The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 15, 2019, 07:48:24 pm
-
Omar: Next president to declare national emergency on climate change ‘on day 1’
By Tal Axelrod - 02/15/19 02:26 PM EST
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called on the next president to declare a national emergency on climate change “on day 1†after President Trump made the same declaration to appropriate funds for a border wall.
“Our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change,†Omar, an outspoken critic of Trump, tweeted Friday.
more
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430252-omar-next-president-to-declare-national-emergency-on-climate-change-on-day-1
-
Moron.
-
She's right, this is exactly what will happen.
-
They'll need a bigger body count than illegal immigration causes and some actual evidence one would think.
-
Cool. Then they can defend their actions in court, just like Trump will.
The American people can decide how they feel about the rats' stupid tit for tat game, given that it will undoubtedly destroy their standard of living.
-
Cool. Then they can defend their actions in court, just like Trump will.
The American people can decide how they feel about the rats' stupid tit for tat game, given that it will undoubtedly destroy their standard of living.
Courts are still too packed with activist Liberals judges. They'll let something like that stand while striking down what Trump is doing.
-
The next Dem president is going to do such a thing regardless of what President Trump does...and quite frankly...Trump's Declaration on the border is in no way synonymous with a Climate Change or Gun Control Declaration. Arguing that it is makes you silly...or a Democrat...which ARE synonymous.
-
Meh, they would have done it anyway, regardless of what Trump did.
-
And that same president will take all the money that Trump claimed was now dedicated to building his wall, and he or she will spend it on climate change priorities.
So, at the end of the day, no wall and a new-found way for the democrats to rule without having to go through Congress, courtesy of Donald Trump.
Now that is winning. Bigley. Hugely, even.
-
Courts are still too packed with activist Liberals judges. They'll let something like that stand while striking down what Trump is doing.
Beats rolling into a ball and sucking our thumbs.
I do believe Trump, as has everyone before him who has cared about this issue and wanted to do something about it, has exhausted just about every other means to accomplish what we all know needs to happen to divert the country from its current trajectory. I favor something over nothing.
-
Beats rolling into a ball and sucking our thumbs.
I do believe Trump, as has everyone before him who has cared about this issue and wanted to do something about it, has exhausted just about every other means to accomplish what we all know needs to happen to divert the country from its current trajectory. I favor something over nothing.
You must be joking. Why didn't Trump do something about this while republicans had both houses of congress?
It's always 10 dimensional chess with you clowns.
-
Moron. Racist, Anti Semitic, moron
Fixed it for ya @The Ghost
-
They'll need a bigger body count than illegal immigration causes and some actual evidence one would think.
@austingirl
Not really. They have control over all the major print and broadcast news media,so I'd say they have it covered just by pushing more rumors.
-
Meh, they would have done it anyway, regardless of what Trump did.
@dfwgator
Bingo!
Seems to me like most of the time the Republicans most effective enemy are themselves because they start out with the idea they are going to lose,so why bother to try?
When you start out as a loser,what are you going to be when the smoke clears?
-
And that same president will take all the money that Trump claimed was now dedicated to building his wall, and he or she will spend it on climate change priorities.
So, at the end of the day, no wall and a new-found way for the democrats to rule without having to go through Congress, courtesy of Donald Trump.
Now that is winning. Bigley. Hugely, even.
@Bill Cipher
You need remedial 3rd grade math. Once Trump spends the money building the wall,the money is no longer there for the Dims to spend.
AND.....,you are assuming the alleged Republicans will just roll over and play dead to let them get away with stealing more money from the treasury/US taxpayers. By the time Trump leaves office there just MIGHT be a few of them awaken to the idea that they do NOT have to surrender to the Dims and fight the bastards instead.
-
You must be joking. Why didn't Trump do something about this while republicans had both houses of congress?
It's always 10 dimensional chess with you clowns.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Mostly because the JEB/CRUZ/MITTENS whiney-ass alleged Republicans had their widdle feelings hurten over their personal crime lord traitor not being elected,so they wouldn't back him. Unless of course you think that means "stick a knife in his back". They were and are on board for that because he came in and upset apple carts it had taken them generations to establish.
-
@Bill Cipher
You need remedial 3rd grade math. Once Trump spends the money building the wall,the money is no longer there for the Dims to spend.
AND.....,you are assuming the alleged Republicans will just roll over and play dead to let them get away with stealing more money from the treasury/US taxpayers. By the time Trump leaves office there just MIGHT be a few of them awaken to the idea that they do NOT have to surrender to the Dims and fight the bastards instead.
@sneakypete
The money will still be there because the wall is gonna be tied up in the courts for the next two years. So if he is not re-elected....
-
@sneakypete
The money will still be there because the wall is gonna be tied up in the courts for the next two years. So if he is not re-elected....
@Axeslinger
MAYBE,but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. All it would take would be for a federal appeal court to rule there is no standing to hold the money up since it was legally allocated.
-
Moron.
She is, but more to the point...it could happen and nothing to stop the declaration. However, there’s no basis to divert funds in the laws for climate change as their is for security of our borders.
-
@Axeslinger
MAYBE,but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. All it would take would be for a federal appeal court to rule there is no standing to hold the money up since it was legally allocated.
@sneakypete
Except you know this going right to the Ninth Circus. I agree it doesn’t have to be this way, but it’s exactly how it’s gonna be.
-
@austingirl
Not really. They have control over all the major print and broadcast news media,so I'd say they have it covered just by pushing more rumors.
@sneakypete
You're right they act on rumors and ignore evidence. That should be their motto.
-
You must be joking. Why didn't Trump do something about this while republicans had both houses of congress?
Paul Ryan, and his inaction cost us the House. Ryan did everything he could to depress GOP turn out.
-
This is so cynical on Ms. Omar's part - I can't imagine she gives a damn about our climate except in that she can use climate hysteria to continue to break down our country and western civilization in general.
-
You must be joking. Why didn't Trump do something about this while republicans had both houses of congress?
It's always 10 dimensional chess with you clowns.
Fully realizing your limitations I won't bother asking you to reread what I wrote.
-
@sneakypete
You're right they act on rumors and ignore evidence. That should be their motto.
@austingirl
I have a t-shirt somewhere with the CNN logo as "CNN.....NOW 99 % FACT-FREE!"
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Mostly because the JEB/CRUZ/MITTENS whiney-ass alleged Republicans had their widdle feelings hurten over their personal crime lord traitor not being elected,so they wouldn't back him. Unless of course you think that means "stick a knife in his back". They were and are on board for that because he came in and upset apple carts it had taken them generations to establish.
I really don't think the GOP wanted Cruz, either. IIRC, they wanted Trump because they expected they could make deals with him, and that Cruz would have been less malleable.
-
I really don't think the GOP wanted Cruz, either. IIRC, they wanted Trump because they expected they could make deals with him, and that Cruz would have been less malleable.
I agree. I got the impression that Cruz was their worst nightmare. They weren't sure what to expect from Trump.
-
I agree. I got the impression that Cruz was their worst nightmare.
With Omar and her ilk already in the House of Representatives and tens of thousands more marching toward it shouldn't we at long last be seeking to strengthen the NBC requirement for the presidency?
Just sayin'.
-
With Omar and her ilk already in the House of Representatives and tens of thousands more marching toward it shouldn't we at long last be seeking to strengthen the NBC requirement for the presidency?
Just sayin'.
Separate issue, RIV.
-
Separate issue, RIV.
Not really.
-
I really don't think the GOP wanted Cruz, either. IIRC, they wanted Trump because they expected they could make deals with him, and that Cruz would have been less malleable.
And they were right re: that.
-
Despite the source link whose name some may not care for, there were all of these national emergencies under the previous 3 predecessors.
https://welovetrump.com/2019/01/08/full-list-of-national-emergencies-declared-by-obama-bush-clinton-is-published/
I'm not sure how it compares to the current one but they are kind of odd to read about. For Obama, it was often about aid to other countries but all of the last 3 presidents had national emergencies.
Past emergencies have focused on everything from swine flu to rough diamonds.
Here's a list of the 28 active national emergencies:
1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
-
Less electable too, let's not go through this song and dance again.
Trump has done many pro-life things, I'm glad I'm part of it, he fights for us every day. Go bark at the moon if you don't like it. They are awash in their own selfish importance.
After decades of voting for the nominee, I'm not going to look at the idiotic way that it is not about whom is nominated, Bush, Dole, Romney, McCain and so on.
-
Despite the source link whose name some may not care for, there were all of these national emergencies under the previous 3 predecessors.
https://welovetrump.com/2019/01/08/full-list-of-national-emergencies-declared-by-obama-bush-clinton-is-published/
I'm not sure how it compares to the current one but they are kind of odd to read about. For Obama, it was often about aid to other countries but all of the last 3 presidents had national emergencies.
So, basically.... of all of the previous NEs declared by previous presidents.....
Trump's NE re: border security is the ONLY one that actually is or could be called a ...
national emergency (invasion by migrants).
-
And they were right re: that.
We do not know that. What we do know is that the locked-in Republicans would not have been any more friendly and cooperative with Ted Cruz than they have been with Trump. Both men were way too conservative for them and outsiders.
-
We do not know that. What we do know is that the locked-in Republicans would not have been any more friendly and cooperative with Ted Cruz than they have been with Trump. Both men were way too conservative for them and outsiders.
Oh, I do know that Cruz would have been less cooperative with the idiot left. But yeah, they would have hated Cruz just as much if not more, because of that.
-
I really don't think the GOP wanted Cruz, either. IIRC, they wanted Trump because they expected they could make deals with him, and that Cruz would have been less malleable.
@Smokin Joe
I dunno. Maybe,maybe not. I think this is one of those deals where you would have to be an insider yourself to really know. It's not the kind of thing pols talk about with outsiders.
-
So, basically.... of all of the previous NEs declared by previous presidents.....
Trump's NE re: border security is the ONLY one that actually is or could be called a ...
national emergency (invasion by migrants).
@XenaLee
You are just going to have to forgive Trump for that. He is an outsider,and didn't know how the system worked.
-
Oh, I do know that Cruz would have been less cooperative with the idiot left. But yeah, they would have hated Cruz just as much if not more, because of that.
@XenaLee @Emjay
I think that if there was anything they were going to be mad at Cruz about it would start with him being named "Cruz" and not a part of their professional victim brotherhood. They would have wanted him to run as a Mexican instead of an American so they could join the professional victum parade.
The word "contempt" just isn't strong enough to express what I think of the typical alleged Republican.
-
Beats rolling into a ball and sucking our thumbs.
I do believe Trump, as has everyone before him who has cared about this issue and wanted to do something about it, has exhausted just about every other means to accomplish what we all know needs to happen to divert the country from its current trajectory. I favor something over nothing.
:beer:
:amen:
888high58888
You are so spot on! At least Trump is fighting to get the wall built. So many others have talked a big game and done nothing. I really don't care that Trump is not the most articulate, or precise, speaker. He fights and he is relentless in pursuing his goal.
-
She is, but more to the point...it could happen and nothing to stop the declaration. However, there’s no basis to divert funds in the laws for climate change as their is for security of our borders.
Also, FWIW, the law was written so that Congress can be reactive if a declaration is made. I believe all they have to do is get a simple majority in both houses to nullify the declaration. They are required to bring the vote up within 14 days of the declaration and I don't believe the President can veto it.
If the Rats want to destroy the country with some socialist crap I say bring it on. I think a lot of Rats will vote against it when they discover all their special interest money will dry up because the govt nationalized, or outlawed whole industries. If not I think it's a good bet that the citizens will go ballistic once the economy collapses.
-
I really don't think the GOP wanted Cruz, either. IIRC, they wanted Trump because they expected they could make deals with him, and that Cruz would have been less malleable.
Also, Cruz had a better working knowledge of the system and how to work around it. I think to Trump's credit though he is much stronger with head on attacks of his opponents.
-
Also, Cruz had a better working knowledge of the system and how to work around it. I think to Trump's credit though he is much stronger with head on attacks of his opponents.
Yes, that could be.
-
Also, Cruz had a better working knowledge of the system and how to work around it. I think to Trump's credit though he is much stronger with head on attacks of his opponents.
'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.
-
:beer:
:amen:
888high58888
You are so spot on! At least Trump is fighting to get the wall built. So many others have talked a big game and done nothing. I really don't care that Trump is not the most articulate, or precise, speaker. He fights and he is relentless in pursuing his goal.
Well... it remains to be seen as to whether Trump has 'talked a big game and done nothing'.... since what's in this bill he signed seems to be detrimental to building da wall.
-
:beer:
:amen:
888high58888
You are so spot on! At least Trump is fighting to get the wall built. So many others have talked a big game and done nothing. I really don't care that Trump is not the most articulate, or precise, speaker. He fights and he is relentless in pursuing his goal.
Well whether we like it or not Trump is all we’ve got. I find myself feeling sorry for the guy, he’s up against a wall of DC beltway sh* t. He’s made plenty of mistakes but he seems to be still in there trying. We shall see how it goes.
-
'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.
Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.
-
Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.
Ain't that the truth.
-
:beer:
:amen:
888high58888
You are so spot on! At least Trump is fighting to get the wall built. So many others have talked a big game and done nothing. I really don't care that Trump is not the most articulate, or precise, speaker. He fights and he is relentless in pursuing his goal.
Me, three. Advocates of a wall will never find a better advocate for one than Donald Trump.
-
Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.
Son Fu?
-
'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.
@roamer_1
Why?
-
Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.
@Smokin Joe
Why? Sometimes the shortest distance makes the most sense. You can surprise the enemy,and your troops aren't tired when they get there.
-
Oh, I do know that Cruz would have been less cooperative with the idiot left. But yeah, they would have hated Cruz just as much if not more, because of that.
You do not know that @XenaLee You probably would not have predicted that Ted Cruz would have been as stalwart a supporter of President Trump as he has proven to be.
I admire him even more for not clutching his pearls and doing what is right.
-
Also, Cruz had a better working knowledge of the system and how to work around it. I think to Trump's credit though he is much stronger with head on attacks of his opponents.
Trump admitted just today that his initial unfamiliarity with the system and with the various politicians hanging around DC was a difficulty for his administration. He also says that he's learned a lot since then, and I think he has.
-
@roamer_1
Why?
@sneakypete
Because unless you actually have an army big enough to take the casualties, which is almost never true, abstraction and asymmetry will often prevent that loss.
Have a plan.
-
You do not know that @XenaLee You probably would not have predicted that Ted Cruz would have been as stalwart a supporter of President Trump as he has proven to be.
I admire him even more for not clutching his pearls and doing what is right.
So you presume to tell me what I know or don't know?
Hilarious.
-
@sneakypete
Because unless you actually have an army big enough to take the casualties, which is almost never true, abstraction and asymmetry will often prevent that loss.
Have a plan.
@roamer_1
Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.
-
So you presume to tell me what I know or don't know?
Hilarious.
Nobody knows, XenaLee. I certainly don't. You may think something, predict something, or have an opinion about something, but you don't know.
-
@roamer_1
Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.
@sneakypete
Then you haven't planned.
-
@sneakypete
Then you haven't planned.
@roamer_1
Never been in the infantry,have you?
Or in a battle,AFATG. Generally speaking,planning goes all to hell right after the first shot is fired.
-
Nobody knows, XenaLee. I certainly don't. You may think something, predict something, or have an opinion about something, but you don't know.
That's really funny coming from you.... considering how "shock sure" you and a few others here have been about Trump.
Again, hilarious.
-
@roamer_1
Never been in the infantry,have you?
Or in a battle,AFATG. Generally speaking,planning goes all to hell right after the first shot is fired.
@sneakypete
Plans always go to hell upon execution, regardless of the field. If you expect plans to work you don't understand what plans are for.
And no, I am not military. 4F'd.
But I have fought for my life, I have been against unassailable odds. I have fought with weapons (gang style), though not with guns to speak of. Certainly I am not a soldier, but I have seen enough otherwise to have an informed opinion.
And as hunter, as a rule, the front is where the teeth and horns are, and the flank is always tender, and hard to guard.
Risk abatement (planning) dictates that 'head on', while a viable option, is probably nearly always the last option.
-
@sneakypete
Plans always go to hell upon execution, regardless of the field. If you expect plans to work you don't understand what plans are for.
And no, I am not military. 4F'd.
But I have fought for my life, I have been against unassailable odds. I have fought with weapons (gang style), though not with guns to speak of. Certainly I am not a soldier, but I have seen enough otherwise to have an informed opinion.
And as hunter, as a rule, the front is where the teeth and horns are, and the flank is always tender, and hard to guard.
Risk abatement (planning) dictates that 'head on', while a viable option, is probably nearly always the last option.
@roamer_1
If you are not a member of any military unit,the smart thing to do is run like a MoFo at the first opportunity. The best way to survive a gun fight is to not get into one to start with.
BTW,one of the basics of small unit tactics is to charge the enemy while firing your weapon if caught in an ambush. You can't outrun bullets or explosives,but running straight at the enemy reduces the amount of time you are under fire while causing them to worry more about their own safety that getting a good sight picture on a moving target that is coming at them and firing at the same time.
Your reaction will always depend on that unique situation,and includes issues like terrain,cover,number of the enemy,how many of you were caught in the kill zone,etc,etc,etc. This is why the military is always training, You have to learn to react instinctively and as a unit.
-
Internet tough guys...
(https://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/attachments/general-firearm-discussion/112527d1434715440-internet-tough-guys-1.jpg)
-
The best way to survive a gun fight is to not get into one to start with.
One would think that to be a first principle.
BTW,one of the basics of small unit tactics is to charge the enemy while firing your weapon if caught in an ambush. You can't outrun bullets or explosives,but running straight at the enemy reduces the amount of time you are under fire while causing them to worry more about their own safety that getting a good sight picture on a moving target that is coming at them and firing at the same time.
Right - similar to a brawl with multiple opponents - way better to go close and switch to elbows and knees - Anything you are hitting is enemy, and they have to be careful not to hit each other... And anything you hit with an elbow is likely to go down... You are going to get your shit beat, but maybe not as badly as if you tried otherwise... And it is the only chance you have left to walk away.
But as I said, it is the last or only option. One would not choose it otherwise.
One does not PLAN to go headlong into a meat grinder.
-
As if building a fence compares to some jackboot totalitarian takeover using one of their pet issues as an excuse.
The Dems are telegraphing what they already want to do the minute they think they could get away with it. A 'Trump precedent' is just a flimsy pretense.
-
@Smokin Joe
Why? Sometimes the shortest distance makes the most sense. You can surprise the enemy,and your troops aren't tired when they get there.
If that's all you got, use it. However, pinning the enemy down and flanking them usually uses up fewer troops and is better for morale. Even better, take out their logistical support first. It is usually less well defended and limits them to what they have with them (and sometimes you can use their own stuff against them).
-
A 'Trump precedent' is just a flimsy pretense.
Fine, but they don't need much more than flimsy pretense.
-
@roamer_1
Sometimes the ONLY viable plan is to run right at the enemy.
Sounds like the Dallas Cowboys' offense. They haven't made the NFC championship game in 23 years.
-
Sounds like the Dallas Cowboys' offense. They haven't made the NFC championship game in 23 years.
A metaphor for "America's Team".
-
'Head-on attacks' should not be considered a strength.
When the alternative is back stabbing, behind the back surrender it is a strength.
Trump to his credit has done more for conservatives by confronting leftists head on than any POTUS since Reagan.
-
Some folks should really read Sun Tsu.
Yeah, and all those subtle tactical retreats in the name of victory has really stopped the advance of the all encompassing leftist central govt.
It's time to admit that the old way of doing things has been a terrible failure and a new approach is needed. I advocate a direct frontal assault on the evil of leftism.
-
Yeah, and all those subtle tactical retreats in the name of victory has really stopped the advance of the all encompassing leftist central govt.
It's time to admit that the old way of doing things has been a terrible failure and a new approach is needed. I advocate a direct frontal assault on the evil of leftism.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
-
When the alternative is back stabbing, behind the back surrender it is a strength.
Trump to his credit has done more for conservatives by confronting leftists head on than any POTUS since Reagan.
Well, while that is a mighty low bar...
What EXACTLY has he done?
What do we get to keep?
-
@Bill Cipher
You need remedial 3rd grade math. Once Trump spends the money building the wall,the money is no longer there for the Dims to spend.
AND.....,you are assuming the alleged Republicans will just roll over and play dead to let them get away with stealing more money from the treasury/US taxpayers. By the time Trump leaves office there just MIGHT be a few of them awaken to the idea that they do NOT have to surrender to the Dims and fight the bastards instead.
At most, the 50 miles that were authorized will get built, and the money approved for that spent. The rest of it will not have been spent for the simple reason that (a) it takes a long time to do the design work, and (b) it will be tied up in litigation, with temporary injunctions in place, so that little to none of that money will have been spent. That is simple mathematics.
There will be no Trump wall, ever. Nothing of any consequence will get built under this phony “emergency†declaration, and Congress will never play nice with Trump for his remaining two years and will not give him any more money for his wall.
And the emergency declaration itself will simply be yanked by the next president, so Trumps declaration will have no further force or effect.
That’s a really bigley win there.
-
Yeah, and all those subtle tactical retreats in the name of victory has really stopped the advance of the all encompassing leftist central govt.
It's time to admit that the old way of doing things has been a terrible failure and a new approach is needed. I advocate a direct frontal assault on the evil of leftism.
Tactical retreats are only part of a strategy. See: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/cowpens (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/cowpens)
Unfortunately, the forces which were supposed to reform on the flanks and engage the opposition ran off to cocktail parties on K street.
There are plenty of enemies of Conservatism in the ranks of the GOP, enough that the opposition need only wave whatever 'compromising' material they have, and they cave. Lots of talking the talk, but come crunch time, no boots on the ground, they aren't walking the walk.
This is what you get with voting for the lesser evil.
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430252-omar-next-president-to-declare-national-emergency-on-climate-change-on-day-1
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called on the next president to declare a national emergency on climate change “on day 1†after President Trump made the same declaration to appropriate funds for a border wall.
“Our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change,†Omar, an outspoken critic of Trump, tweeted Friday.
-
Good, bring it on.
Go to court and air this hoax out. Weed out the hype and bad science.
The left will have to prove:
1. That the temperature that we are at right now is the optimal temperature
2. That the source of warming is not the sun
3. That money can actually change anything in the climate, rather than allow for greater government control
4. That the US money spent on US interests will significantly world temperatures
-
Good, bring it on.
Go to court and air this hoax out. Weed out the hype and bad science.
The left will have to prove:
1. That the temperature that we are at right now is the optimal temperature
2. That the source of warming is not the sun
3. That money can actually change anything in the climate, rather than allow for greater government control
4. That the US money spent on US interests will significantly world temperatures
They won’t have to prove any of that.
-
Why wait until another election.
Trump will win it anyway. After 2 more
add 4 more years.
Trump can declare a national emergency on
climate change as direct theft from the nation.
Do it now. Why wait.
:)