MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
But the bottom line here is that Trump — and Miller — want other things at least as much, or perhaps even more, than they want the wall. They want deep cuts to legal immigration, and legal changes that will make it easier to lock up families indefinitely, on the grounds that this cruel prospect will dissuade migrants from trying to seek refuge in the U.S. The only way they’ll make a deal on the dreamers is for those things. This, even though we already know asylum seekers are driven by truly terrible conditions at home, meaning such deterrence is unlikely to work, and even though we already saw that even the cruelty of family separations didn’t have this effect.
There is no negotiating with this president, and the White House has helpfully confirmed it.
In the weeks leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, President Donald Trump reached deep into his arsenal to try to deliver votes to Republicans.
Most of his weapons were rhetorical, featuring a mix of lies and false inducements—claims that every congressional Democrat had signed on to an “open borders” bill (none had), that liberals were fomenting violent “mobs” (they weren’t), that a 10 percent tax cut for the middle class would somehow pass while Congress was out of session (it didn’t). But a few involved the aggressive use—and threatened misuse—of presidential authority: He sent thousands of active-duty soldiers to the southern border to terrorize a distant caravan of desperate Central American migrants, announced plans to end the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship by executive order, and tweeted that law enforcement had been “strongly notified” to be on the lookout for “ILLEGAL VOTING.”
These measures failed to carry the day, and Trump will likely conclude that they were too timid. How much further might he go in 2020, when his own name is on the ballot—or sooner than that, if he’s facing impeachment by a House under Democratic control?
More is at stake here than the outcome of one or even two elections. Trump has long signaled his disdain for the concepts of limited presidential power and democratic rule. During his 2016 campaign, he praised murderous dictators. He declared that his opponent, Hillary Clinton, would be in jail if he were president, goading crowds into frenzied chants of “Lock her up.” He hinted that he might not accept an electoral loss. As democracies around the world slide into autocracy, and nationalism and antidemocratic sentiment are on vivid display among segments of the American populace, Trump’s evident hostility to key elements of liberal democracy cannot be dismissed as mere bluster.
It would be nice to think that America is protected from the worst excesses of Trump’s impulses by its democratic laws and institutions. After all, Trump can do only so much without bumping up against the limits set by the Constitution and Congress and enforced by the courts. Those who see Trump as a threat to democracy comfort themselves with the belief that these limits will hold him in check.
But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.
This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.
On Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump and Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi met at the White House in hopes of working toward a deal to end a government shutdown that is now on the verge of stretching into its second week.
Schumer emerged from the meeting and told reporters that Trump had threatened to keep the government shut down for “a very long time — months or even years.” A short time later, Trump held a news conference in the Rose Garden that encapsulated all the traits that make him next to impossible to negotiate with.
...
Tariffs are taxes paid by importers on imported goods. So, for instance, the cost of a US-imposed tariff on a Chinese product is paid by the US company purchasing that product from China; it is not paid by the Chinese government.
Yet on more than one occasion during the news conference, Trump claimed that the US has taken in “billions and billions of dollars in tariffs from China.”
Trump’s lack of policy knowledge goes beyond tariffs. He repeatedly failed to justify his claim that a trade deal that hasn’t yet been approved by Congress (USMCA, the revised version of NAFTA the Trump administration negotiated with Mexico and Canada) will somehow result in Mexico fulfilling his campaign promise to pay for a border wall.
He also lamented that Apple, which announced lower earnings than expected this week, won’t simply relocate all of its production to the US, despite labor cost factors that make that a virtual impossibility at present.
...
If Democrats don’t ultimately bend to his will, Trump said he may grant himself emergency powers to build the wall without congressional approval.
“I can do it if I want,” Trump said. “We can call a national emergency because of the security of our country, absolutely ... I may do it.”
Trump’s case for declaring such an emergency would be stronger if there was evidence that the lack of a border wall presents a national security risk — but there isn’t. That reality, combined with the fact that Congress hasn’t appropriated money for the wall, indicates Trump would face legal challenges if he goes this route.
“I don’t think that this is a real possibility given the restrictions already in place on how money can and cannot be used,” Todd Harrison a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News. “It is against the law to use money for purposes other than it was appropriated without getting prior approval from Congress. I don’t think declaring a national emergency would make a difference in this case, so I don’t think their theory holds much water.”
During the news conference, Trump also indicated he has no qualms about using eminent domain to seize large swaths of land for the wall — a position that puts him at odds with factions of his own party.
PUTIN TALKING POINTS
https://claytoonz.com/2019/01/05/putin-talking-points/
Did you know the reason the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 was because of terrorism? Did you know the Soviet Union had the right to invade them? Did you know it led to the Soviet Union being called “Russia” today? Yeah, me neither.
First, a quick little history lesson.
Afghanistan was a puppet government of the Soviet Union. When an insurgency popped up, initially backed by Pakistan and Iran, the Soviet Union invaded to protect their puppet state. Their justification was the Brezhnev Doctrine, which was a policy they used to justify their “right” to intervene in the affairs of communist countries. This was a big deal during the Cold War and the Soviets had argued this policy when intervening in uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, retroactively. Russians are real big about revisionism, which we’ll get to in a minute.
Leonid Brezhnev was the head of the Soviet Union and he sent Soviet forces into his southern neighbor where they fought for ten years trying to protect communism. By the end of the war, the Soviets lost nearly 15,000 soldiers and their Afghan allies lost around 18,000. It’s estimated they had killed between 75,000 to 90,000 of the Mujahideen, the forces trying to restore Afghanistan back to an Islamist state.
Between 562,000 to two million civilians were killed with around three million wounded. There were about five million refugees and two million displaced.
The United States, along with the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, West Germany, Pakistan, and China, were aiding the Mujahideen (which included the likes of Osama bin Laden). Go rent Charlie Wilson’s War.
President Jimmy Carter’s administration opposed the Soviet invasion and even boycotted participating in the Moscow Olympics over it. President Ronald Reagan continued Carter’s policy of support against the Soviet Union. These were two presidents, Democratic and Republican who knew that the Russians were not our friend.
Earlier this week while engaging in an incoherent rant at a cabinet meeting, Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, said, “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally, they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia because of Afghanistan.”
His rambling kinda reminded me of my college history professor, who was also insane. He once went on a rant about how great Montreal was until draft dodging American hippies went up there and pooped on the sidewalks. The subject we were on was not Vietnam or Canadian history. Fortunately, it wasn’t on the test.
I don’t know if my college professor was accurate at any part of his rant, or if he was off his meds like our president, but everything Donald Trump said was bullshit.
The war was not about terrorism, they did not have the right to be there, and Afghanistan is just one of many factors leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But where did Donald Trump get this idea about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I was a kid and I remember all of this, so surely an old orange racist fart like Donald Trump would remember it. Right? Since there has never been any sort of revisionist campaign in this nation about the Soviet’s invasion, how could Trump come up with such a cockamamie description? Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has much control over Trump, has initiated a propaganda campaign describing the war exactly as Donald Trump did. So, did Trump get this description from his master? Probably, but when? Did Putin feed it into his head during their private off-the-record chat in Helsinki? Probably.
Once again, Trump is doing Putin’s bidding. He’s advocating for Russian propaganda and even that nation’s pride. He’s arguing they had the right to invade their neighbor, underscoring American policy and patriotism of Presidents Carter and Reagan.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a friend to Trump’s policies and owned by Rupert Murdoch, called Trump’s history lesson “reprehensible.”
They wrote, “We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President.”
I can’t recall a more absurd human to occupy the office of the American presidency. I also can’t recall one more stupid, racist, traitorous, despicable, stupid, sexists, and appeasing to Russia.
Did I mention “stupid” more than once? I’m fine with that.
Trump is Putin’s puppet and he appeases him again and again. He’s defended Russia’s attack on our democracy and now he’s advocating for Putin’s propaganda. I think Trump’s comments is further justification for his impeachment. I hope Mueller is taking notes.
Trump and Putin are trying to rewrite history. I assure you, history won’t be kind to them. Instead of rewriting history, I’d rather see Trump become history.
https://claytoonz.com/2019/01/05/putin-talking-points/
Did you know the reason the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 was because of terrorism? Did you know the Soviet Union had the right to invade them? Did you know it led to the Soviet Union being called “Russia” today? Yeah, me neither.
First, a quick little history lesson.
Afghanistan was a puppet government of the Soviet Union. When an insurgency popped up, initially backed by Pakistan and Iran, the Soviet Union invaded to protect their puppet state. Their justification was the Brezhnev Doctrine, which was a policy they used to justify their “right” to intervene in the affairs of communist countries. This was a big deal during the Cold War and the Soviets had argued this policy when intervening in uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, retroactively. Russians are real big about revisionism, which we’ll get to in a minute.
Leonid Brezhnev was the head of the Soviet Union and he sent Soviet forces into his southern neighbor where they fought for ten years trying to protect communism. By the end of the war, the Soviets lost nearly 15,000 soldiers and their Afghan allies lost around 18,000. It’s estimated they had killed between 75,000 to 90,000 of the Mujahideen, the forces trying to restore Afghanistan back to an Islamist state.
Between 562,000 to two million civilians were killed with around three million wounded. There were about five million refugees and two million displaced.
The United States, along with the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, West Germany, Pakistan, and China, were aiding the Mujahideen (which included the likes of Osama bin Laden). Go rent Charlie Wilson’s War.
President Jimmy Carter’s administration opposed the Soviet invasion and even boycotted participating in the Moscow Olympics over it. President Ronald Reagan continued Carter’s policy of support against the Soviet Union. These were two presidents, Democratic and Republican who knew that the Russians were not our friend.
Earlier this week while engaging in an incoherent rant at a cabinet meeting, Donald Trump, the current president of the United States, said, “The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is, it was a tough fight. And literally, they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot of these places you’re reading about now are no longer part of Russia because of Afghanistan.”
His rambling kinda reminded me of my college history professor, who was also insane. He once went on a rant about how great Montreal was until draft dodging American hippies went up there and pooped on the sidewalks. The subject we were on was not Vietnam or Canadian history. Fortunately, it wasn’t on the test.
I don’t know if my college professor was accurate at any part of his rant, or if he was off his meds like our president, but everything Donald Trump said was bullshit.
The war was not about terrorism, they did not have the right to be there, and Afghanistan is just one of many factors leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But where did Donald Trump get this idea about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I was a kid and I remember all of this, so surely an old orange racist fart like Donald Trump would remember it. Right? Since there has never been any sort of revisionist campaign in this nation about the Soviet’s invasion, how could Trump come up with such a cockamamie description? Putin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has much control over Trump, has initiated a propaganda campaign describing the war exactly as Donald Trump did. So, did Trump get this description from his master? Probably, but when? Did Putin feed it into his head during their private off-the-record chat in Helsinki? Probably.
Once again, Trump is doing Putin’s bidding. He’s advocating for Russian propaganda and even that nation’s pride. He’s arguing they had the right to invade their neighbor, underscoring American policy and patriotism of Presidents Carter and Reagan.
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, a friend to Trump’s policies and owned by Rupert Murdoch, called Trump’s history lesson “reprehensible.”
They wrote, “We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President.”
I can’t recall a more absurd human to occupy the office of the American presidency. I also can’t recall one more stupid, racist, traitorous, despicable, stupid, sexists, and appeasing to Russia.
Did I mention “stupid” more than once? I’m fine with that.
Trump is Putin’s puppet and he appeases him again and again. He’s defended Russia’s attack on our democracy and now he’s advocating for Putin’s propaganda. I think Trump’s comments is further justification for his impeachment. I hope Mueller is taking notes.
Trump and Putin are trying to rewrite history. I assure you, history won’t be kind to them. Instead of rewriting history, I’d rather see Trump become history.
Last week, incoming Senator Kyrsten Sinema [D-AZ] was sworn in by Mike Pence, in his aspect as President of the Senate, choosing to take her oath on a book containing both the Constitutions of the United States of America and Arizona, a tome repeating the framers' prohibition on the US government's establishment a state religion or discrimination on the basis of faith or lack thereof.
Sinema is the first openly bisexual person elected to the Senate. Pence is a notorious homophobe, bigot and Dominionist who has espoused the traitorous idea that America should have a state religion in the form of a puritanical, heretical Christianity that denies the message of Christ: a refugee and illegal immigrant who believed that the rich should have their wealth forcibly expropriated and given to the poor. Pence is also notorious for refusing to socialize with women.
Throughout her campaign, Sinema teased the idea that she might be an atheist, and is the only member of either US legislature to list herself as "religiously unaffiliated."
Last edited:
