WTF?

WTF?

He trolled Hillary.  And it worked.

He's a master at it.

Art of the deal. Ask for 5 bil, gets 8

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

He didn't get 8 billion for the wall. He got a little over 1 billion.

He didn't get 8 billion for the wall. He got a little over 1 billion.

Define "got".

President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency to pay for his long-promised and controversial border wall.

The national emergency and other measures will free up $8 billion – far more than the $5.7 billion he
initially demanded – to free up funding for 234 miles of bollard wall, the White House said. It's a move that is almost
guaranteed to draw the White House into a lengthy legal battle over the president's ability to use the tool for that purpose. 

So where will the White House find that money?

Trump will attempt to access $3.6 billion in military construction money. Unlike other portions of the plan, the president must
declare a national emergency to access this account, which has long been rumored to be under consideration. The money
is used for military bases and other projects. President George W. Bush tapped into this same account after he declared a
national emergency following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Trump will dip into about $600 million in asset forfeiture funds at Department of Treasury. This funding has been controversial
on both sides of the aisle because it comes from government seizures of property.

Current law gives the president power to rely on the Department of Defense for drug interdiction in certain cases, even without
a national emergency. The law says the Pentagon can assist in that effort through the building of fences and other measures.
The White House believes it can draw about $2.5 billion through this provision.

Part of Trump's package includes the $1.375 billion that Congress approved on a bipartisan basis for border barriers late
Thursday night. That measure, which will also avert another government shutdown, limits Trump to spending the money
only on previously approved barrier designs, including the "bollard wall" design that was also used by the Obama administration.

$3,600.000,000  Military Construction
     600,000,000  Asset Forfeiture
  2,500,000,000  Drug Interdiction
-----------------------
$6,700,000,000

+1,375,000,000  Congressional Funding
==============

$8,075,000,000  Grand Total

Define "got".

$3,600.000,000  Military Construction
     600,000,000  Asset Forfeiture
  2,500,000,000  Drug Interdiction
-----------------------
$6,700,000,000

+1,375,000,000  Congressional Funding
==============

$8,075,000,000  Grand Total

Of the money in the bill that was approved only a portion of it is for the actual wall. Trump wanted 5 for the wall and he got a little more than 1.

Saying he asked for 5 but got 8 is just inaccurate and thus the conclusion that Trump is therefore a master deal maker is a non sequitur.

Of the money in the bill that was approved only a portion of it is for the actual wall. Trump wanted 5 for the wall and he got a little more than 1.

Saying he asked for 5 but got 8 is just inaccurate and thus the conclusion that Trump is therefore a master deal maker is a non sequitur.

That's just your opinion.

The fact is he GOT $8 billion.  WHERE he "got" it from was not specified (i.e. from Congressional appropriations for border security). 

The fact remains, he's putting $8B toward the wall he promised.

All the money comes out of the same budget.  He GOT it all in this budget deal.

In the final analysis, he got $8B after Congress refused to give him $5B.

Next, you'll say, "But, what about Mexico? They were supposed to pay for the wall!!"

Hawaii entered into wall suit. Wonder if chin is leading the charge?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Hawaii entered into wall suit. Wonder if chin is leading the charge?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

didn't he have to quit as AG?

didn't he have to quit as AG?

From the filing on HHN's site:

Attorney General Clare E. Connors is the chief legal officer of the State of Hawaii and has authority to appear,
personally or by deputy, for the State of Hawaii in all courts, criminal or civil, in which the State may be a party
or be interested. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 28-1 (2009). The Department of the Attorney General has the authority to
represent the State in all civil actions in which the State is a party.

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/19/state-joins-california-lawsuit-against-trump-over-border-wall-funding/

didn't he have to quit as AG?

Yeah, was meant as a joke.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That's just your opinion.

The fact is he GOT $8 billion.  WHERE he "got" it from was not specified (i.e. from Congressional appropriations for border security). 

The fact remains, he's putting $8B toward the wall he promised.

All the money comes out of the same budget.  He GOT it all in this budget deal.

In the final analysis, he got $8B after Congress refused to give him $5B.

Next, you'll say, "But, what about Mexico? They were supposed to pay for the wall!!"

No, 8 billion is not going towards the wall, only a portion of going that is going towards new wall that Trump promised. The rest go towards fixing and improving existing parts of the wall and various other border security issues.

Trump didn't get what he wanted for the wall, why else do you think he said he had to declare a national emergency?

If you want to call the 8 billion a success fine but to say he got more than he asked for is disingenuous.

No, 8 billion is not going towards the wall, only a portion of going that is going towards new wall that Trump promised. The rest go towards fixing and improving existing parts of the wall and various other border security issues.

Trump didn't get what he wanted for the wall, why else do you think he said he had to declare a national emergency?

If you want to call the 8 billion a success fine but to say he got more than he asked for is disingenuous.

Saying Trump didn't get what he wanted for the wall is disingenuous.

He might not have gotten the House to compromise, but that wasn't his only play.

He knew what he was doing, leaving himself several options other than being held hostage by Pelosi.

You're mad because this is the feather in his cap that puts him back in the WH for another 4 years.   

EEF, my previous post mentioned 4d chess and the army engineers being used. This was plan B if it wasnt in the budget. Trump is always many steps ahead. This was also mentioned when the 20000 page budget was submitted last year or so. There was lots of money set aside for the wall and inspector general (deep state arrest).

FYI, he predicted a challenge. (True 2 days later)
He predicts it will go to the 9th circuit (lose)
Then appreal in the 9th and lose again
Then SCOTUS and win

Like how the travel ban path was (won)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

EEF, my previous post mentioned 4d chess and the army engineers being used. This was plan B if it wasnt in the budget. Trump is always many steps ahead. This was also mentioned when the 20000 page budget was submitted last year or so. There was lots of money set aside for the wall and inspector general (deep state arrest).

FYI, he predicted a challenge. (True 2 days later)
He predicts it will go to the 9th circuit (lose)
Then appreal in the 9th and lose again
Then SCOTUS and win

Like how the travel ban path was (won)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Democrats are nothing if not predictable.

Saying Trump didn't get what he wanted for the wall is disingenuous.

He might not have gotten the House to compromise, but that wasn't his only play.

He knew what he was doing, leaving himself several options other than being held hostage by Pelosi.

You're mad because this is the feather in his cap that puts him back in the WH for another 4 years.   

I am not mad at all. I am neither intensely pro wall or anti wall.

I only care about the facts. Trump wanted 5 but he got 1. I never said that was good or bad, I would have been fine with 1 or 5, but what I am not fine with is people claiming 1 = 8. It's a bit scary that people are so ready to try and view the facts to support what they want to believe. Trumps plan didn't go very well and he ended up folding for a marginal deal. Now he is trying to declare a national emergency to make up for the shortcoming. Thats not the art of the deal.

I don't think the whole shutdown and subsequent deal is going to help him in 2020, in fact I would say overall it hurt him. And my assessment is not based on my desired outcome, those are two separate things.

EEF, my previous post mentioned 4d chess and the army engineers being used. This was plan B if it wasnt in the budget. Trump is always many steps ahead. This was also mentioned when the 20000 page budget was submitted last year or so. There was lots of money set aside for the wall and inspector general (deep state arrest).

FYI, he predicted a challenge. (True 2 days later)
He predicts it will go to the 9th circuit (lose)
Then appreal in the 9th and lose again
Then SCOTUS and win

Like how the travel ban path was (won)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Pretty sure any political news pundit predicted it would be challenged so that really doesn't say much and the rest of the path is fairly predictable as well.

Now sure, I get that it could have been his plan B for quite some time but this isn't 4D chess.

The real problem I have this this "plan B" is that I fear it could set a dangerous precedent. If Trump manages to sidestep the proper way by declaring a national emergency when there isn't one then I fear what future presidents will do. What happens when we get a democrat who declares private firearm ownership or CCW a national emergency and sidesteps congress to work to take away our gun rights? Trump is playing the short game without being concerned about the far reaching consequences. I don't want to risk gun rights for wall funding.

As conservatives are not we supposed to be weary of more spending and government not following the rules? Yet we end up excusing Trump for this over and over again. Why are we setting aside our values for conservative government for this man?

Pretty sure any political news pundit predicted it would be challenged so that really doesn't say much and the rest of the path is fairly predictable as well.

Now sure, I get that it could have been his plan B for quite some time but this isn't 4D chess.

The real problem I have this this "plan B" is that I fear it could set a dangerous precedent. If Trump manages to sidestep the proper way by declaring a national emergency when there isn't one then I fear what future presidents will do. What happens when we get a democrat who declares private firearm ownership or CCW a national emergency and sidesteps congress to work to take away our gun rights? Trump is playing the short game without being concerned about the far reaching consequences. I don't want to risk gun rights for wall funding.

As conservatives are not we supposed to be weary of more spending and government not following the rules? Yet we end up excusing Trump for this over and over again. Why are we setting aside our values for conservative government for this man?

You honestly believe a President will bypass congress and take gun rights -- a Constitutionally-protected right -- and somehow you see that as "based on precedent"? 

The precedent is using executive powers to reappropirate funding to accomplish a needed border security project.  That's NOT violating the bill of rights.

Your hypothetical would be the very thing the 2nd Amendment was created to protect against.  Your "what if" is rejected based on near zero probability of it ever happening while we still have a Constitution and 2nd Amendment.

As conservatives are not we supposed to be weary of more spending and government not following the rules? Yet we end up excusing Trump for this over and over again. Why are we setting aside our values for conservative government for this man?

uhhhhh...

Pretty sure any political news pundit predicted it would be challenged so that really doesn't say much and the rest of the path is fairly predictable as well.

Now sure, I get that it could have been his plan B for quite some time but this isn't 4D chess.

The real problem I have this this "plan B" is that I fear it could set a dangerous precedent. If Trump manages to sidestep the proper way by declaring a national emergency when there isn't one then I fear what future presidents will do. What happens when we get a democrat who declares private firearm ownership or CCW a national emergency and sidesteps congress to work to take away our gun rights? Trump is playing the short game without being concerned about the far reaching consequences. I don't want to risk gun rights for wall funding.

As conservatives are not we supposed to be weary of more spending and government not following the rules? Yet we end up excusing Trump for this over and over again. Why are we setting aside our values for conservative government for this man?

Anything could set a dangerous precedent if you listen to the wrong intel from people (Pelosi).  Follow what Flap is saying about the wall vs. bill of rights.  But the real question is, say 2a is taken away, will you or your coworkers have the  balls to stand up and not "just follow orders"?  Like how the WA Sheriffs are about the red flag law.  We have already seen how dangerous enforcing an unconstitutional law is with this.  There have been a handful where molon labe thought was enacted because of the unjust law.  This also endangers all the LE who are on site.

History has seen on many occasions what happens when men are just following orders.  And granted, there are good men involved also, but how many will put their jobs on the line for freedoms?

So far nothing Trump was challenged on was thought about as "short term".  Again reference 4D chess.  Because if it was a short term solution, it would lose at the highest court.  See travel ban example.

*edit-EEF, I apologize in advance if anything that I have written offends you or comes off as offensive (having balls remark).  I tend to say it as it is and not sugar coat things.  You should see my emails to my rep.

You honestly believe a President will bypass congress and take gun rights -- a Constitutionally-protected right -- and somehow you see that as "based on precedent"? 

The precedent is using executive powers to reappropirate funding to accomplish a needed border security project.  That's NOT violating the bill of rights.

Your hypothetical would be the very thing the 2nd Amendment was created to protect against.  Your "what if" is rejected based on near zero probability of it ever happening while we still have a Constitution and 2nd Amendment.

I am providing a worst case scenario that specifically relates to the theme of this forum. No I don't think that thing is very likely however the point is that once we open we allow this type of thing to happen we can't stop others from using it in ways we don't like. Presidents would be able to get money for anything they want by simply declaring it an emergency. This is not how the constitution was made to work, this isn't limited restrained government. I don't see how this is clearly constitutional, at best he is playing in a gray area.

Changemyoil,
My above statement I think answers much of your point as well. I am not actually worried we would lose gun rights in one fell swoop through this process but there are many conservative stances which we could lose on as a country if a president is able to bypass congress in this way. What else might get funded by democrats in the future by simply declaring everything they really want an emergency?

I am not easily offended. We obviously disagree about Trump's 4D chess/long term game plan but in my opinion you do not usually debate in a spiteful way.