That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Of course not!LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:36 pm Isn't this essentially the same bill from day 1 of the shutdown?
LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:01 pmI thought her name was McGill.Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:42 pmIf I'm to believe internet policy scholars, if Trump invokes an emergency, Pelosi (he calls her Nancy) will require a Y/N vote of support for this action - in both the House and the Senate. Nothing would make me happier than to have these weasels on record for supporting funds being shuffled around for a goddamn wall.YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:29 pmI love that this party now has to deal with the monster they've been coddling.
While I can't vouch for it's authenticity, it appears that's exactly what he's doing.
So #AirForceOne heading off to Florida on Friday - This was marked 'NOT REPORTABLE' & 'NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR BROADCAST'
7:00 PM
Official Schedule
The President and THE FIRST LADY arrive at Mar-a-Lago
Palm Beach, FL
Out-of-Town Travel Poo
Governing is hard and they have his favorite juice box and graham crackers on hand. Now served by the hands of true Americans since the Trump Resort purge.Skinypupy wrote:While I can't vouch for it's authenticity, it appears that's exactly what he's doing.
So #AirForceOne heading off to Florida on Friday - This was marked 'NOT REPORTABLE' & 'NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR BROADCAST'
I am going to cut the guy some slack, I'm actually surprised at the amount of ongoing national emergencies we have in place.coopasonic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:48 am Come on guys, it's President's Day weekend, cut the guy some slack.
Exactly. I'm not opposed to the declaration of an emergency, as it's something that has been done many times before, for a multitude of reasons. I am wildly opposed to using it as an alternative funding mechanism when Congress has already said not just "no", but "hell no".LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:52 am Though not a single national emergency on the list is funding end around.
You have to make sure you find the best place to stop for those. I prefer fast food restaurants over convenience stores. But a truck stop probably has better odds.
And then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
Get funds from "unallocated money" to fund an independent study on gun violence and mass shootings for one thing.stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
Is there any affirmative congressional authorization supporting the building of The Wall? If there isn't, then Trump's argument is that a national emergency authorizes him to do *anything* with money on hand (probably except for things explicitly forbidden by existing statutes)? If so, I don't see any reason why a national emergency wouldn't support, say, the use of funding to impose background check requirements at gun shows. Or....pretty much anything else.stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
But we will have our TOP MEN monitoring the border crisis for any incursions of DUCT TAPE!
Please. We all know that after "executive time" ends this morning, he needs to watch his TiVo'd airing of Fox and Friends to figure out what his plan will be for signing or not signing this afternoon.
If a dim ever getting elected President again they should try that.
Shit, man. What couldn't they do?stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
3 words for ya......NRA.Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:50 amShit, man. What couldn't they do?stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
If Trump's imaginary self-created crisis can count as a National Emergency that allows him to route billions of dollars to a wall no one wants, why not run a National Emergency and simply outlaw anything that holds more than 6 bullets, or limit house holds to no more than 1 gun each? It makes about as much sense.
Well, there are constitutional challenges that a Wall doesn't face. Anything that requires a new law would probably be a challenge to get into place. However, a gun registry, enhanced checks, maybe even taxes on gun manufacturers and gun purchases might be doable and just a start.
I...so what?
Or how about something simple like allowing the CDC to actually study some of the root causes around gun violence so we have a better understanding of how and why this happens.Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:50 amShit, man. What couldn't they do?stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
If Trump's imaginary self-created crisis can count as a National Emergency that allows him to route billions of dollars to a wall no one wants, why not run a National Emergency and simply outlaw anything that holds more than 6 bullets, or limit house holds to no more than 1 gun each? It makes about as much sense.
For a democratic president, having the NRA go nuts is probably a political benefit rather than a problem.stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:59 am3 words for ya......NRA.Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:50 amShit, man. What couldn't they do?stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:03 amAnd then do what? What exactly would a National Emergency pertaining to gun violence entail?Paingod wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:20 am I am loving Pelosi openly saying "Hey, if Trump can declare a border wall and the crisis he's inventing a National Emergency, then surely a Democratic President can declare Gun Violence an emergency too!"
I'm sure somewhere there's a lot of deeply red people feeling deeply red.
If Trump's imaginary self-created crisis can count as a National Emergency that allows him to route billions of dollars to a wall no one wants, why not run a National Emergency and simply outlaw anything that holds more than 6 bullets, or limit house holds to no more than 1 gun each? It makes about as much sense.
I was talking about the hypothetical instance of the Dems declaring a national emergency over gun violence.
But the point is that it shifts the relevant policy-making power to the presidency. If they can't influence the policy of the Democratic president....they're out of luck. I mean, in theory they could lobby Congress to pass a law prohibiting what the president is doing, but the president can veto that, and good luck getting to a 2/3rds majority to override.stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:40 pmI was talking about the hypothetical instance of the Dems declaring a national emergency over gun violence.
The NRA has been able to stymie any real changes in the laws. I'm sure they'd throw their whole weight behind stopping that.
He understands it better than anyone. He was an apprentice for a decade and then the master for a decade after.
This is the entire point of what is being discussed. Congress is no longer part of the equation.El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:09 pmBut the point is that it shifts the relevant policy-making power to the presidency. If they can't influence the policy of the Democratic president....they're out of luck. I mean, in theory they could lobby Congress to pass a law prohibiting what the president is doing, but the president can veto that, and good luck getting to a 2/3rds majority to override.
President Trump signed into law today (Friday) a bill to head off another partial government shutdown and provide an average 1.9 percent federal employee raise retroactive to the first full pay period of this year, which started January 6.
White House and congressional negotiators rushing to hammer out the final details of a sweeping budget and debt deal are unlikely to include many — if any — actual spending cuts, even as the debt limit is lifted for two years, people familiar with the talks said.
The agreement appeared likely to mark a retreat for White House officials who had demanded major spending cuts in exchange for a new budget deal. But the process remained in limbo while negotiators awaited final approval late Sunday from President Trump.
The pending deal would seek to extend the debt ceiling and set new spending levels for two years, ratcheting back the budget brinkmanship that led to a record-long government shutdown earlier this year.
But instead of the $150 billion in new spending cuts recently demanded by White House acting budget director Russell Vought, the agreement would include a significantly lower amount of reductions. And those reductions aren’t expected to represent actual spending cuts, in part because most would take place in future years and likely be reversed by Congress at a later date. A precise figure could not be learned.
Details remained fluid and subject to change, according to the people describing the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details.
In practical terms, the budget agreement would increase spending by tens of billions of dollars in the next two years, a stark reversal from the White House’s budget request several months ago that sought to slash spending at many agencies starting in October.