Trump- the punisher
https://youtu.be/YrRPH4gpKw0
Except, now the Punisher is woke and fighting the "alt-right".
Trump- the punisher
https://youtu.be/YrRPH4gpKw0
Were we at a table together, I think that we would have been on the same page long ago. Sometimes it just takes longer and seems more adversarial when we're typing. But if BugI02 were in town, he (at least, I think "he") would be welcome in my home. As would most of you all.
Trump went spelunking.I thought this thread was “Trump Caves”...
I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.This is a multi-pronged problem J.Mill. If we value the rule of law, should we not be seeking to keep Trump and McConnell in their current positions for as long as possible so that as high a percentage of the judiciary as possible end up being constitutionalist/originalist at all levels?
Should you disagree with that, would you not then be advocating for as many Obama appointed judges as possible to be left as our recourse to restrict the postulated overreach of a president Harris? How did that work out during the Obama years?
It's all interconnected, you have to take the bad with the good; and one path is obviously 'more gooder'
I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.
The wall isn’t worth the cost of giving the President that power. If he can claim emergency powers to build his wall, then it’s also reasonably within the executive’s emergency power to impose some kind of gun control.
By any means necessary style of Populism is retarded. It makes you give up some of the things which truly makes America great in the hopes of winning back an image of other things you think made America great. Oh. And it’s jamil.
But what if you truly believe it's an emergency? Is it not right, then, to fix the problem, using any powers at your disposal? I suggest that it's a lot easier to make the argument that lack of border security, and all the ills that come with it, is much closer to an emergency than gun control, when we know that legal gun owners are, by and large, law abiding citizens. The key words being legal gun owners. Sure, if you want to declare an emergency against gang violence, go for it; kill every one of them; but don't make the mistake of equating legal activity with illegal border activity: false premise.
.
We've lived with the current situation for far too long--several decades now--for the urgency of an "emergency." Especially since the rate of illegal immigration is already falling and the total number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is dropping.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center
But what if you truly believe it's an emergency? Is it not right, then, to fix the problem, using any powers at your disposal? I suggest that it's a lot easier to make the argument that lack of border security, and all the ills that come with it, is much closer to an emergency than gun control, when we know that legal gun owners are, by and large, law abiding citizens. The key words being legal gun owners. Sure, if you want to declare an emergency against gang violence, go for it; kill every one of them; but don't make the mistake of equating legal activity with illegal border activity: false premise.
Ah yes, the old, "They break the law and walk on the Constitution, so we should too." That runs afoul of everything my father (and mentors) taught me.Been watching politics for many years. I know this. If you will be honest though....those checks and balances have been bypassed by every president in history, and every congress in history. The creation of the swamp of departments and bureaucracies has bypassed the original intent of the Founders of our nation.
You say that, but how is that if "most Americans" can't comprehend it, how do you have a lock on the truth? Serious question - how exactly do you know the truth that so many Americans are oblivious to?This is a national crisis beyond the scope of the knowledge of most Americans. Build a wall Mr President!
So the caravans of 1000's, purposely designed to overwhelm our systems, don't change that scenario?
.
I have to respectfully disagree.. the president has a constitutional right to defend our borders. Hes not declaring war so it does not require a congressional vote. Dont count him out.. he does not accept loss and even as a business man found ways to turn apparent loss into wins.The bottom line is there will be no wall without the Democrats getting on board and that just ain’t gonna happen while they control the purse strings in the House.
Trump won’t get anywhere with the national emergency thing so it’s pretty much dead in the water.
Reality sucks sometimes.
Were we at a table together, I think that we would have been on the same page long ago. Sometimes it just takes longer and seems more adversarial when we're typing. But if BugI02 were in town, he (at least, I think "he") would be welcome in my home. As would most of you all.
Isolationism, National policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries. Isolationism has been a recurrent theme in U.S. history. It was given expression in the Farewell Address of Pres. George Washington and in the early 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. The term is most often applied to the political atmosphere in the U.S. in the 1930s. The failure of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the rigours of the Great Depression were among the reasons for Americans’ reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of fascism in Europe. The Johnson Act (1934) and the Neutrality acts (1935) effectively prevented economic or military aid to any country involved in the European disputes that were to escalate into World War II. U.S. isolationism encouraged the British in their policy of appeasement and contributed to French paralysis in the face of the growing threat posed by Nazi Germany. See also neutrality.
America's policy should be isolationism. We should slowly start building back towards 100% self sufficiency. Our attitude towards the rest of the world should be do whatever you want to do but if you dragged us into it it's going to be extremely devastating for you so you're best to leave us aloneAnd Josh, I didn't ignore Monroe; I posted that I think he bolsters my case
The Monroe Doctrine was arguably isolationist (remember we're mostly concerned with entanglements with what were first world powers at the time). Telling the warring powers in Europe that we would not tolerate proxy governments in our sphere of influence (but asserting no right to evict those already in existence) does not seem to be engaging in any sort of relationship with the European powers but instead keeping them at arms length. It was not a treaty, it was a statement of principle; like "54 40 or fight"
I have to wonder, do you think the Soviets/East Germans forced the Berlin Airlift and built their wall because they were not isolationists?
Less scholarly but hopefully less contentious source?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/isolationism-foreign-policy
Isolationism
FOREIGN POLICY
I am an advocate for the good, and an opponent of the bad. Doing both can happen simultaneously. When it doesn’t happen simultaneously within yourself, you should wonder why. You’re probably taking the side of people you want to throw in with rather than the side of principle. When you throw in with the side of people you have to do ****ty things like forgetting principles and go along with things you know are wrong. Cede dangerous power to Trump? **** that. I hope he is legally kicked squarely in the balls if he tries to do the wall with emergency powers. Take the bad with the good my ass. Wrong is wrong.
The wall isn’t worth the cost of giving the President that power. If he can claim emergency powers to build his wall, then it’s also reasonably within the executive’s emergency power to impose some kind of gun control.
By any means necessary style of Populism is retarded. It makes you give up some of the things which truly makes America great in the hopes of winning back an image of other things you think made America great. Oh. And it’s jamil.
And Josh, I didn't ignore Monroe; I posted that I think he bolsters my case
The Monroe Doctrine was arguably isolationist (remember we're mostly concerned with entanglements with what were first world powers at the time). Telling the warring powers in Europe that we would not tolerate proxy governments in our sphere of influence (but asserting no right to evict those already in existence) does not seem to be engaging in any sort of relationship with the European powers but instead keeping them at arms length. It was not a treaty, it was a statement of principle; like "54 40 or fight"
I have to wonder, do you think the Soviets/East Germans forced the Berlin Airlift and built their wall because they were not isolationists?