Author Topic: The US Presidency 2019  (Read 74635 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,599
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #150 on: February 17, 2019, 21:49:34 »
11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues.   

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,599
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #151 on: February 17, 2019, 21:52:39 »
With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.




Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 228,757
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,335
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #152 on: February 17, 2019, 22:35:19 »
With the abundance of politicians and lawyers in the US, there is always the Vlad method.



Don’t tempt us.... 😉
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 513,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,578
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #153 on: February 17, 2019, 22:53:37 »
He had this to say,

Quote
AP: Obviously, that’s going to come in a week where you’re going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?

TRUMP: I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I’ve always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it’s a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they’re 73 percent down. ... That’s a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it’s going lower. Now, people aren’t coming because they know they’re not going to get through, and there isn’t crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that’s stopped because they can’t get through.
 

Transcript of AP interview with President Trump.

The Associated Press April 23, 2017.
https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83


Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 72,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,893
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #154 on: February 17, 2019, 23:05:13 »
>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 204,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,431
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #155 on: February 18, 2019, 00:01:48 »
11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency? Trying to fix immigration while leaving the border porous, is a bit like replacing the drywall before repairing the leaky roof. Reduce the leaks, then you can deal with some of the internal issues.

Emergency - A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emergency

Those 11 million and 700,000 are there now and have been for decades. The wall won't make them go away.

The numbers coming in now are the lowest in a long, long time and the wall will have questionable effect. If you want to study walls study Hadrian's, Berlin's and China's (now that was a wall) and see just how well those turned out.

I don't begrudge any country the right to control it's borders but for two years now the GOP House and Senate didn't see enough of an issue with illegals to fund the wall (To be more particular, the Republicans had a majority in both the House and Senate from 1995-2007 & 2015-last November). They saw no "emergency" worth putting seven or eight billion dollars into especially when their presidential candidate in 2016 promised his base vehemently hundreds of times that Mexico would pay for it.

That's the disconnect between a real emergency - one that everyone can see clearly and unite behind - and a phony emergency which demands money from the state just to semi-fulfil an electoral promise that everyone (except maybe his base) could clearly see could never be kept in the first place. Mexico could never be made to pay.

The fact of the matter is that Trump's base should be up in arms about the fact that they had been blatantly duped by their champion who is now reaching into their pockets to try to build a legacy that he can put another Trump logo onto.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 299,151
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,988
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #156 on: February 18, 2019, 00:45:00 »
Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #157 on: February 18, 2019, 10:06:07 »
Do the democrats have an actual good reason to oppose raising a wall or are they against it because Trump wants it?

What's the actual problem with walls?

Well depending on where you stand it is for a variety of reasons. 

Walls aren't the be all end all that Trump thinks it is.  So some would prefer something more comprehensive and are not opposed to wall per se, just Donald Trumps version of it. Trump used the wall as a populist campaign promise that his base could easily identify and see and understand despite evidence that shows that wall will be largely ineffective at stopping whatever it is they perceive.  A few months ago a horde of immigrants made their way ready to invade.  Or so it was claimed. But they were stopped.  No wall but hey they got lucky I guess.

The democrats don't trust the POTUS and why should they?  He's lied quite a bit and changed his mind when Sean Hannity says so.

Is it politics?  Of course but it is much more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/democrats-border-security-wall.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18177566/democrats-trump-wall-shutdown

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/424242-feehery-why-democrats-oppose-the-wall

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-were-for-a-wall-before-they-were-against-it/2019/01/10/9d114048-14f1-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.cd3baadcd603

The links above show a few of the views as to why the democrats sort of oppose the wall.

As to what the problem with walls are well...there is a whole list as to why the wall Trump wants won't change much except perception that he actually did something. 
Optio

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,599
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #158 on: February 18, 2019, 10:22:24 »
>11 million illegals and a backlog of some 700,000 refugee cases, so that's not an emergency?

A conventional understanding of "emergency" will generally touch on at least these two points: something that has occurred suddenly, and that requires immediate action.  What to do with illegals, refugees, immigration policy, and border enforcement is decidedly a problem, but it's hard to fit it to any reasonable definition of "emergency".

I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas. There is a substantial lobby that does not want a change in immigration status for a number of reasons, including votes, illegals creating a downward pressure on wages, easily exploited workforce. The immigration problem in the US is a crisis, slow moving as it may be, but it is still a crisis. making the border harder to cross is needed, along with several other things including some form of amnesty for long term illegals who are otherwise exemplary citizens and better guest worker program.     

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 513,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,578
    • The job.
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #159 on: February 18, 2019, 18:24:15 »
I have seen "emergencies" result from decades of neglect in a variety of areas.

I have seen "emergencies" too. But, it's pretty hard to take them seriously when the originator tells you, "I didn't need to do this."

In case anyone missed it,
Quote
Fox News Sunday presenter Chris Wallace forced Stephen Miller to acknowledge that the US President’s declaration was unprecedented, as the senior aide repeatedly attempted to avoid the issue.

“Answer my question, can you name one case where a president has asked Congress for money, Congress has refused, and the President has then invoked national powers to get the money anyway?” asked Wallace.

“Well, this current situation —” Mr Miller began.

“Just yes or no, sir,” Wallace interrupted.

“No,” answered Mr Miller,
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/i-didnt-need-to-do-this-how-trump-may-have-sabotaged-himself-over-national-emergency/news-story/16a3be0f04963521dd0041de52d7b524



Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 72,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,893
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #160 on: February 18, 2019, 18:49:35 »
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #161 on: February 18, 2019, 19:32:00 »
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #162 on: February 18, 2019, 20:43:42 »
>invoked national powers

What are "national powers"?

Apparently there are three types.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3a.asp

Also see this link for a more political science definition of national power.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/national-power-meaning-nature-dimensions-and-methods/48477

Chris Wallace didn’t just invent the word or the concept and aptly used it in context.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 20:59:37 by Remius »
Optio

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #163 on: February 18, 2019, 21:00:18 »
Made up, biased journalistic bafflegab? :dunno: Kinda like the phrase 'islamaphobia'.

Nope. It’s a real term. See post above this one.
Optio

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 72,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,893
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #164 on: February 18, 2019, 22:16:29 »
It's a real term, but neither of the two definitions cited above fits very well, as something that can be "invoked".  I can only assume it was intended to mean "powers under the NEA".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,749
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #165 on: February 18, 2019, 23:40:28 »
“National powers” in the US context refers to those powers that constitutionally reside at the National or federal level, versus delegates to or reserved for the states. Declaration of a national emergency is an example of such a national power. It’s an inherent concept in US federalism where the constitutional devolution of authority leaves a lot to the states, where federal or national power being an exception rather than the rule.

In this case, he’s simply highlighting how a national or federal level power, and in this case one held by the executive branch, is being used in an unprecedented manner to do an end run around Congress, which constitutionally is supposed to hold the purse strings.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #166 on: February 19, 2019, 20:22:46 »
From RealClearPolitics

Quote
How Congress Could Rein In the Supreme Court Ian Millhiser, American Prospect

Quote
Congress actually has a lot of mostly unused power to rein in the Roberts Court by clarifying the intent of the law.

https://prospect.org/article/not-so-supreme

Most remarkable!

Apparently, in the absence of judges making up the law and, instead, adhering to the law as it is written, laws may have to be made by Congress instead.  Who da thunk it?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 204,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,431
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #167 on: February 24, 2019, 08:08:58 »
Quote
Trade Chief Dumbs Down Contract Term After Donald Trump Doesn’t Get It

Robert Lighthizer says exact same document will now be called a “trade agreement” because president isn’t tracking “memorandum of understanding.”

By Mary Papenfuss

America’s lead trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, had an awkward encounter with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday as he tried to calmly school the president on legal terminology in front of reporters and a chuckling representative from China.

Lighthizer finally stopped trying, and instead deftly switched the term for the same document when he realized he wasn’t making any headway with the president.

It started when Trump was asked by a reporter what period of time “memorandums of understanding” being worked out on trade with China would last.

Trump shot back: “I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything.”

Lighthizer calmly corrected the president, and turned to explain to reporters in the room: “An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally [established]. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memo of understanding is a binding agreement.” He added: “It’s detailed, it covers everything. ... It’s a legal term; it’s a contract.”

“I disagree,” said a scowling Trump, causing top Chinese negotiator Vice Premier Liu He to laugh. “A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is,” he added, circling his hands in the air. “How long will that take to put into a ... contract?”

In a flash, Lighthizer switched gears without breaking a sweat: “From now on we’re not using ‘memorandum of understanding’ anymore (causing several people  in the room to laugh). We’re going to use the term ‘trade agreement.’ We’ll have the same document; it’s going to be called a trade agreement. We’re never going to have an MOU again.”

“Good,” said Trump.

Nuff said. Check it out in the video above.

See here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-lighthizer-trump-trade-terminology-memo_n_5c724378e4b03cfdaa55f93d

Just as an aside there is a difference to some extent between MOUs in private industry and those in government and intergovernment relations.

Quote
In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection.[6] In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. The International Court of Justice has provided some insight into the determination of the legal status of a document in the landmark case of Qatar v. Bahrain, 1 July 1994.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding

The problem here is that the President has not read the agreement to determine the language and intent while Lightizer clearly has. The fact that the two disagree publicly over interpretation, meaning and legal intent of a critical trade document is very telling and potentially disastrous. Hat's off to Lightizer - my guess is things were thrown around in his office after he got back and that much Bourbon was consumed.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 08:25:20 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #168 on: February 24, 2019, 08:29:15 »
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA.  ;)

Edit to remove ad hominem comment.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2019, 14:06:23 by Mike Bobbitt »

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,749
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #169 on: February 24, 2019, 11:01:38 »
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

I wonder, for instance, if the understands that, as of right now (even though he has completely moved on from the topic for months), his USMCA is not in force at all and that we are all still operating under NAFTA.  ;)

I suspect he may not truly grasp that. He stated i early December that they're now beginning the process of ratifying USMCA and withdrawing from NAFTA in the U.S. Not much heard on that since. He's going to have to get it through Congress, and Congress is a whole lot less friendly now. He may face significant struggles there.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 253,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,004
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #170 on: February 24, 2019, 13:40:15 »
How can you make any deal with someone like that, who doesn't get basic, bonehead, low level contract/international agreements terminology?

Still smarter then what we got.....
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 178,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,489
  • It's all good
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #171 on: February 24, 2019, 15:34:49 »
Still smarter then what we got.....

Not from what I have seen, read, or for that matter heard from those in the room occasionally with either of the parties.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #172 on: February 24, 2019, 15:45:04 »
And obviously, ours is the sharpest dresser ...  :whistle:

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,599
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #173 on: February 25, 2019, 10:29:49 »
Likely the misunderstanding is peoples frames of reference, for the Trade Chief, an MOU is a legal contract, for DT it's an non-binding agreement to act in a certain way. Likely as DT life has been all business, a contract is something he understands clearly. In my world MoU's are often not worth the paper they are written on, the ones between departments don't seem particularly effective, so I am generally biased against them myself. 

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,475
Re: The US Presidency 2019
« Reply #174 on: February 25, 2019, 11:39:55 »
Sure. 

But when his trade rep tried to clear it up he doubled down and made himself look like buffoon.

He could have just deferred to him and let it be and question him after or seek clarification. 

He's his own worst enemy.
Optio