All in all, it's just another post on the wall

[robkelk]

CBC Analysis: Texas photo op or not, Trump has walled himself in - with maybe only one way out of this shutdown

Like Litman, Trump biographer Michael D'Antonio doesn't see a lot of face-saving ways out of this bind.

If the president begins to hear from congressional Republicans whose constituents are hurting in states that Trump won in 2016, that will put pressure on him to bend, said D'Antonio, author of The Truth about Trump.

"Right now, he's looking for a way out. And it's probably going to be this idea of declaring an emergency."

Even if the courts strike that move down, he said, Trump will be able to claim a moral victory.

And if it results in a blight on his presidential record?

"Look at this presidency as if it's the presidency of a clever child," said D'Antonio. "A clever child is not going to be thinking about history's judgment, but whether he's going to get in trouble in this moment."

Trump, he said, will "have the courts to blame," and likely won't think much about legacy.

As for the government shutdown, it's approaching Day 22 on Saturday - a milestone that D'Antonio believes the president will use to sell the idea of himself as a "valiant warrior."

"This will be the way Trump says to his base: 'I did everything. Not only did I have the longest shutdown in history, I did all these other things,'" he said. "He wants everything to be the biggest, longest, tallest, greatest - and once I heard the record was 21 days, I immediately thought, 'He's going to go for 22.'"

"Building the wall was the single most-often repeated promise of the campaign, and he's staking the shutdown on it. He's making it very important to people who believe that they voted for it," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who studies presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump's Texas visit did successfully displace news about the Trump-Russia investigation, as well as former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's agreement to testify before Congress next month, she said.

So... It looks like there's going to be a state of emergency, all because the person whose name is on the cover of The Art of the Deal refuses to deal.


As for popular opinion on this wall:

The Hill: Poll: Majorities oppose Trump's wall funding demand, call for compromise

The survey found that 56 percent of respondents do not support the president's proposal to construct a wall along the southern border, compared to 44 percent who do.

Erecting a broad security barrier along the border is only slightly more popular, according to the poll. Only 46 percent of respondents support that proposal, while 54 percent oppose it.

A majority of U.S. voters surveyed, 58 percent, said Trump should withdraw his demand for the border funding, while 42 percent said the president "should not give in."

As for effectiveness of a wall: Well, Trump compared his wall to the one keeping Palestinians out of Israel almost a year ago, so...



Palestinian men climb over the barrier dividing East Jerusalem in 2015.

Tomas Munita, for The New York Times (source)

[Black Aeronaut]

I often like to point out to people that narco tunnels are a thing that exist, and the cartels have gotten very good at not only hiding them, but building them as well.  Most are about a thousand or so feet long, though I'm sure I've heard of one or two that have been recorded at being over a mile in length.  And they can move hundreds of kilos of cocaine, marijuana, and even illegal immigrants, in a single day since they don't need to worry about hiding under cover of darkness.  They just place the tunnel entrances within existing buildings - usually inside industrial areas along the border where no one is going to notice any digging.

https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-m...der-2016-4

[robkelk]

Walled world: Lessons from Europe's border barriers

Note the large number of results where the refugees simply go over, under, or around the walls - by ship, if necessary.

[robkelk]

(blows dust off thread)

As expected, there's a court ruling against using military-directed funds to build at least part of the wall. It's a Federal court decision.

[Rajvik]

Which he anticipated, and also stated he anticipated. The statute is so blatantly clear I don't understand how any judge could rule against it but we all knew when this started that this would be going all the way to the supreme court.

We also know what the answer will be unless the court decides to start stripping constitutional powers from the executive.

Edit, also, where did the rest of the posts go, we had a whole damn argument going on this subject and now its gone, wtf

[Epsilon]

I hope you look forward to the next leftist President stripping the military of funding to pass universal health care. After all, if the executive gets to decide how the military spends it's budget...

[robkelk]

Which he anticipated, and also stated he anticipated. The statute is so blatantly clear I don't understand how any judge could rule against it but we all knew when this started that this would be going all the way to the supreme court.

We also know what the answer will be unless the court decides to start stripping constitutional powers from the executive.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says Congress - not the executive - has the power and responsibility "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence" (British spelling is in the original). The executive's attempt to pay debts out of money allocated to the common defense is pretty clearly an attempt to strip constitutional powers from the legislature... EDIT: at least, it is from where I sit outside your country.

Edit, also, where did the rest of the posts go, we had a whole damn argument going on this subject and now its gone, wtf

You kept bringing up that wall in threads that previously had nothing to do with it before you mentioned it, instead of having the conversation here.

[robkelk]

... After all, if the executive gets to decide how the military spends it's budget...

I suspect that would take a Constitutional amendment to become true.

[Mamorien]

... After all, if the executive gets to decide how the military spends it's budget...

I suspect that would take a Constitutional amendment to become true.

No, it would take a Constitution amendment to become law. To become true, all it would need is a President who runs the country like he runs his business*; a Senate that lets him do it because they'd rather see the country run into the ground than give "the Democrat Party" anything; a House of Representatives that passes bill after bill which then gets sent to the Senate, where Turtle Man** lets them wait until the cows come home; and a Supreme Court whose composition skews a little further toward "clones from the Federalist Society bastard farm" every time Republicans get their way.

* That is, bark out belligerent, fat-assed orders and expect his close personal toadies to link them to Euclidean space-time, even the ones that blatantly contradict each other.
** "Enter Turtle Woman. She is like a turtle in every way, except that she is rich."
-- Charles Ludlam and Bill Vehr, Turds in Hell (1969)

[Rajvik]

Here is the LAW
Title 10 US Code 284

Specifics

10 U.S. Code § 284. Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime
U.S. Code
Notes
prev next
(a)Support to Other Agencies.—The Secretary of Defense may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency for any of the purposes set forth in subsection (b) or (c), as applicable, if—
(1) in the case of support described in subsection (b), such support is requested—
(A) by the official who has responsibility for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of the department or agency of the Federal Government, in the case of support for other departments or agencies of the Federal Government; or
(B) by the appropriate official of a State, local, or tribal government, in the case of support for State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies; or
(2) in the case of support described in subsection (c), such support is requested by an appropriate official of a department or agency of the Federal Government, in coordination with the Secretary of State, that has counterdrug responsibilities or responsibilities for countering transnational organized crime.
(b)Types of Support for Agencies of United States.—The purposes for which the Secretary may provide support under subsection (a) for other departments or agencies of the Federal Government or a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies, are the following:
(1) The maintenance and repair of equipment that has been made available to any department or agency of the Federal Government or to any State, local, or tribal government by the Department of Defense for the purposes of—
(A) preserving the potential future utility of such equipment for the Department of Defense; and
(B) upgrading such equipment to ensure compatibility of that equipment with other equipment used by the Department.
(2) The maintenance, repair, or upgrading of equipment (including computer software), other than equipment referred to in paragraph (1) for the purpose of—
(A) ensuring that the equipment being maintained or repaired is compatible with equipment used by the Department of Defense; and
(B) upgrading such equipment to ensure the compatibility of that equipment with equipment used by the Department.
(3) The transportation of personnel of the United States and foreign countries (including per diem expenses associated with such transportation), and the transportation of supplies and equipment, for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime within or outside the United States.
(4) The establishment (including an unspecified minor military construction project) and operation of bases of operations or training facilities for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of the Department of Defense or any Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency within or outside the United States.
(5) Counterdrug or counter-transnational organized crime related training of law enforcement personnel of the Federal Government, of State, local, and tribal governments, including associated support expenses for trainees and the provision of materials necessary to carry out such training.
(6) The detection, monitoring, and communication of the movement of—
(A) air and sea traffic within 25 miles of and outside the geographic boundaries of the United States; and
(B) surface traffic outside the geographic boundary of the United States and within the United States not to exceed 25 miles of the boundary if the initial detection occurred outside of the boundary.
(7) Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.
(8) Establishment of command, control, communications, and computer networks for improved integration of law enforcement, active military, and National Guard activities.
(9) The provision of linguist and intelligence analysis services.
(10) Aerial and ground reconnaissance.

and here is an article specifying WHY IT IS LEGAL

Rob, that article is in reference to the BUDGET, what Trump did was take monies that had already been budgeted but not SPENT and re-appropriate them to this project. BY LAW under both 10USC284 (above) and the national emergency act he is legally able to do this as i have pointed out before. Maybe it was in another thread, but considering you keep restarting new threads with the same old arguments is it any wonder why i think DIDN"T WE DO THIS ALREADY?

[Matrix Dragon]

We do this every time Trump opens his mouth and yet another wave of horseshit flows on out.

EDIT: Speaking of horseshit, would someone please stop him from using the emergency act to try and sell more guns to Saudi FUCKING Arabia?!

[robkelk]

Here is the LAW
Title 10 US Code 284
...

As you quoted and I snipped, Title 10 US Code 284 specifically says:

(7) Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.

It says nothing about building a wall.

and here is an article specifying WHY IT IS LEGAL

Let's quote from that very article:

Can § 284’s authorization to build a “fence” to “block drug smuggling corridors” really be used to build a wall across the entire southern border? Is the wall really a “military construction project” of the sort authorized by § 2808? Does the president’s declaration of national emergency really “require[] use of the armed forces” as required by § 2808?

Three major red flags. That sounds to me like the article is saying it isn't legal.

Rob, that article is in reference to the BUDGET, what Trump did was take monies that had already been budgeted but not SPENT and re-appropriate them to this project. BY LAW under both 10USC284 (above) and the national emergency act he is legally able to do this as i have pointed out before. Maybe it was in another thread, but considering you keep restarting new threads with the same old arguments is it any wonder why i think DIDN"T WE DO THIS ALREADY?

As long as you continue to not acknowledge what is being said to you, it will continue to be said to you. Not necessarily by me, though - you've shown in your conversations with Epsilon that you aren't interested in formal debate, and you've shown right here that you aren't interested in looking at facts (you've even used an article that undermines your position in an attempt to support your position).

[Dartz]

Isn't there a law against using the US Military to do things on US soil?

It's why the national guard gets called in for disaster relief, while the actual military does nothing. I remember being told this - as it's specifically contrary to how things are done here, with the military being an aid (on the request of) the police.

(As an aside, having armed soldiers knock on your door at midnight is still undeniably spooky. But these are actual soldiers and not juist roided up SWAT cowboys so you generally trust them.)

[robkelk]

There's the Posse Comitatus Act, but AFAIK that only applies to civilian law enforcement.

[Mamorien]

(you've even used an article that undermines your position in an attempt to support your position).

If it's good enough for Jonah "This is actually central to my point" Goldberg, maybe Rajvik figures it's good enough for him. (I say "maybe" because I lack the telepathic powers he uses to deduce that anyone arguing from a position that isn't his wants bread lines, death panels, the thousand-year reign of the Antichrist One World Government-Worshipping Religion, and fluoride in children's ice cream. Or whatever irritable mental gesture he's making this week.)

[Labster]

(you've even used an article that undermines your position in an attempt to support your position).

If it's good enough for Jonah "This is actually central to my point" Goldberg, maybe Rajvik figures it's good enough for him. (I say "maybe" because I lack the telepathic powers he uses to deduce that anyone arguing from a position that isn't his wants bread lines, death panels, the thousand-year reign of the Antichrist One World Government-Worshipping Religion, and fluoride in children's ice cream. Or whatever irritable mental gesture he's making this week.)

Can you please keep it courteous in here?  You don't have to use Godwin-adjacent language just when someone disagrees with you repeatedly.  Simply say that anyone who argues for a massive border wall is not arguing rationally and is likely underinformed, and move on.  Like I've said before, he really believes this stuff so countertrolling is not going to make any progress whatsoever.

[robkelk]

In order to become less underinformed, here are some actual numbers about the US/Mexico border, who crosses it, and how that compares to before the current administration.

[Dartz]

Speaking of Walls,

Trump came here.

And while orangemen are popular up north - among a sector of the population anyway - he's been sort of givin the welcome he deserves by everyone not a fucking doonbegger. The Teesh' is being diplomatic, but still had to correct the Trump when he suggested there'd be a wall between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Our border problem is that we'd rather there not be a border there - we'd rather it be in the water somewhere.

[Labster]

Please don't share your idea of putting a border in the water until he's gone, or Donald will come home talking about walling off the Gulf of Mexico with a giant levee.

[hazard]

As if that'll go anywhere, much like the wall. I mean, seriously, even us Dutchmen would look at that and go 'well, that's ambitious. Also, it's impossible without shoving in budgets the size of national GDPs. And that just lets us figure out if it can be done or not.'

And hey, walling off the Gulf of Mexico also allows the draining of the Gulf of Mexico. Can you imagine how much easier it would be to drill for oil in a drained Gulf of Mexico?

It's not.

[classicdrogn]

Perhaps all the revenue the Fuckhead In Chief will drum up after creating a new national emergency by imposing a 5% tarfiff on all goods that cross the border?

[robkelk]

U.S. sanctions against Venezuela driving Venezuelans to the U.S. border - and to other countries between Venezuela and the U.S.

Here we have a classic political stratagem used by both sides over the decades: If you need a crisis but there isn't a crisis, make a crisis. Then, instead of defusing the crisis that you made, you use the crisis to push the project that you wanted to implement. And it's only people who don't vote for your party that suffer.

Teddy Roosevelt was a master at this, even before he became President. {"Remember the Maine!")

[robkelk]

I haven't listened to this one yet - it's a quarter-hour long - but I've been told it's a recording of a 911 call from somebody literally nearly dying to cross the border.

[robkelk]

Uptick of Canadians hit with 5-year bans at U.S. borders called a 'troubling trend'

"You don’t need to do anything wrong to have an expedited removal," said immigration lawyer Andrew Hayes.

Trump's policies are taking money away from the US economy - in that tourists are being turned away.

[Black Aeronaut]

Like I said elsewhere, even if he does get impeached, we'll be feeling the effects of his reign presidency for years to come.