Trump 39: The Return of the Wall

[AmazonGrace]

 

This is fine 

 

[onekidanddone]

11 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I'd prefer solitary for 23 hours a day, with extremely limited opportunities for them to communicate with others.

I’d like to see how Ivanka copes when the guards won’t bleach her hair.

[onekidanddone]

I understand there won't be the votes for an override, but still.  I wonder if McShitFace is going to refuse to bring it to the floor or if there is going to be some arm twisting blackmail threats discussion so the Senators voting no will suddenly change their votes.

Senate seems to have votes to reject Trump’s wall move

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Opponents of President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border appear to have enough Senate votes to reject his move, now that Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky has said he can’t go along with the White House.

The House has voted to derail the action, and if the Senate follows later this month, the measure would go to Trump for his promised veto.

Three other Republican senators have announced they’ll vote “no” — Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Paul makes it four, and assuming that all 47 Democrats and their independent allies go against Trump, that would give opponents 51 votes — just past the majority needed.

Congress is unlikely to have the votes to override.

“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress,” Paul said at a GOP dinner Saturday night at Western Kentucky University, according to the Bowling Green (Ky.) Daily News.

“We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing.”

Many lawmakers opposed to the emergency declaration say it tramples Congress’ constitutional power to control spending and would set a precedent for future Democratic presidents to make such a declaration for their own purposes. They also are concerned Trump would siphon money from home-state projects to barrier construction.

Under the declaration, Trump would divert $3.6 billion from military construction to erect more border barriers. He’s invoking other powers to transfer an additional $3.1 billion to construction.

 

[Alisamer]

3 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

So much to respond to. 

1. Evangelicals will NEVER turn their back on Trump unless and until it is found out that he paid for abortions. 

2. It is almost common knowledge that Trump snorts Adderal before important speeches and rallies. You can tell when he does because of his sniffing.  

3. I'm honestly afraid when Kushner and Donny Jr are indicted or arrested that Trump will resign and run to avoid prosecution. 

1. What do they need, a receipt from Planned Parenthood? Anyone who thinks he has never paid for an abortion is living in fantasyland. If he’d managed to convince Marla to abort Tiffany he’d have paid for it, and he was openly with Marla. I’m positive the only reason we don’t have proof of a random love child from some affair is because he pays for abortions and for the woman’s silence afterward. 

2. Yet again. How did we get from “I didn’t inhale” to this?

3. I’m still surprised he came back from North Korea. His hideout is probably set up in Saudi Arabia, someplace luxurious, but as dumb as he is I have no doubt he’s got an escape plan in place. He will either run or try to take over the government completely. 

[formergothardite]

I'm not even sure evidence of paying for an abortion is enough to stop the evangelical love of Trump, they will just say it is in his past and people need to stop judging him because no one is perfect and we all have sinned. Possible coming out as having a same sex affair in the last year would do it because they do hate the gays, but no matter how awful Trump is, they will forgive him. 

[fraurosena]

20 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I wonder if McShitFace is going to refuse to bring it to the floor

He can't refuse to bring it to the floor. After the House has passed a bill aimed at terminating a national emergency, a Senate vote on that bill is mandatory, and must be held within 18 days of the House passing it. So McTurtle is obligated by law to bring it to the floor. 

[Dandruff]

29 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I'm not even sure evidence of paying for an abortion is enough to stop the evangelical love of Trump, they will just say it is in his past and people need to stop judging him because no one is perfect and we all have sinned.

If the evangelicals could be convinced that most embryos they "save" would likely vote for the Democrats (because their parents were likely pro-choice or they wouldn't be trying to abort), then perhaps they'd reconsider their priorities?  Non-evangelical future votes could interfere with evangelical embryos who will try to win future elections.

[onekidanddone]

30 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

He can't refuse to bring it to the floor. After the House has passed a bill aimed at terminating a national emergency, a Senate vote on that bill is mandatory, and must be held within 18 days of the House passing it. So McTurtle is obligated by law to bring it to the floor. 

Eighteen days is plenty of times for the Senators to change their minds or have it changed for them. I sound negative you say? Well yup I am

[AmazonGrace]

 

Spanky is never responsible for his own screwups

[Ozlsn]

8 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I'm not even sure evidence of paying for an abortion is enough to stop the evangelical love of Trump, they will just say it is in his past and people need to stop judging him because no one is perfect and we all have sinned. Possible coming out as having a same sex affair in the last year would do it because they do hate the gays, but no matter how awful Trump is, they will forgive him. 

And it'll be the woman's fault. Every. Damn. Time. He'll be forgiven, she'll be shamed.

[fraurosena]

11 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Eighteen days is plenty of times for the Senators to change their minds or have it changed for them. I sound negative you say? Well yup I am

Except there are quite a few R's up for re-election and they are pretty damn scared they will loose their elections if they vote against terminating the national emergency. Also, it turns out that Rand Paul is for overturning the national emergency.

Rand Paul Opposes Trump’s Emergency Declaration, Likely Providing Decisive Vote

Quote

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said on Sunday that he would support a resolution that would overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, appearing to provide the crucial vote needed for the Senate to pass the measure.

“I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice,” Mr. Paul wrote in an opinion piece published late Sunday on Fox News’s website. “Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

“I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding” for a wall along the border with Mexico, he wrote, “so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.”

Mr. Paul joins three other Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — in backing the resolution. His support appears to provide the slim majority Democrats need to send the measure to the president’s desk, offering a stinging repudiation of the declaration.

The House, largely on party lines, passed the resolution on Tuesday, and under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the Senate is required to vote on the resolution in the coming weeks. Mr. Trump has said he would veto the measure, and it is unlikely that either chamber could muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

But with several lawsuits already filed in court, a resolution of disapproval from Congress — the simplest mechanism for lawmakers to challenge a declaration — could help opponents of the declaration.

Mr. Paul, a Kentucky libertarian who frequently rails against government spending and often has no qualms about bucking his party, urged his Republican colleagues to recall their frustration with President Barack Obama’s use of executive power. He warned about the legal merits of the order, writing that “I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.”

He had signaled in remarks on Saturday at the Southern Kentucky Lincoln Day Dinner that he would vote for the resolution, saying he was opposed to giving “extra-constitutional powers to the president,” according to The Bowling Green Daily News.

But with time before the Senate has to vote, Mr. Trump and his allies have an opportunity to lobby Mr. Paul. Such tactics have been successful before: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was poised to give Mike Pompeo’s nomination as secretary of state an unfavorable recommendation until Mr. Paul bowed to pressure and gave his approval.

Mr. Trump, who was repeatedly denied wall funding by lawmakers, hopes to use $3.6 billion from military construction projects to fulfill his campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border. He has dismissed concerns about the precedent, saying in a speech on Saturday that “they’re going to do that anyway, folks.”

Some Republican senators — including Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — have voiced concerns about the effect on military readiness, seeking assurances that projects in their states will not be affected. The Defense Department has yet to release a list of projects affected.

Others, including Mr. Paul, have objected to a possible overreach of executive power that future presidents could take advantage of. But few have been willing to publicly say how they will vote on the resolution.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said it was “unnecessary and unwise to turn a border crisis into a constitutional crisis about the separation of powers” in a floor speech on Thursday, where he outlined other means for obtaining funds.

“There is no limit to the imagination of what the next left-wing president could do to harm our country with this precedent,” he added. But pressed by reporters, he declined to reveal his planned vote.

“I learned a long time ago in the United States Senate, it’s not wise to announce how you will vote on a vote you may never have to take,” he said.

Conversely, Ms. Collins joined Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, in introducing a resolution of disapproval on Thursday. Ms. Murkowski joined the pair in co-sponsoring the resolution.

 

[onekidanddone]

2 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Except there are quite a few R's up for re-election and they are pretty damn scared they will loose their elections if they vote against terminating the national emergency. Also, it turns out that Rand Paul is for overturning the national emergency.

Rand Paul Opposes Trump’s Emergency Declaration, Likely Providing Decisive Vote

 

Yup saw that last night. TurtleShit must be having a hissy because Paul is his Junior Senator from Kentucky 

[fraurosena]

5 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Yup saw that last night. TurtleShit must be having a hissy because Paul is his Junior Senator from Kentucky 

Or, and this is pure wishful speculation here, McTurtle is actually fine with it. Because in all honesty, it's not in McTurtle's own best interests to cede congressional power to the executive. Yes, I know he said that he would support the national emergency declaration. But i think he may have only said that because it was the only way he could get the presidunce to sign the funding bill and stave of a second shutdown. He may be playing a con on the presidunce, and only superficially supporting the emergency. 

[AmazonGrace]

This goes to the code talking thing, Cohen didn't get that those hints were orders

[47of74]

 

Hell of it is that he probably didn’t.

[formergothardite]

19 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

This goes to the code talking thing, Cohen didn't get that those hints were orders

Trump always talking in code might be his loophole to escape blame. 

I'm terrified at what is going to happen in 2020. Trump is going to be using everything in his power to rig the election so he can win. I also don't think that if he loses he will show up for the next inauguration. Or if he does he will cause a scene. 

[GreyhoundFan]

He's the greatest ever (end sarcasm): "President Trump has made 9,014 false or misleading claims over 773 days"

Spoiler

Powered by his two-hour stemwinder at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 2 — which featured more than 100 false or misleading claims — President Trump is on pace to exceed his daily quota set during his first two years in office.

The president averaged nearly 5.9 false or misleading claims a day in his first year in office. He hit nearly 16.5 a day in his second year. So far in 2019, he’s averaging nearly 22 claims a day.

As of the end of March 3, the 773rd day of his term in office, Trump accumulated 9,014 fishy claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.

Trump’s performance at CPAC is emblematic of his version of the truth during his presidency — a potent mix of exaggerated numbers, unwarranted boasting and outright falsehoods. His speech helped push March 3 to his fourth-biggest day for false or misleading claims, totaling 104.

The speech included his greatest hits: 131 times he has falsely said he passed the biggest tax cut in history, 126 times he has falsely said his border wall is already being built, and 116 times he has asserted that the U.S. economy today is the best in history. All three of those claims are on The Fact Checker’s list of Bottomless Pinocchios, as well as other claims Trump made during his CPAC speech.

Since the Bottomless Pinocchio list was introduced in December, it has continued to grow. The president now has 20 claims that qualify.

Here’s a sampling of other claims from the CPAC address, drawn from the database:

“A state called Michigan, where — by the way — where Fiat Chrysler just announced a four and a half billion dollar incredible expansion and new plant doubling their workforce. Many, many car companies have moved back to Michigan and are continuing to do so.”

Fiat Chrysler did announce this expansion in Michigan, but Trump leaves out that it announced 1,500 layoffs in Illinois at the same time. It’s a big exaggeration to say many car companies have moved back to Michigan, though Chrysler has announced several new investments there under Trump.

“The Green New Deal … No planes. No energy.”

The Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution in Congress, and it would not ban air travel or energy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a sponsor, released an FAQ document alongside the resolution that mused about banning air travel. But it was not a definitive call to end air travel, and, in any case, Ocasio-Cortez retracted the FAQ within days.

“When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.”

Nope. Wind turbines do not generate power when there’s no wind, but the power grid can handle this variability.

“I’ve learned because, with the fake news, if you tell a joke, if you’re sarcastic, if you’re having fun with the audience, if you’re in live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like, ‘Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton’s emails. Please, Russia, please. Please get us the emails! Please!’ So everybody’s having a good time, I’m laughing, we’re all having fun. And then that fake CNN and others say, ‘He asked Russia to go get the emails.’ Horrible.”

Trump in previous comments has said earnestly that he wanted Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s emails. In July 2016, he said it gave him “no pause” to call for these emails’ release.

“Of the 25 [percentage] points [in the China tariffs], we’ve paid for 4 points and China’s paid for 21 points. Okay? Twenty-one. That’s what the numbers are, it’s very simple. You know everyone said, ‘Oh, it’s a tax on our…’ It’s not really. And what China and other countries do sometimes is they will subsidize it.”

Trump appears to be quoting from a study by European economists that predicted that a 25 percentage point increase in tariffs raises U.S. consumer prices on all affected Chinese products by only 4.5 percent on average, while the producer price of Chinese firms declines by 20.5 percent. The study was released in November, using previous released studies from the 1990s, not actual data on prices. But a paper published the day before Trump spoke, by three prominent U.S. economists, found exactly the opposite had happened when actual trade data was studied.

“Overall, using standard economic methods, we find that the full incidence of the tariff falls on domestic consumers, with a reduction in U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018,” the economists reported. “We find that the U.S. tariffs were almost completely passed through into U.S. domestic prices, so that the entire incidence of the tariffs fell on domestic consumers and importers up to now, with no impact so far on the prices received by foreign exporters. We also find that U.S. producers responded to reduced import competition by raising their prices.”

Another paper, published March 3, found similar results, with the impact heaviest in Republican counties. “We estimate that the U.S. economy has lost $68.8 billion due to higher import prices,” the economists concluded.

“Robert Mueller put 13 of the angriest Democrats in the history of our country on the commission. Now how do you do that? These are angry, angry people; you take a look at them. One of them was involved with the Hillary Clinton foundation, running it.”

Eleven out of 16 attorneys on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team made public have contributed to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The other five have no record of political contributions, though the Daily Caller says 13 are registered Democrats. One attorney who donated the maximum amount represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 lawsuit; she did not run it as Trump claimed. Another attorney without a record of political donations represented a Clinton aide at one point. Both attorneys worked for WilmerHale, a firm that also represents Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, as well as Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Moreover, under federal law, Mueller is not allowed to consider the political leanings of his staff when hiring them. Mueller was a registered Republican when he was nominated to be FBI director in 2001, but is considered apolitical.

“That’s the other thing. If you use your rights, you use your power, if you use Article II, it’s called obstruction, but only for Trump, for nobody else.”

Obstruction of justice charges were part of the impeachment resolutions against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. Trump has not been formally accused by anyone of obstructing justice, though some Democratic lawmakers believe he did so. Potential obstruction also appears to be a line of inquiry for the special counsel, according to news reports.

“We never had an empty seat. We went out and helped Ted Cruz. We went out and helped so many people. And I’ll tell you what, if we didn’t do those 32 rallies — and it wasn’t easy when you’re doing rallies with 25, 30 thousand people.”

There were empty seats at Trump’s Houston rally with Cruz. “Many hundreds of seats were empty, including all of the boxes on both tiers of the mezzanine,” the Dallas Morning News reported.

“You have the best employment and unemployment numbers we’ve ever had.”

False. More people are working than ever before as a consequence of steady population growth, but the labor force participation rate is below levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s. The unemployment rate has declined but not achieved record lows under Trump.

“And one of the other things we did in our tax package is … [allowing oil drilling in] perhaps the largest field in the world oil and gas. I got it approved.”

Trump signed legislation allowing drilling in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The drillable portions of the area are not the largest in the world (it’s a relatively small area), and oil production capacity is less than that of Saudi Arabia, according to congressional Republicans.

“One in three women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north.”

It’s undeniable that there is a pattern of women suffering sexual abuse on the journey north, but it’s hard to quantify. This 1-in-3 statistic comes from Doctors Without Borders, which interviewed 56 women for a report in 2017 and found that 31.4 percent were “sexually abused” on the journey; 10.7 percent were raped. But the figure was not based on a random sample and thus is not representative of the entire migrant population traveling through Mexico.

“Nobody shows up [for immigration hearings]. Three percent of the people come back for a trial. It’s insane.”

Justice Department data show 60 percent to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. For the specific group of migrants Trump was addressing, asylum-seekers, data suggest the return rate is even higher. The data for a program that Trump ended in June show participants had a 100 percent attendance record at court hearings. They also had a 99 percent rate of check-ins and appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

“We had a rally at the airport [in Macon, Ga.] where 55,000 people showed up to the airport. It was one hangar. They had three other hangars that were full. They went so far back.”

Trump says he filled airport hangars — not one but four! — during a rally with Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp in Georgia. He previously claimed it was two hangars. But there was only one hangar. The crowd at this event was divided in three: the people inside, the people just outside the open hangar, and a third group watching a TV screen on a different part of the premises, sandwiched between the airport and a corporate office.

Kemp’s campaign estimated that 10,000 people attended in total, and the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office estimated 12,500 inside and nearly 6,000 outside, according to a fact-check by WMAZ. The overflow crowd sandwiched between the airport and the corporate office numbered in the “hundreds,” according to Atlanta magazine. The most generous tally, 18,500, is a far cry from the 55,000 Trump claimed.

“One administration gave billions of dollars to him [North Korea] and got nothing, and we haven’t given him anything yet.”

Trump may not have given North Korea cash but he has elevated the country’s dictator on the international stage and given Kim Jong Un fodder for propaganda back home. He also exaggerates the money that previous presidents gave to North Korea. Under Bill Clinton’s 1994 accord with North Korea, between 1995 and 2003 the United States spent about $400 million supplying the fuel oil to North Korea that was required under the deal, according to the Congressional Research Service. An international consortium spent about $2.5 billion to replace the North’s plutonium reactor with two light-water reactors; the project was not completed before the deal collapsed but the money mostly went to South Korean and Japanese companies, not North Korea. North Korea received some payments for incidentals, like phone lines, but it mostly just got the oil.

Trump says Clinton got “nothing,” but while the deal was in place, North Korea’s nuclear program was frozen and the regime did not have access to nuclear material for weapons production; Pyongyang’s stash of plutonium in spent fuel rods was kept in cooling ponds under the constant supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. When the deal collapsed in a dispute with the Bush administration, North Korea broke the seals, removed the rods and began building nuclear weapons.

More than a quarter of Trump’s claims since he became president, 2,574, came during remarks during press events. An additional 2,088 came during remarks during his campaign rallies, and 1,576 were the result of the president’s itchy Twitter finger. Another 1,374 occurred during interviews.

In terms of subjects, false or misleading claims about immigration top the list, totaling 1,688. Claims about foreign policy was second, at 1,015, followed by claims about trade (939), the economy (840) and jobs (815).

 

[onekidanddone]

32 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Trump always talking in code might be his loophole to escape blame. 

I'm terrified at what is going to happen in 2020. Trump is going to be using everything in his power to rig the election so he can win. I also don't think that if he loses he will show up for the next inauguration. Or if he does he will cause a scene. 

I see him refusing to come out of the White House. The scariest time as I’ve said before is between the election and the inauguration. He will be holding rallies to get his supporters into a lather and urge violence 

[fraurosena]

33 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Trump always talking in code might be his loophole to escape blame. 

I'm terrified at what is going to happen in 2020. Trump is going to be using everything in his power to rig the election so he can win. I also don't think that if he loses he will show up for the next inauguration. Or if he does he will cause a scene. 

You know I'm ever the optimist. But I am being real here, not optimistic. I do not believe that he will be running in 2020. He will be impeached and removed from office* before the end of this year. Why do I believe that? With all the House committees now digging into not only his Russian connections, but also his finances, the emoluments, the nepotism, the security issues and anything and everything about this presiduncy, things will start moving quickly soon. In a couple of months they will have unearthed a lot of evidence of nefarious, treasonous and traitorous actions by the whole administration and the presidunce in particular. Once there is such a deluge of evidence, there will be R's that are going to support impeachment. Remember Nixon? He was protected by the R's right up till the end, until there was irrefutable evidence. And then they turned on him. That will happen again. I guess by the end of summer, the beginning of the fall. 

*Mind you, he won't be leaving voluntarily, or without a fuss. I think the 25th amendment will come into play. But he will be removed. And then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. His days will end in ignominy and in prison.  

[formergothardite]

29 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

But I am being real here, not optimistic. I do not believe that he will be running in 2020. He will be impeached and removed from office* before the end of this year.

I so hope you are right! My husband thinks that his taxes will in the end be his undoing. He keeps telling me that once they really start digging into his finances Trump is screwed. I think 2016 scarred a whole bunch of us for life. I know that I'm scared to get my hopes up after being so sure there was no way Trump would win and then seeing him win. 

[smittykins]

I sincerely hope you’re right, @fraurosena.

[AnywhereButHere]

18 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I'm not even sure evidence of paying for an abortion is enough to stop the evangelical love of Trump, they will just say it is in his past and people need to stop judging him because no one is perfect and we all have sinned. Possible coming out as having a same sex affair in the last year would do it because they do hate the gays, but no matter how awful Trump is, they will forgive him. 

Seriously. His base is so far gone that you could serve them shit on a plate, and they'd insist it was meatloaf.

[47of74]

Seriously. His base is so far gone that you could serve them shit on a plate, and they'd insist it was meatloaf.

Fuckhead could serve them glasses of MD 20/20 or Wild Irish Rose, tell them he’s serving them 1947 Chateau Cheval Blanc ($303,000 per 6l bottle), and they’d believe him. And get mad and totally deny the reality of what they were drinking.

[Audrey2]

2 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

 

Fuckhead could serve them glasses of MD 20/20 or Wild Irish Rose, tell them he’s serving them 1947 Chateau Cheval Blanc ($303,000 per 6l bottle), and they’d believe him. And get mad and totally deny the reality of what they were drinking.

 

Or, he could just give them Boone's Farm "wine"  to drink. They'd insist he had given them the finest wine. They couldn't tell the difference.

[47of74]

1 minute ago, Audrey2 said:

Or, he could just give them Boone's Farm "wine"  to drink. They'd insist he had given them the finest wine. They couldn't tell the difference.