Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah, I think that's why he hasn't tried the emergency yet.
Someone is repeatedly and loudly telling him that it's not going to work and will just hurt his position overall.
Still, at some point, it's going to give and he'll try anyway.
At which point things will get worse for him.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangTrump could absolutely build his wall. He just has to declare a national emergency, then take the money out of the military budget. Sure, there will be lawsuits, but no guarantee that the courts will halt construction while the lawsuits are ongoing (they could, but we dont know if they will). So a "wall" of some sort could get built.
At that point, it devolves into public relations warfare. The Democrats will try to spin it as a move to fatally undermine America's democratic institutions. The Republicans will hail it as a victory against the liberals. The public will decide who wins in the 2020 elections.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.So, apparently Howard Schultz is planning on running for President as an independent?
Oh God! Natural light!At that point, it devolves into public relations warfare. The Democrats will try to spin it as a move to fatally undermine America's democratic institutions. The Republicans will hail it as a victory against the liberals. The public will decide who wins in the 2020 elections.
He literally just failed to have it funded via shutdown, how exactly do you think declaring a national emergency, something of dubious legality and quite possibly more unpopular than a shutdown, has any chance of success?
He absolutely could declare an emergency, and that's it.
There is no reason to seriously say that he could go from there and fund the wall, that just isn't factual. When Trump of all people is hesitating it should clearly show you how nonviable it is.
So yeah, I stand by my previous statement. Trump isn't going to be building his wall.
Heard about that, egocentric rich guy asshole wants attention.
News at '11.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 28th 2019 at 12:22:30 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMy question about Schultz is whether it’ll go anywhere. The last think we need is someone who’ll end up splitting the vote and getting Trump re-elected.
Oh God! Natural light!Sure, and? It's political theater. You guys are acting as if the wall itself matters, to either side. It doesnt. It's a testing of the waters. If Trump can pull a symbolic victory out of his ass, then declaring a national emergency becomes the new normal. Like I said, it all depends on what the voters think of it all. So far, the good guys are winning.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I mean... this clearly contradicts your earlier claim that Trump could fund the wall.
Not to mention that the idea that the wall is just testing the waters instead of something that Trump earnestly wants makes very little sense, like, Trump is not some kind of grand strategist who considers the logistics of undermining democracy and moving the Overton window.
He's a moronic racist grandpa who wants to build a wall to keep the darkies out, there is no reason to assume that at least he if no-one else is serious about the wall.
Also, I for one very much care about the wall in that I view it as a horrific waste of money and symbol of racism. And I highly doubt I'm the only one.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangHe can fund the wall. I am aware of nothing that will definately stop him from just doing it, anytime he wants to. The politcal consequences of doing that are another thing, are what I'm saying. Trump isnt a grand strategist, but there are people behind him who are. Political theater serves a long term purpose.
@Hailmuffins: Precisely 5.7 billion dollars.
Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 28th 2019 at 12:41:54 PM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.According to current law, Trump could, if he makes certain decisions and has competent people executing them, direct the military to divert funding towards building his wall. This would undoubtedly be challenged in the courts but it is not certain that such challenges would succeed.
If he managed to obtain the funds, he could potentially begin construction. However...
- It will take way more than $5 billion to build a wall across our entire southern border.
- There are many, many legal issues to deal with including eminent domain over privately owned land across the putative path of the wall.
- The types of walls that he has been trying to market would be ineffective at stopping illegal migration anyway.
- The construction would take many years and would unquestionably be halted by Trump's Democratic successor in 2021, assuming that's how things go.
As for the economic impact, it would probably be slightly positive as the money would go towards contractors and materials: i.e., a modest stimulus. This is absent such intangibles as its psychological effect on trade.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 28th 2019 at 12:43:08 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Walls, sandbags, barbed wire, any sort of obstacle or obstruction is removed once the emergency is over.
All true, and all irrelevent. Literally nobody cares, except maybe Trump himself, if the wall actually can be build or would work as advirtised, least of all Trump's core voters. This is what you guys dont seem to get. If Trump can symbolically build his wall, then that provides a precident for using declared states of emergency to go around the budgetary powers of Congress. ''That's' what's at stake, not a wall.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.No doubt the economical impact would end with a net positive, but the point is you could probably get just as much and build more useful stuff, like schools, hospitals, yadda yadda.
I know I'm pointing out the obvious, but I'm sure at least some of the supporters tried to use the "create more jobs" argument.
I think get it: the legal precedent that creates would cause far worse damage in the future than anything else associated with the wall, is what you're saying?
Edited by HailMuffins on Jan 28th 2019 at 2:48:48 PM
There is a certain hypocrisy in conservatives decrying the use of taxpayer money for stimulus except for when they want to spend it on their pet projects. The amount of money in question is small potatoes, though, and isn't really the point.
Yes, that's basically it. Letting Trump get away with it would set a dangerous precedent of bypassing Congress' constitutional power to spend money. Indeed, that would be the likely basis for a Supreme Court challenge.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 28th 2019 at 12:50:54 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And theres no way of knowing how that would go down.
This is some serious shit. Want to fund deporting 9 million people but Congress wont give you the money? Declare a national emeegency. OTOH, so far we seem to be winning the spin war.
Edited by DeMarquis on Jan 28th 2019 at 1:09:55 PM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Uh no, there is, in fact, a way to know it could go down.
Firstly, basic logic. The public doesn't want the wall, and they don't want a shutdown. Logically they would also strongly reject a state of emergency.
Secondly, the ability for the Republican Party to not be completely short-sighted. They are well aware
that allowing Trump to fund it with emergency powers sets a terrible precedent for them because what happens when a Democratic President decides to use emergency powers to fund healthcare or fighting climate change? Both of which are actually popular amongst the general public. So if Trumps tries to fund it via emergency then he'll face opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, which would mean that any such effort would be guaranteed to result in failure.
So no, the idea that we "don't know" whether or not it would go in Trump's favor is just counterfactual at this point. There is no reason to believe that it would go well for Trump and every reason to believe the opposite. If declaring an emergency was a magical pill that could solve his problems then Trump would've done it already.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 28th 2019 at 1:23:28 PM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Okay, I’m just going to point out that declaring a national emergency doesn’t give the President unlimited authority to appropriate any money for anything. The money for the wall would come out of military construction funds. The idea is that during some sort of invasion or massive military action the military might need more money that congress couldn’t free up fast enough to do things like set up defensive positions. First off, as pointed out, this is temporary funding. Second off, nobody has any clue whether those funds could actually be used to build the wall Trump wants, since they’re meant for setting up obstacles designed to repel an army. Finally, if there was a legal challenge a stay on any construction could be issued until it was resolved, making the whole exercise pointless.
Oh God: US and Taliban forces are supposedly working out a peace deal that will finally pull the US out of Afghanistan
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/world/asia/taliban-peace-deal-afghanistan.html
This is gonna be what gets Trump re-elected, isn't it?
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.crossposting this from the education thread, since it’s relevant to current politics as well.
Here’s what the “bible studies” tweet was referring to.
Proposals from lawmakers in at least six states would require or encourage public schools to offer elective classes on the Bible’s literary and historical significance. That’s a more narrow focus than what’s typically covered in courses on world religions.
Some of the lawmakers – and leaders of Christian groups supporting the bills – say they want to restore traditional values in schools and give students a chance to study the religious text deeply....
...This year, Bible literacy bills have been introduced in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
At least three Bible literacy bills were considered in 2018 – in Alabama, Iowa and West Virginia – but none passed, according to the ACLU. Tennessee passed a related but slightly different bill.
The year before, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed into law a Bible studies bill. It created guidelines for public high schools to offer electives on the literature of the Bible and Hebrew Scriptures.
Laser said the Bible studies classes are likely to convey a religious message and preference. That would violate the First Amendment, which guarantees that the government won’t act in a way that prefers one religion over another and that people can practice whatever religion they wish.
In short, there's a line in public schools between teaching about a religion and proselytizing. Lawmakers bringing the proposals say the classes can be taught in a way that doesn't overstep that line.
Those groups include the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, which aims to protect religious liberties; the National Legal Foundation, a Christian public-interest law firm; and the nonprofit WallBuilders note , which emphasizes the "moral, religious and constitutional foundation upon which America was built," according to its website. WallBuilders' name is a biblical reference to grass-roots work and does not refer to the debate over the border wall between the USA and Mexico.
Critics say the groups are trying to reshape America by cementing pro-Christian messages in public schools.
“They have put out a more than 100-page playbook that lays out very plainly their strategy into tiers of bills that they want to pass, and the last tier is promoting a particular religious point of view for legislation," said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which advocates for keeping government out of matters pertaining to faith.
The ACLU provided a copy of the 2018 version of the playbook, called the "Report and Analysis on Religious Freedom Measures Affecting Prayer and Faith in America." Model legislation and talking points within it advocate for preserving the country's Judeo-Christian heritage and enshrining conservative values in public policy. For instance, the groups say marriage and child adoption should be practiced only by heterosexual, married couples.
Edited by megaeliz on Jan 28th 2019 at 1:35:47 PM

Thing is, if Trump tries and fails with Emergency....he's dry. Declaring his emergency is likely his last big swing.
"You can reply to this Message!"