Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?

[22lcidw]

I'm thinking that as long as the "national emergency" has some basis in fact that it might not be a bad idea.

Easy to say with tunnel vision.

Imagine a radical leftist president and the bullshit they could put the country through on any number of issues simply with a "declaration" of emergency status.

They are going to do that anyway.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Interesting story in Arizona when a smuggler using a ladder help 100 people climb over a fence

Another story about a week ago of people tunneling under the wall

All indicating the fallacy of a wall just to mention a few

Smuggler know this and that is why tunnels are discovered by border patrol and I guess a few have ladders

Declaring a state of emergency because he wants to build a wall when it has so many ways that it can be defeated is a political stunt

Is like declaring that I am proud to shut down the government

It just doing something for a political expediency

without examining alternatives or doing a feasibility study

It is like Homer saying "Doh"

or yelling fire in a theater just to get a better seat

There are over 2 million burglaries a year.

Clearly, locks and doors are pointless because some defeat them ....
/sarcasm

Yes, that argument is asinine.

hmmm that's your argument

yet there are over 2 million burglaries a year

locks and doors will make it harder but by themselves they will not stop a burglary

do you believe that they will stop a burglary

It just means there are other factors that contribute to burglaries other than just locked doors

It doesn't mean you should leave them unlocked

It just means that you might consider other things such as a burglary alarm system or video surveillance and put those little signs in the yard advertise to potential burglars to go on down the street to the house that doesn't have one

It just means that you shouldn't advertise on facebook that your family vacation is going well in Aruba

there are a myriad of things that should be done not just the sole belief that if you lock your doors then you will be safe

In this world you can only do what you can afford to do

The best thing to do to protect your home is to spend $23 billion on a totally ineffective wall that can be overcome with tunnels, ladders, airplanes and boats and by those that you invite through your front gate if they promise to leave when you ask them to.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes.

Declaring a national State of Emergency in this context would set a bad precedent.

I don't want him to do it.

However, I think it's coming.

In keeping with a State of Emergency, I think he will ignore any lower court ruling that does not go in his favor.

And, once challenged at-law, I think it'll be fast-tracked all the way to SCOTUS, where a 5-4 court will uphold him.

5-3, if RGB isn't up to coming-in that day.

 

[candycorn]

The second part of the definition is : an urgent need for assistance or relief.

Which fits the on going emergency since the Carter administration blocking the Iranian government property since 1979.

Which is also why a state of emergency fits after a known hurricane hits a community.

So building the wall could be made to fit in the broad spectrum of past events. I would not like to see this used in this instance, I'd like to see the Democrats and Republicans sit down and work out an agreement however with the egos of Pelosi and Trump, I see a continued bad faith and hate.

I do believe we need fencing and walls on parts of the border along with improved surveillance,drones, warning systems and the like. We have very advanced technology that can even detect underground tunnels from the surface, it's very costly however it would be a great way to stop drug dealers from bringing in drugs, it would also slow down human trafficking and other illegal activity. Never going to stop everything but we need to tighten our borders.

“urgent need for assistance or relief”

It wasn’t urgent in October of 2018; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
It wasn’t urgent in October of 2017; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
To claim that there is an emergency in February 2019 rings hollow.

As for Drug Dealers…let me try to understand this. I’m sure some drugs come across the border but if you’re talking about distributable amounts (hundreds of kilos), are you crazy? The drug lords are not giving someone $4,000 dollars of drugs, releasing them into the wild and saying “Meet me on the other side of the border! Hope you don’t get caught. Oh, and don’t sell our drugs yourself, consume our drugs, or barter them for your freedom to the police!!!”.

They have dependable distribution channels that allow for industrial quantities of drugs to pass through. That means mechanization. It likely means multiple people on the payroll on our side of the border—likely many who have badges.

Depends on whether a person considers it urgent or not, it may not have been urgent then however with two young people dying while trying to cross the border, it may seem urgent now. You can make a case either way. The great thing about Trump going the emergency route, the President would have to approve the emergency funding every year, so once he is out of office the next President could end the funding. Like I said it to me is the wrong move for many reasons however, it may be a PR boon for Trump if Pelosi refuses to negotiate in the next three weeks and holds up his SOTU.

This issue is the left and the right will support their side, independents, the swing voters are in play and fairness will come into play.

There are zero logical metrics for the declaration of an emergency in February that were not there since 1/20/2017.

The only change is that the political pressure has mounted since he has not been able to fulfill his campaign promise of Mexico paying for a wall.

Interesting opinion however I disagree, he could use the emergency and drive the left completely off their rockers, which is what I believe will happen.

And the upside of that to the country is what?

The Title is President of the United States, not the President of those who support him

 

[Papageorgio]

The second part of the definition is : an urgent need for assistance or relief.

Which fits the on going emergency since the Carter administration blocking the Iranian government property since 1979.

Which is also why a state of emergency fits after a known hurricane hits a community.

So building the wall could be made to fit in the broad spectrum of past events. I would not like to see this used in this instance, I'd like to see the Democrats and Republicans sit down and work out an agreement however with the egos of Pelosi and Trump, I see a continued bad faith and hate.

I do believe we need fencing and walls on parts of the border along with improved surveillance,drones, warning systems and the like. We have very advanced technology that can even detect underground tunnels from the surface, it's very costly however it would be a great way to stop drug dealers from bringing in drugs, it would also slow down human trafficking and other illegal activity. Never going to stop everything but we need to tighten our borders.

“urgent need for assistance or relief”

It wasn’t urgent in October of 2018; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
It wasn’t urgent in October of 2017; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
To claim that there is an emergency in February 2019 rings hollow.

As for Drug Dealers…let me try to understand this. I’m sure some drugs come across the border but if you’re talking about distributable amounts (hundreds of kilos), are you crazy? The drug lords are not giving someone $4,000 dollars of drugs, releasing them into the wild and saying “Meet me on the other side of the border! Hope you don’t get caught. Oh, and don’t sell our drugs yourself, consume our drugs, or barter them for your freedom to the police!!!”.

They have dependable distribution channels that allow for industrial quantities of drugs to pass through. That means mechanization. It likely means multiple people on the payroll on our side of the border—likely many who have badges.

Depends on whether a person considers it urgent or not, it may not have been urgent then however with two young people dying while trying to cross the border, it may seem urgent now. You can make a case either way. The great thing about Trump going the emergency route, the President would have to approve the emergency funding every year, so once he is out of office the next President could end the funding. Like I said it to me is the wrong move for many reasons however, it may be a PR boon for Trump if Pelosi refuses to negotiate in the next three weeks and holds up his SOTU.

This issue is the left and the right will support their side, independents, the swing voters are in play and fairness will come into play.

There are zero logical metrics for the declaration of an emergency in February that were not there since 1/20/2017.

The only change is that the political pressure has mounted since he has not been able to fulfill his campaign promise of Mexico paying for a wall.

Interesting opinion however I disagree, he could use the emergency and drive the left completely off their rockers, which is what I believe will happen.

Shouldn’t the goal be legitimate governance and not trying to drive the opposition “off their rockers”?

Sure is, neither side practices it anymore.

 

[Papageorgio]

The second part of the definition is : an urgent need for assistance or relief.

Which fits the on going emergency since the Carter administration blocking the Iranian government property since 1979.

Which is also why a state of emergency fits after a known hurricane hits a community.

So building the wall could be made to fit in the broad spectrum of past events. I would not like to see this used in this instance, I'd like to see the Democrats and Republicans sit down and work out an agreement however with the egos of Pelosi and Trump, I see a continued bad faith and hate.

I do believe we need fencing and walls on parts of the border along with improved surveillance,drones, warning systems and the like. We have very advanced technology that can even detect underground tunnels from the surface, it's very costly however it would be a great way to stop drug dealers from bringing in drugs, it would also slow down human trafficking and other illegal activity. Never going to stop everything but we need to tighten our borders.

“urgent need for assistance or relief”

It wasn’t urgent in October of 2018; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
It wasn’t urgent in October of 2017; otherwise an emergency would have been declared then.
To claim that there is an emergency in February 2019 rings hollow.

As for Drug Dealers…let me try to understand this. I’m sure some drugs come across the border but if you’re talking about distributable amounts (hundreds of kilos), are you crazy? The drug lords are not giving someone $4,000 dollars of drugs, releasing them into the wild and saying “Meet me on the other side of the border! Hope you don’t get caught. Oh, and don’t sell our drugs yourself, consume our drugs, or barter them for your freedom to the police!!!”.

They have dependable distribution channels that allow for industrial quantities of drugs to pass through. That means mechanization. It likely means multiple people on the payroll on our side of the border—likely many who have badges.

Depends on whether a person considers it urgent or not, it may not have been urgent then however with two young people dying while trying to cross the border, it may seem urgent now. You can make a case either way. The great thing about Trump going the emergency route, the President would have to approve the emergency funding every year, so once he is out of office the next President could end the funding. Like I said it to me is the wrong move for many reasons however, it may be a PR boon for Trump if Pelosi refuses to negotiate in the next three weeks and holds up his SOTU.

This issue is the left and the right will support their side, independents, the swing voters are in play and fairness will come into play.

There are zero logical metrics for the declaration of an emergency in February that were not there since 1/20/2017.

The only change is that the political pressure has mounted since he has not been able to fulfill his campaign promise of Mexico paying for a wall.

Interesting opinion however I disagree, he could use the emergency and drive the left completely off their rockers, which is what I believe will happen.

And the upside of that to the country is what?

I already stated my position on it couple times in this thread.

 

[Doc7505]

I'm thinking that as long as the "national emergency" has some basis in fact that it might not be a bad idea.

Easy to say with tunnel vision.

Imagine a radical leftist president and the bullshit they could put the country through on any number of issues simply with a "declaration" of emergency status.

~~~~~~
Didn't we go through that with Barack Hussein Obama?

Why did you give me funnys for my two responses? You asked a fair question and I gave a direct answer. Yet you give me the "I'm butthurt" emoji???

Just Keep

 

[ptbw forever]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

This country is going down anyway.

It doesn’t really matter what “precedent” Trump sets.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm thinking that as long as the "national emergency" has some basis in fact that it might not be a bad idea.

Easy to say with tunnel vision.

Imagine a radical leftist president and the bullshit they could put the country through on any number of issues simply with a "declaration" of emergency status.

~~~~~~
Didn't we go through that with Barack Hussein Obama?

Why did you give me funnys for my two responses? You asked a fair question and I gave a direct answer. Yet you give me the "I'm butthurt" emoji???

Just Keep

What does that even mean? You asked a question and I gave an answer. Now you're acting like a petulant child.

Ridiculous

 

[Doc7505]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

This country is going down anyway.

It doesn’t really matter what “precedent” Trump sets.

Then it all depends on what side you're on. Are you for America and it's founding Constitution and Bill of Rights or are you for a Globalist Socialist Marxist America?

 

[ptbw forever]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

This country is going down anyway.

It doesn’t really matter what “precedent” Trump sets.

Then it all depends on what side you're on. Are you for America and it's founding Constitution and Bill of Rights or are you for a Globalist Socialist Marxist America?

The constitution is dead.

I am for preserving whatever is left of western civilization.

 

[gtopa1]

Drumpf has set so many bad precedents no one blinks anymore at anything he does. Its expected. i doubt that any POTUS after him will do the same dumb shit.

Such as??

Greg

 

[Asclepias]

Drumpf has set so many bad precedents no one blinks anymore at anything he does. Its expected. i doubt that any POTUS after him will do the same dumb shit.

Such as??

Greg

You want me to start with the criminal enterprise, pussy grabbing, or the steady stream of lies?

 

[gtopa1]

Drumpf has set so many bad precedents no one blinks anymore at anything he does. Its expected. i doubt that any POTUS after him will do the same dumb shit.

Such as??

Greg

You want me to start with the criminal enterprise, pussy grabbing, or the steady stream of lies?

Enacted Presidential decisions; you know, the ones that are material. No some lefties wet dreams.

Greg

 

[imawhosure]

Would Declaring A State Of Emergency 'Set A Bad Precedent'?​

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...precedent.html
By Carol Brown ~~ Republicans, from Mark Meadows to RINO types, are building a case against Trump's threat to declare a national emergency as a means of funding more walls at the southern border. They claim that if Trump does this, it will "set a bad precedent" (here, here, here, here, and here). Really?
A precedent is a change in how things are done and lays the groundwork for more of the same to follow. It can be used as a point of reference for similar actions in the future. To say it would set a bad precedent if Trump declared a national emergency is ridiculous in light of the fact that fifty-eight national emergencies have been declared since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was signed into law. Thirty-one of these declared emergencies remain in effect.
The other argument you sometimes hear is that if Trump used his executive authority to declare a national emergency, then the Democrats may use this same tool in the future.
Um. Excuse me. But I'm sure the Democrats are aware of this tool and won't hesitate to use it when they win the White House one day, irrespective of whether Trump uses it for the wall or not (although they would claim he set the precedent). In case you haven't noticed, Democrats use every tool at their disposal to advance their agenda.



~~~~~~
Hmm..., " Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land". Who said that? Well, it wasn't a Republican that said those words.
It appears that the more they fight it, the more Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats and friends the RINOs prove themselves to be lawless supporters of criminals who want America to be overrun and destroyed. How many Americans really support that view? Some, but not most.
The Constitution does not give Congress or Courts rights to interfere into President's actions to secure US border. The president does not need 'State of Emergency' to build the 'Wall' on the border.
According to the article, there are approximately States of Emergency declared by George W. Bush '43' declared 13 and Barack Obama 12, most of which are still in effect, according to CNN. Trump's States of Emergency So far, the president has declared three national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, according to the Brennan Center.
IMO, there are at least 2 sources outside of the US budget. Money the US government has confiscated from criminals are not in a budget and can be used to secure US.
Then the US Government can impose fees and fines for certain business activity, which are not in a budget and can be used to secure US. Additionally, Congress has allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to various national security related departments and I am sure that Pentagon can survive if some of the troops training would be done not deep inside US territory, but on a construction of the Wall.

I'm thinking that as long as the "national emergency" has some basis in fact that it might not be a bad idea. The way congress has been lately nothing can ever get passed, because some faction would oppose it. The GOP House couldn't agree on immigration reform, as an example. Obama issued EOs all the time because Congress opposed his ideas. Then the courts made the call on legality. So whether the president issues EOs or emergencies, its doing something.

As I said in another topic:

When Congress says "No" to a President, that is not a national emergency. It's called "checks and balances". Especially when it is both parties saying no, as in this case.

Individual 1 is trying to use the Constitution as toilet paper just to save face.

Pathetic.

Yes using the National Emergencies Act because you cannot legislate your agenda in Congress would set a bad precedent.

But I'm sure our adversaries would love the turmoil such a move would create here.

Have we seen this before, recently?

Why, yes we have, and the Leftists didn't say a damn word; they are hypocrites.

And just in case the Leftists want to point out it is "fake news" because it comes from some right leaning site, I got an article from that bastion of conservative politics, The New York Times!

Once Skeptical of Executive Power, Obama Has Come to Embrace It

Notice who used all the powers at his disposal to go around congress. Why, it was Ears Obysmal! So the next time some Leftists from the Russian/Clinton wing tell you "nyet," bring forth this article, and if you can get a hard copy that was written on paper, slap them with it!

 

[Cellblock2429]

This is a National Emergency, there's no question.

You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.

Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.

Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.

We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.

They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.

"Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."

If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?

/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner.

So youre saying he is too weak to concentrate on an national emergency?

/——/ He is concentrating on it - that’s what has your panties in a knot.

 

[Asclepias]

Drumpf has set so many bad precedents no one blinks anymore at anything he does. Its expected. i doubt that any POTUS after him will do the same dumb shit.

Such as??

Greg

You want me to start with the criminal enterprise, pussy grabbing, or the steady stream of lies?

Enacted Presidential decisions; you know, the ones that are material. No some lefties wet dreams.

Greg

So youre saying to ignore his presidential decisions you are embarrassed about?

 

[Asclepias]

This is a National Emergency, there's no question.

You are being bombarded by thousands a day, criminals just planning to make money in the USA and the Mexican government unwilling or unable to stop it.

Build the wall, protect your sovereignty and citizens safety.

Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.

We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.

They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.

"Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."

If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?

/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner.

So youre saying he is too weak to concentrate on an national emergency?

/——/ He is concentrating on it - that’s what has your panties in a knot.

If he is concentrating whats taking him so long to declare an emergency? Does it take you 2 years to declare something an emergency that you spotted 2 years ago?

 

[shockedcanadian]

Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades.

We have over 11 million illegals in this country right now. They are costing we the tax payer billions every year.

They have killed American citizens and need to be booted the hell out of the US.

"Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."

If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?

/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner.

So youre saying he is too weak to concentrate on an national emergency?

/——/ He is concentrating on it - that’s what has your panties in a knot.

If he is concentrating whats taking him so long to declare an emergency? Does it take you 2 years to declare something an emergency that you spotted 2 years ago?

He is attempting to have the broader government address this, in many ways, have them save face.

If Trump has to declare the emergency it will be supported by Americans, and it will also illustrate how unconcerned some are in government for this issue. Trump will stand head and shoulders above them all as a non-politician dealing with the pressing, difficult issues. It will be a gain from Independents especially, I bet.

 

[Asclepias]

"Yup. In the case it is a national emergency and has been for decades."

If it was such an emergency why is Drumpf just now addressing it after 2 years?

/——/ Maybe if you bitter, angry, sore losers would stop nipping at his ankles and get the hell out of the way- he’d have gotten to it sooner.

So youre saying he is too weak to concentrate on an national emergency?

/——/ He is concentrating on it - that’s what has your panties in a knot.

If he is concentrating whats taking him so long to declare an emergency? Does it take you 2 years to declare something an emergency that you spotted 2 years ago?

He is attempting to have the broader government address this, in many ways, have them save face.

If Trump has to declare the emergency it will be supported by Americans, and it will also illustrate how unconcerned some are in government for this issue. Trump will stand head and shoulders above them all as a non-politician dealing with the pressing, difficult issues. It will be a gain from Independents especially, I bet.

So when he is expected to be a leader and make a decision it takes 2 years and counting for him to make the executive decision to call something an emergency? No wonder he sucks.