You know, as shitty as it sounds, Trump declaring a national emergency would end up biting the GOP super bad. Not only will it be horrible optics, but it would set precedent for a Democrat president to do the same for climate change or gun deaths or the opiod epidemic.
One of the comments below the article:
I suggest people read the many different definitions of the expression ’to pay for something’ -
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pay+for
It has similarities to joking facetiously about something but not really meaning it just like Trump saying he could shoot somebody and not lose votes or asking Putin for Hillary’s emails. Sadly Democrats and the left don’t understand context so they always fail the ‘nuance’ test !
Wow...
I understand that it sucks to admit that you're wrong, but it's amazing to see the lengths these people go to because they don't want to admit that they were lied to and bought every word of it.
Except it won't because the Democrats literally aren't that evil. This caliber of power abuse is a republican thing. They're fighting dirty because they know they know they can, and no one else is horrible enough to meet them that low.
This is not how it works in reality. Our parties work on a tit-for-tat system where what is done is almost a game of chicken. The moment one party does it, you can bet your ass that the other will do it as soon as they get the chance. There a reason why we look to precedence when deciding to do a lot of things legally speaking. And if Trump abuses this power for something this petty, the Dems will do it too. The president's powers have only increased as time has gone on, historically speaking. No one in the senate will vote to hinder their own in the White House, no matter what happens.
When Dems controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House after 2010 the Dem Senate leader did nothing as bad as what McConnell's doing. Reid removed the filibuster for lower courts and the
Cabinet but it was a move of desperation.
I'm very skeptical on how precedent setting it would be, that'd only be if it actually worked which quite a lot of people believe it would not, and any future president could much better justify a national emergency for climate change anyways given the massive reports written by our own government that we are in a crisis.
"Obviously they're not going to write a cheque."
For a guy that's supposed to tell it like it is, he spends a lot of time clarifying what he actually meant. His supporters should realise this makes him either an objectively poor orator, or a liar (surprise, both are true!)
Yet after two years of believing in the Mexico promise, there'll be people now thinking like "wait what... yeah... that was obvious... I knew that..." and pretending they were in on it.
They've been more common, though. Trump is at, what? 3?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/politics/us-government-shutdowns-budget-chart/index.html
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
