropriated by Congress. I think the wall is a stupid idea, but if it is going to happen I am perfectly fine with it coming from all of that pork.
Well Matt,
How much of that money comes from what we spend internally vs overseas?
I know we spend a lot on defense, and defense of our interests in other countries as well.
Post a Link, been a while since I bothered with what exactly goes where on Defense spending.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Belsnickel - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 08:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Well Matt,
How much of that money comes from what we spend internally vs overseas?
I know we spend a lot on defense, and defense of our interests in other countries as well.
Post a Link, been a while since I bothered with what exactly goes where on Defense spending.
That would involve digging into the appropriations information deeper than I am willing to for this. This conversation isn't important enough to me to warrant more than a general glance at the budget in broad terms.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - michaelsean - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 06:32 PM)Dill Wrote: That's what I'm sayin'--for Trumpsters and Fox will not frame this as extortion, or as a swerve from the Constitution's separation of powers.
Democracy, separation of powers, rule of law--all obstructions to their agenda.
I’m against the shutdown and the wall (not because I’m some hand wringer but because I think it will be ineffective), but as mentioned above, not extortion. Also, where was all this rule of law, separation of power, democracy talk when the Republicans were called obstructionist for not doing what Ibama wanted?
RE: Just so one thing is clear - GMDino - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 09:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m against the shutdown and the wall (not because I’m some hand wringer but because I think it will be ineffective), but as mentioned above, not extortion. Also, where was all this rule of law, separation of power, democracy talk when the Republicans were called obstructionist for not doing what Ibama wanted?
The other side was probably arguing about it.
That aside in this case, at least, most people can see that the POTUS is not negotiating or being honest. That gives me a little hope.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Dill - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because it's not and it's not. It's a shut down based on a fundamental disagreement . No one is doing something unconstitutional. I'm not a fan of the shutdown, but your characterization of it is laughable.
Stop laughing, or yawning, for a moment and help me out then with a few more of your pro tips.
I have always assumed one of the powers of Congress was that of the purse, meaning that the peoples' representatives decide what tax money is to be spent on. The other branches of government do not have this power. You have in the past called yourself an originalist Do you agree that this is what the framers intended?
If Congress has not appropriated any money for a wall, then where does Trump get the money to do this? If Trump is drawing his wall funds from money appropriated to other budgets, then he would be subverting a Congressional Power--or how do you think he would not be?
Perhaps he could invoke the National Emergencies Act of 1976? There is currently a debate about whether he can do this--declare a national emergency and then draw funds appropriated for disaster relief or military purposes. I'd say he cannot, and if he tried there is a good chance a joint resolution could stop him.
As for rule of law, one of the reasons the framers hemmed in the executive by denying that branch any power of self funding was to prevent future presidents from simply using their executive and C-in-C power dictatorially to go around Congress and laws enacted by the peoples representatives. That would in effect be a power to subvert the rule of law. Am I right or wrong about that? Was there some other reason the Executive cannot raise its own funding?
Other wall-funding options have appeared as well, from GoFundMe to state senators proposing they use state funds to build the wall, in what would be an end-around Congressional appropriation. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/politics/gop-state-lawmakers-trump-border-wall/index.html. Were any of these proposals to somehow work, it would mean a president could call up funds not legally appropriated by Congress and use them for purposes not yet sanctioned by Congress. Do you agree that would be going around Congress? Or do you see sanction for this somewhere in the Constitution, that you could show me?
If you do agree, then why should I not call that at least an attempt to subvert the Constitution? Why would it not subvert the rule of law, place the president above the law--which is made by Congress?
If you don't agree, then I await your clarification.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - BmorePat87 - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 09:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m against the shutdown and the wall (not because I’m some hand wringer but because I think it will be ineffective), but as mentioned above, not extortion. Also, where was all this rule of law, separation of power, democracy talk when the Republicans were called obstructionist for not doing what Ibama wanted?
It's hard to compare them because Harry Reid went nuclear on confirming appointments, but the bulk of the reason why Republicans were called that was for their strategy to oppose any and all nominees for specific roles, which was possible when they needed 60 to do so. Senate Democrats couldn't do that, they could only vote no when Donald Trump nominated historically unqualified candidates and watch as the GOP got at least 50 votes.
The GOP also got that reputation after 2010 when Boehner would straight up not even bring bills to a vote (similar to what Paul Ryan did with the Senate bill before the shutdown and what McConnell is now doing with the same exact bill that the Senate unanimously passed a month ago). He also refused to let Obama address a joint session of Congress.
When Republicans were a minority in the Senate, 70% of bills had a filibuster threat and the number of cloture votes doubled to the point where 18% of all votes in the Senate were for cloture.
It wasn't so much that they were called it for not doing what Obama wanted as much as it was for literally setting records for filibustering and refusing to even vote on bills. I think it's fair to criticize a group that, for example, won't even vote for SCOTUS nominees or consider bills and consider that different from just voting against things.
Now that Democrats are in control of the House, we could se similar things. Currently we're not because they passed a bipartisan bill and it's the Senate that refuses to vote on it, but that could change. If Nancy starts pulling Boehner tactics we should use the same "obstructionist" label.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Dill - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 09:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m against the shutdown and the wall (not because I’m some hand wringer but because I think it will be ineffective), but as mentioned above, not extortion. Also, where was all this rule of law, separation of power, democracy talk when the Republicans were called obstructionist for not doing what Ibama wanted?
Did I understand this right, Mike, you are not against extortion? I see a lot of problems with that if the Exec is tasked with protection the US, seeing laws are obeyed, looking out for the common good, etc. An unfunded Executive Branch cannot carry out those responsibilities.
It is pretty clear where rule of law, separation of power, and democracy talk was when Obama was president--it emanated from GOP members who accused Obama of executive overreach when, given the Congressional inaction, he used Executive Orders and Agreements to govern.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
https://aclj.org/executive-power/2016-victories-supreme-court-blocks-president-obamas-executive-overreach
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/obama-cant-rewrite-the-law
RE: Just so one thing is clear - michaelsean - 01-15-2019
(01-15-2019, 10:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Did I understand this right, Mike, you are not against extortion? I see a lot of problems with that if the Exec is tasked with protection the US, seeing laws are obeyed, looking out for the common good, etc. An unfunded Executive Branch cannot carry out those responsibilities.
It is pretty clear where rule of law, separation of power, and democracy talk was when Obama was president--it emanated from GOP members who accused Obama of executive overreach when, given the Congressional inaction, he used Executive Orders and Agreements to govern.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
https://aclj.org/executive-power/2016-victories-supreme-court-blocks-president-obamas-executive-overreach
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/obama-cant-rewrite-the-law
No I’m against extortion.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Nebuchadnezzar - 01-16-2019
(01-15-2019, 08:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ?? Why would anyone for better security or for a wall turn against him?
So you approve of $55B in foreign aid, but can't approve $5B for national security?
Do you not see the irony of this? $55B what building a wall has been estimated at, cut the aid by the amount Trump wants, but they are not willing to compromise at all, so why should he?
Foreign Aid is not only about helping our friends, paying off enemies and just helping others out but it's about stability in weak countries.
What happens if the United States stops aid to Honduras or any Central American country?
I'll tell you what will happen...war will happen in those countries. Border skirmishes, civil wars, power grabs, economic wars...and even more "Refugees" at our border with legitimate calls for asylum.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Stonyhands - 01-16-2019
(01-15-2019, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Everyone knows this.
But will a Trump-owned, then denied, shutdown peel off even one Trump supporter--even the government workers who voted for him?
Will a single Trump supporter in this forum step forward and say Trump is wrong, endangering national security, hurting America first?
To them, so long as the Dems don't cave, this will still look like "both sides" are to blame.
No...absolutely not. I know that you leftists don’t actually know what it’s like to have voted for a President ready to stand strong for the things they’ve promised so you get a pass this time.
Ask yourself why would anybody who voted for him...based on his campaign promises, peel off when he’s following through.
The same Dems against the wall can be seen saying we need a wall in videos all over the internet...why now when there’s a President asking for one do they not follow through?
You want to blame Trump for wanting to do something in the name of National Security that other nations around the world have used for the very same reason and Dems have called for but won’t pay for?
How is it again that he’s endangering national security when congress can pass a budget that he can veto but they can override with enough votes? Or THEY can pass a budget with wall funding and end the shutdown right now. Take your blinders off.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Stonyhands - 01-16-2019
(01-15-2019, 10:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Did I understand this right, Mike, you are not against extortion? I see a lot of problems with that if the Exec is tasked with protection the US, seeing laws are obeyed, looking out for the common good, etc. An unfunded Executive Branch cannot carry out those responsibilities.
It is pretty clear where rule of law, separation of power, and democracy talk was when Obama was president--it emanated from GOP members who accused Obama of executive overreach when, given the Congressional inaction, he used Executive Orders and Agreements to govern.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-10-ways-obama-violated-constitution-during-presidency
https://aclj.org/executive-power/2016-victories-supreme-court-blocks-president-obamas-executive-overreach
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/obama-cant-rewrite-the-law
If President Trump is truly the only cause for the government shutdown and it truly is a crisis as you have painted it out to be why doesn’t the House and Senate pass a budget and when he vetoes it, turn around and override the veto with a 2/3rds vote?
That’s right that’ll never happen in the Senate will it. There must be Senators who are willing to stand for what they believe in rather than playing BS political games. Or maybe they are all Russian owned traitors as well who just want to see this country burn to ashes.
RE: Just so one thing is clear - Dill - 01-16-2019
(01-16-2019, 03:27 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: If President Trump is truly the only cause for the government shutdown and it truly is a crisis as you have painted it out to be why doesn’t the House and Senate pass a budget and when he vetoes it, turn around and override the veto with a 2/3rds vote?
That’s right that’ll never happen in the Senate will it. There must be Senators who are willing to stand for what they believe in rather than playing BS political games. Or maybe they are all Russian owned traitors as well who just want to see this country burn to ashes.
LOL, Trump is responsible for the shutdown. That doesn't make him the "only cause" if GOP leaders in the senate won't put a budget to the vote.
What you call "standing up for what they believe" I call failure to exercise oversight and spineless inability to challenge Trump.
But unlike you, I am not saying a senate vote will never happen. The vast majority of Americans are against Trump's wall and blame him for the shutdown, which negatively affects national security among other things. As the pain he inflicts on Americans to keep from losing increases, his support in the Senate will peel off.