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
As far as Trump goes, I've had the impression he's just been sort of mindlessly destroying anything he can, which is unfortunately a lot because being the President comes with a lot of power.
But that's a different thing from him consciously having an agenda to consolidate power for himself or the Republicans, because something like that requires more foresight and patience than he has shown himself to have.
Yeah, I am sure the only person with such an agenda is Evil Turtle. Perhaps also Pence. For the subtext in this
and this
article seems to be that these two are the powers behind the throne, so to speak.
The problem with warning Trump about future consequences of the precedents he sets with his actions is that Trump doesn't care. Once he's out of office, the whole government can burn down as far as he cares. All he wants is his "win", immediately if not sooner, any way he can get it.
The warning might have an affect on GOP members of Congress who want to outlast Trump, but they've had plenty of opportunity to reign him in before now and they've rarely opted to go through with it.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Regardless of how immediately effective or popular this turns out to be, long-term it is another notch in the running tally of established or assumed limits on power subverted, distorted, or otherwise ignored. The longer the tally runs, the more difficult it is to untangle.
My metaphors are mixing, unfortunately.
Edited by nombretomado on Feb 14th 2019 at 3:01:09 AM
The warning might have an affect on GOP members of Congress who want to outlast Trump, but they've had plenty of opportunity to reign him in before now and they've rarely opted to go through with it.
The difference is that they've never had any reason to reign him in before, it was one thing when he was just harming the country and pissing people off. The base was happy and that meant their re-election chances were safe.
But by establishing the precedent that the President can just ignore Congress he's directly attacking their power, and that's not something they're going to take lightly. It's more or less in the interests of everyone to oppose this, and oppose it they will.
Trump, of course, isn't going to care about any of this, but that's just because he's a moron and thus doesn't know when to not put his foot in the bear trap.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 14th 2019 at 6:01:24 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSo now the real fight begins. Up until now its been a budget battle, which is important but not a real threat to our democratic institutions. Declaring a national emergency by executive fiat when the sole purpose is to go around the Congress after losing a political battle, however, is a dangerous precedent. One doesn't need to Godwin the thread to draw the obvious parallel. The situation is not the same or even similar, this time. But if Trump is not resisted, if the Democrats do not make it clear that the cost to a frivolous declaration of a national emergency is higher than the potential gain, then declarations of emergency becomes the new normal, and will be utilized in future situations when the President cannot get his policy passed through Congress. Eventually this will be used to undermine political opposition on a social issue of greater import. It's a damn slippery slope we really do not want to go down.
Fortunately, so far, Pelosi, Schumer, and some Republicans seem to be making the right noises, although so far there has been no definitive statement that Democrats would seek legal action to stop the declaration (really the only effective option they have). The Attorney General of Washington State, Bob Ferguson, has stated that he will take steps to challenge the President
.
Likely legal action will take years to read the Supreme Court, and by then the next presidential election will have taken place, which is the real most effective approach to stopping the rise of authoritarian executive power: defeat Trump in 2020 (assuming he is the Republican nominee). That means making organizing protest actions now.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The Green New Deal Is Impractical, But ‘Practical’ Solutions Haven’t Worked Either
. My past comment about missing budgeting stands, though.
Eh, I have hope for 2020, but I don't think Trump could do anything, (except sleep with a man) that could get 47% of America to turn against him. I think this "national emergency" will actually cause his pole numbers to rise.
Remember, we are in a country where Trump is considered a genius by a plurality of the population, so they will see no wall and think "DEEP STATE IS STOPPING DEAR LEADER TRUMP".
California Attorney General Xavier Bacerra has also said he's planning to take the emergency order to court.
Also note that this is all happening just days after California and New Mexico pulled their National Guard units from the border. Whatever emergency Trump is talking about, those of us who actually live in the border states aren't seeing it.
![]()
![]()
Not entirely sure it's meant to be budgeted at this stage. I know a lot of the economists talking about this stuff are batting around a whole bunch of possible ideas for inflation offsets. Voluntary or compulsory savings programs, making it harder to borrow money in various ways, good old-fashioned taxes. You're in no way short of options.
Slapping a big headline number on the front and saying "it costs this many dollars, go get them somehow" doesn't provide a particularly good perspective on this kind of thing, since the actual "pay-fors" don't even have to involve the government getting any money (although they probably will).
Edited by DeathorCake on Feb 14th 2019 at 11:27:35 AM
@Septimus: ''Instead, the scope “practical” solutions has just gotten smaller and smaller. Even the more recent Climate Solutions Caucus — a bipartisan congressional group aimed at showing that people of many political stripes can agree on combating climate change — declined to criticize the Trump Administration for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. “That should have been an easy lift,” Jaffe said.
And if bipartisan, practical, detail-oriented climate solutions aren’t working, are they really practical? “I think that’s a fair observation,” Jaffe told me.
It’s been 40 years since the first National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report that identified climate change as a serious risk, and almost nothing has been done about it. Today, one of the main things the government is required to do to address climate change is issue regular reports showing the growing impact of climate-change-related floods, fires, storms and sea-level rise. Federal and state governments don’t even really keep track of how much they spend to fight climate change or have detailed goals for what the money they do spend should achieve.
So can we address climate change while keeping things mostly business-as-usual? Or must we instead make drastic changes to the economy and the government? Maybe the answer is just “yes” … as in, “Sure, whatever it takes to make sure something gets done.”
“In that sense, the Green New Deal doesn’t seem fanciful,” Jaffe said. “It seems like, well, show me the other climate legislation you’ve enacted with a different approach.”''
Not where I thought that article was going. To be frank, I'm a little confused, since nothing in the GND requires or advocates for a fundamental change in the way that our economy functions. The main issue seems to be the timeframe: 10 years. That short a time span would make a 100% replacement of fossil fuel a little impractical. But extend it to 50 and it seems more real. Of course, there are things we should be doing in the shorter term, like building a smart electrical grid, and switching to solar.
@Wildcard: Why would we need 47%? Trump won by a hairsbreadth, we only need a few million in key states to turn the electoral college around. And your statement that a plurality strongly supports Trump is objectively wrong.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Remember, we are in a country where Trump is considered a genius by a plurality of the population, so they will see no wall and think "DEEP STATE IS STOPPING DEAR LEADER TRUMP".
Focusing on the people who will never turn against him is foolish, he cannot effectively win with only them.
Furthermore, the wall is unpopular
as is using an emergency to fund it
so it makes very little sense to assume that doing the latter for the former would do anything other than cause him a large amount of net-harm.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 14th 2019 at 6:32:58 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangSo far the only way to low is not show him as bad man(because they dont belive it) but to stack in how efective he is.
the shutdown REALLY hurt him because he got in a fight he coudnt win and now he is probably starting another one, that make him look week and desperate which it really running is reputation.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"Trump will sign funding bill, declare a national emergency, McConnell says.
@Pushover: Lets not overstate the case. Trump needs to be opposed now, not go. There is no way to make him go "now". He isnt a dictator, just an alpha male wanna be.
@Physical: California and other border states will sue in Federal Court to overturn the declaration.
Edited by DeMarquis on Feb 14th 2019 at 7:14:29 AM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.One of more interesting I've learned is that after the 911a state of emergency was declared which " authorizes the president to retain or reactivate military personnel beyond their normal term of service "
I saw some people talking about how this was still effect but I don't know if that's still the case or not,it might well be
have a listen and have a link to my discord server

According to Sanders, Trump is going to declare a national emergency
Mitch is also supposedly supporting him with this one.
Oh really when?