Is it worse to lose your ethics or lose your country?
I know what answer the gop had
1 Like
If we are going to so reduce the initially mild expression of a now obviously silly hope that the Democrats may aspire to be slightly better than Trump, may try and repair some of the damage done to norms and institutions, that we are left with such a question then what country will it be without ethics? Maybe over a long enough timetable you lose it both ways.
1 Like
Yep. Gingrich gave the answer in '94, and they’ve just gotten worse and worse over the next 25 years. They are an empty dried out husk ethically, and Dump is at the zenith of the pyre they hopefully incinerate on.
If I were the Dems I’d be letting trump set the precident of using “it’s a national emergency” to justify executive action.
It’ll cost trump more political capital and it won’t do anything other than give a few jobs to some Polish builders and ■■■■ off some land owners who are gonna have a wall cutting off part of their property. And it will be a failed project that either never gets going or has the cost blow out.
And then when the Dems are in power, boom, Universal Health care “its a national emergency”, climate change? “it’s a national emergency”, Gun control? “national emergency”
Trump should be at the nadir rather than zenith.
Just saying.
3 Likes
I get the argument, and I’m sympathetic, but the problem is that the repubs will eventually get in again after the dems (there seems to be zero career penalty in politics for being an utter failure)
Then it’s woman are having abortions? “National emergency” Fossil fuel companies in danger because of environmenta/emissionsl regulations? "“National emergency” It looks like the President will be impeached for being a corrupt scumbucket? “National emergency” One random guy on Fox News claims that dems are election tampering? “National emergency”
It’s kinda the prisoners dilemma for the Dems. If they choose to emulate repub tactics, then they burn the whole constitution and rule of law to ash, and basically US politics becomes a winner-take-all game of who can cheat the hardest. If they don’t, they’re hamstringing themselves and the Repubs have an advantage forever because they’re perfectly willing to use tactics outside the law that Dems would refuse to.
2 Likes
Gingrich is at the nadir, … the pyres been built on the fkr.
Trump is peak GOP fucktardness, and has to be atop the flaming turd stack. 
A national emergency to end all the national emergencies?
The national security powers are due only to legislation passed by Congress. They don’t bypass the Constitution and Trump’s proposal will definitely be tested in the Supreme Court. If things get out of hand Congress can always make changes to the law.
I did scroll up to 9 days ago and couldn’t see it posted. But I can also miss things very easily so sincere apologies if I’m going over old news.
This is a very simple way of explaining how easy it is to be corrupt with the current system in the USA. I like the way AOC is going about things so far
7 Likes
She’s a cracker.
Nothing will probably change, … but she’s at least getting it out there for even the dumbest to understand.
4 Likes
Opinion | We have a national emergency, all right. Its name is Donald Trump.
By Eugene Robinson
5-6 minutes
President Trump during his State of the Union address on Feb. 5. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
We have a national emergency, all right. Its name is Donald Trump, and it is a force of mindless, pointless disruption.
The president’s decision to officially declare an emergency — to pretend to build an unbuildable border wall — is not only an act of constitutional vandalism. It is also an act of cowardice, a way to avoid the wrath of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the far-right commentariat.
It is an end run around Congress and, as such, constitutes a violation of his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — which gives Congress, not the president, the authority to decide how public money is spent. It does not give Trump the right to fund projects that Congress will not approve. Authoritarian leaders do that sort of thing. The puffed-up wannabe strongman now living in the White House is giving it a try.
Let’s be clear: There is no emergency. Arrests for illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border peaked in 2000, nearly two decades ago, at more than 1.5 million a year. They declined sharply under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and, in 2017, were at their lowest point since 1971. In 2018, apprehensions ticked up slightly — but still barely climbed above 400,000.
There has indeed been an increase in families presenting themselves at legal points of entry to seek asylum — those groups of bedraggled Central Americans that Trump calls “caravans.” Under U.S. and international law, these people have an undisputed right to ask for asylum and have their cases evaluated. Again, they come to legal border crossings to seek admission. Only a handful try to navigate the forbidding rural terrain where Trump says he wants to build a wall.
What the administration really needs to do is expand and improve facilities for processing, caring for and, when necessary, housing these asylum seekers. But Trump doesn’t care about doing the right thing, or even the necessary thing. He cares only about being able to claim he is following through on his vicious anti-immigration rhetoric, which brands Mexican would-be migrants as “rapists” and Central Americans as members of the MS-13 street gang.
Trump had two years in which Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate — and could not persuade Congress to give him funding for a wall. He decided to make it an issue only after Democrats won the power to say no. The president’s negotiating strategy — pitching tantrums, walking away from the table, venting on Twitter, provoking the longest partial government shutdown in history — was never going to work. You might think he would have learned something about how Washington works by now, but you would be wrong.
Because there obviously is no legitimate emergency, Trump’s declaration — and the shifting of resources from duly authorized projects to the wall — will surely be challenged in court. It is possible, if not likely, that any actual construction will be held up indefinitely.
Indeed, legal briefs arguing against Trump’s action practically write themselves. An emergency, by definition, is urgent. The 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, clearly qualified as a national emergency. But Trump has been talking about issuing an emergency declaration to build the wall for a couple of months. If such action wasn’t necessary in December, some judge will surely ask, then why now?
Money for the wall will have to be taken from other projects, all of which have constituencies in Congress and among the public. Ranchers and others whose land would have to be taken by eminent domain for the wall will be up in arms.
Politically, Trump carelessly put Republican senators in a tough spot. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may have the House pass a resolution of disapproval, which the Senate would be compelled to take up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his caucus would have to decide whether to support a presidential power grab they know is unwise — or oppose Trump and risk the ire of the GOP base.
One of the most strident Republican criticisms of Obama was that he took executive actions that should have been the purview of Congress. But this action by Trump goes much further and sets a dangerous precedent.
What would keep the next Democratic president from declaring an emergency, in the wake of some mass shooting, and imposing a ban on assault weapons? Is that what McConnell wants as his legacy?
Trump cares only that his base is mollified. And that nobody remembers how Mexico was supposed to foot the bill.
Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
No. The national emergency is that anyone could take 5-6 minutes to read that. 3, tops.
Though I guess reading isn’t needed for the top position in the country.
3 Likes
Monday 18 February is a Federal Holiday in USA for Washingtons Birthday; it is called Presidents Day !!!
The celebrations this year may be interesting in some States.
“The worlds going to end in 12 years”…yeah she has a very very very simple way of explaining things.
As always, the full quote can make all the difference, …
Speaking at an event held yesterday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) explained why she believes younger Americans are in favor of radical action when it comes [to combating climate change, …
"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’" Ocasio-Cortez told interviewer Tanehisi Coates at an “MLK Now” event in New York.
And that was after referencing this latest report, …
…and previously saying hers and the next Generation is scared and freaking out about the situation. It was a figure of speech to express the exasperation they all feel about the inaction.
It’s not like she’s walking around with a fkn sandwich board screaming “Repent sinners the End is nigh.” It was the equvalent of “We’re gonna be stuffed, and you Old Farks don’t give a shitt!”
All a matter of where some bullshitters choose to start and end quotes really, 
Context really is everything.
4 Likes
Yes 
That really is handy. She is going to need dumb people to agree with socialism.
1 Like