Why Trump will win the wall fight

(edited)

On 2/17/2019 at 3:32 AM, Dan Warnick said:

This is an issue that more and more people are finally starting to talk about: Congress wants to control who is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the court can do Congress' job, and divert responsibility from Congress itself in the process.  Unfortunately, it puts an inordinate amount of power in the Executive Branch (President) and, contrary to the wailing and proclamations otherwise by members of Congress, less power in the hands of Congress where it belongs.

Why Trump will win the wall fight

 

It seems that the actual experts on the need or lack of need for a wall presented to congress and congress decided the way forward. The senate then confirmed that way forward.

Seems the system works the way it should since Congress holds the purse strings.

Then Mr. Trump, at the advice of some radio and TV personalities decided that he can make an end run around the system and build a wall based on a promise.

Thank goodness that Mr. Trump is smarter than your entire US government. -sarcasm intended

Edited by Jeff_Calgary
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2019 at 2:44 AM, Illurion said:

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is,  and has,  been making "power grabs" for decades,  but i disagree with your conclusion that the SCOTUS "power grabs" will translate into more power to the Presidency...

What the SCOTUS has done has "INCREASED THE POWER OF THE SCOTUS" and weakened the 'balance of power" in our government...

SCOTUS power grabs must be stopped..

The days of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM must come to an end...

 

As for the WALL,  i want it to be built,  but by both signing the "bill",  and issuing the "Emergency Order",  Trump has taken "one step forward,  and then 6 steps back".....

I am concerned that what is in the "bill" will prevent Trump from making headway on building the wall...

Please explain how that works Tom. As I see it he has no other choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Yeah, well, wait until the next Democratic president declares a national emergency over guns and abrogates the 2nd amendment.  

Heck, Congress has been punting on this emergency national security issue for a decade now.  Imagine how dangerous it would be for a terrorist to buy guns in the US and shoot up a mall or something.  Only fair for the new Democratic president to do what Congress wouldn't do, to protect the security of American citizens.  I mean, if a Republican president can declare emergencies, a Democratic president can do it too, right? 

[I'm centrist, btw].

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 3:36 PM, Enthalpic said:

So you don't want to promote free speech and remove educational indoctrination - you just want to replace the indoctrination with one that aligns with your beliefs.  Suggesting that everyone who disagrees should be removed is dictator level crap.

I think that free speech is extremely important. The problem I see is that obstruction of other people speaking should not fall into the free speech category - but the protestors get away with it so discussion gets stifled. Universities basically have to mandate the right to be heard over the free speech part and set up rules of decorum. If people interrupt others that are being asked to speak -kick them out of school. Things will smarten up quickly.

Universities need to go into referee mode instead of taking sides in the debate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

20 hours ago, mthebold said:

What's the "silo problem"?

sorry. 

I guess I meant the "echo chamber" problem, ie people conversing only with others who they agree with.

Edited by Janet Alderton
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

I'm not angry at all. 

Thank-you, Enthalpic.

I am not angry, either.

Janet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like saying "I'm already a millionaire."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

40 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The first question we should ask is, "Is it bad to surround yourself with like-minded people?"  The politically correct answer is that all ideas are equal and we should seek as many of them as possible by surrounding ourselves with a variety of people.  I vehemently disagree with that.  There exist bad ideas, and acting on those bad ideas leads to painful consequences.  Some of those ideas are bad enough to end civilizations.  Thus, the idea that we should be indiscriminate in the company we keep is, quite frankly, asinine.  It's one of those civilization-ending ideas.  We should be exceptionally discriminate in how our children are educated. 

So is it a bad idea to send your kids to school with people who think like you?  That depends on whether your ideas are effective.  Successful people send their kids to private schools with the children of other successful people so their kids can absorb good ideas.  This has produced stellar results: graduates of public schools are not, on average, as successful as graduates of private schools.  Without immersion in fierce competence and good ideas, they simply can't compete.  Thus, if you've chosen carefully, the alleged echo chamber is an excellent training ground.  I don't think school choice leads to echo chambers though. 

A true echo chamber can only exist on the condition that actions have no consequences.  That's the situation we're in now: regardless of how incompetent or politically biased a school is, it still exists.  The government gives it money regardless of the quality of its ideas.  Because the average person has few options - the state having taken the money they would have spent on education - they're forced into the public indoctrination center. 

Under a voucher system, people could choose - and they would choose schools with the best outcomes.  Schools with bad ideas would be forced to emulate their betters or invent even better ideas.  This competition would make the echo chamber impossible.  Those who clung to bad ideas would find themselves destitute and, ultimately, be forced to change. 

And that reveals the true motive of public education: it is not designed to be effective.  It is designed to force people into an indoctrination center where their behavior can be conditioned, their heads can be filled with politically correct ideas, and any dissent can be ruthlessly suppressed.  Public education isn't about education; it's about control.  That's why it must be killed. 

Oh dear...

I am not in favor of either extreme. I did attend public schools, but my parents carefully chose where to live based on the quality of the public schools. Three generations of women in my family graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. It is one of the best universities in the world. I am paying to send my two grandchildren to a private school in London. My British grand daughter wants to attend the University of California, Berkeley. I think that would be wonderful. Four generations of women! My mother earned a degree in nutritional science, I in Zoology, my daughter in Civil Engineering, and my grand daughter, who knows...

I don't think any of us were indoctrinated. We are all quite different people. 

Edited by Janet Alderton
Four generations of women! More information.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The first question we should ask is, "Is it bad to surround yourself with like-minded people?"  The politically correct answer is that all ideas are equal and we should seek as many of them as possible by surrounding ourselves with a variety of people.  I vehemently disagree with that.  There exist bad ideas, and acting on those bad ideas leads to painful consequences.  Some of those ideas are bad enough to end civilizations.  Thus, the idea that we should be indiscriminate in the company we keep is, quite frankly, asinine.  It's one of those civilization-ending ideas.  We should be exceptionally discriminate in how our children are educated. 

So is it a bad idea to send your kids to school with people who think like you?  That depends on whether your ideas are effective.  Successful people send their kids to private schools with the children of other successful people so their kids can absorb good ideas.  This has produced stellar results: graduates of public schools are not, on average, as successful as graduates of private schools.  Without immersion in fierce competence and good ideas, they simply can't compete.  Thus, if you've chosen carefully, the alleged echo chamber is an excellent training ground.  I don't think school choice leads to echo chambers though. 

A true echo chamber can only exist on the condition that actions have no consequences.  That's the situation we're in now: regardless of how incompetent or politically biased a school is, it still exists.  The government gives it money regardless of the quality of its ideas.  Because the average person has few options - the state having taken the money they would have spent on education - they're forced into the public indoctrination center. 

Under a voucher system, people could choose - and they would choose schools with the best outcomes.  Schools with bad ideas would be forced to emulate their betters or invent even better ideas.  This competition would make the echo chamber impossible.  Those who clung to bad ideas would find themselves destitute and, ultimately, be forced to change. 

And that reveals the true motive of public education: it is not designed to be effective.  It is designed to force people into an indoctrination center where their behavior can be conditioned, their heads can be filled with politically correct ideas, and any dissent can be ruthlessly suppressed.  Public education isn't about education; it's about control.  That's why it must be killed. 

^ This

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

Oh dear...

I am not in favor of either extreme. I did attend public schools, but my parents carefully chose where to live based on the quality of the public schools. Three generations of women in my family graduated from the University of California, Berkeley. It is one of the best universities in the world. I am paying to send my two grandchildren to a private school in London. My British grand daughter wants to attend the University of California, Berkeley. I think that would be wonderful. Four generations of women!

Janet, I read your posts often and find you to be intelligent and level-headed.  I admire your accomplishments, at least the ones you’ve shared with us here on this website from time to time.   I know you are proud of your college alma mater and have good reason to be.  I say all this because I want you to know I respect you.  

I’ve heard it said UC Berkeley was “The birthplace of free speech”, a place for open debate.  That does not appear to be the case any longer and it may now be the aforementioned echo chamber.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uc-berkeley-officials-college-republicans-at-odds-over-another-right-wing-speaker/

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TXPower said:

^ This

I disagree that my public education was all about control. I became a scientist because I am fascinated by the wonder of life. One could become a pastor for the same reason and that would be fine. But as a scientist, my life is filled with the pleasure of learning new things every day. I am not indoctrinated. I am open to new ideas. I am open to accepting that what I once believed true must be revised. This is the way science works. And it does work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TXPower said:

Janet, I read your posts often and find you to be intelligent and level-headed.  I admire your accomplishments, at least the ones you’ve shared with us here on this website from time to time.   I know you are proud of your college alma mater and have good reason to be.  I say all this because I want you to know I respect you.  

I’ve heard it said UC Berkeley was “The birthplace of free speech”, a place for open debate.  That does not appear to be the case any longer and it may now be the aforementioned echo chamber.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uc-berkeley-officials-college-republicans-at-odds-over-another-right-wing-speaker/

 

 

I agree with you that this is unfortunate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Janet Alderton said:

I disagree that my public education was all about control. I became a scientist because I am fascinated by the wonder of life. One could become a pastor for the same reason and that would be fine. But as a scientist, my life is filled with the pleasure of learning new things every day. I am not indoctrinated. I am open to new ideas. I am open to accepting that what I once believed true must be revised. This is the way science works. And it does work. 

I also do not believe that my public education was all about control but much has changed since we left school.  I agree that sometimes we have to accept things we once accepted as true must be revised.  Caveat, there are some unchanging absolute truths IMO but that’s another discussion.  I respect your opinion and would fight for your right to hold it no matter how much I disagree with it.  Our kids are not learning that anymore.  The dogma of that is oft quoted but the deed of it fails to materialize.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TXPower said:

I also do not believe that my public education was all about control but much has changed since we left school.  I agree that sometimes we have to accept things we once accepted as true must be revised.  Caveat, there are some unchanging absolute truths IMO but that’s another discussion.  I respect your opinion and would fight for your right to hold it no matter how much I disagree with it.  Our kids are not learning that anymore.  The dogma of that is oft quoted but the deed of it fails to materialize.

If what you say is true, if our kids are not open to new discoveries based on the foundations of old wisdom, it makes me feel very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

The first question we should ask is, "Is it bad to surround yourself with like-minded people?"  The politically correct answer is that all ideas are equal and we should seek as many of them as possible by surrounding ourselves with a variety of people.  I vehemently disagree with that.  There exist bad ideas, and acting on those bad ideas leads to painful consequences.  Some of those ideas are bad enough to end civilizations.  Thus, the idea that we should be indiscriminate in the company we keep is, quite frankly, asinine.  It's one of those civilization-ending ideas.  We should be exceptionally discriminate in how our children are educated. 

So is it a bad idea to send your kids to school with people who think like you?  That depends on whether your ideas are effective.  Successful people send their kids to private schools with the children of other successful people so their kids can absorb good ideas.  This has produced stellar results: graduates of public schools are not, on average, as successful as graduates of private schools.  Without immersion in fierce competence and good ideas, they simply can't compete.  Thus, if you've chosen carefully, the alleged echo chamber is an excellent training ground.  I don't think school choice leads to echo chambers though. 

A true echo chamber can only exist on the condition that actions have no consequences.  That's the situation we're in now: regardless of how incompetent or politically biased a school is, it still exists.  The government gives it money regardless of the quality of its ideas.  Because the average person has few options - the state having taken the money they would have spent on education - they're forced into the public indoctrination center. 

Under a voucher system, people could choose - and they would choose schools with the best outcomes.  Schools with bad ideas would be forced to emulate their betters or invent even better ideas.  This competition would make the echo chamber impossible.  Those who clung to bad ideas would find themselves destitute and, ultimately, be forced to change. 

And that reveals the true motive of public education: it is not designed to be effective.  It is designed to force people into an indoctrination center where their behavior can be conditioned, their heads can be filled with politically correct ideas, and any dissent can be ruthlessly suppressed.  Public education isn't about education; it's about control.  That's why it must be killed. 

Funny thing is I went to a private Christian school from grade 7 to 9 - yet I'm the hated "libtard." :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

The first question we should ask is, "Is it bad to surround yourself with like-minded people?"

No.  But it is bad to mute other ideas aka head-in-sand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, TXPower said:

I also do not believe that my public education was all about control but much has changed since we left school.  I agree that sometimes we have to accept things we once accepted as true must be revised.  Caveat, there are some unchanging absolute truths IMO but that’s another discussion.  I respect your opinion and would fight for your right to hold it no matter how much I disagree with it.  Our kids are not learning that anymore.  The dogma of that is oft quoted but the deed of it fails to materialize.

So true.....

Liberal Politically Correct Colleges allowing liberal speech,  and preventing conservative speech...

 

I think one of the major lies behind all of this is the MODERN STATEMENT:     "AMERICA IS GREAT "BECAUSE OF" IT'S DIVERSITY."

When the HISTORICALLY ACCURATE STATEMENT IS:    "AMERICA IS GREAT "DESPITE" IT'S DIVERSITY."

 

AMERICA has HISTORICALLY been called the "MELTING POT."

 

Because people came here from everywhere,  and brought many different customs, and ideas,  AND OVER TIME,  WE THREW OUT WHAT WE DID NOT NEED TO BIND US, OR THAT HINDERED OUR SOLIDARITY,  AND KEPT THE BEST THAT THE NEW CITIZENS BROUGHT WITH THEM THAT MAKES US ALL THE SAME............

 

You could go from city to city, state to state,  and we all knew the same history, spoke the same language,  and we were all simply AMERICANS........

 

Nowadays,  the schools teach that everyone is some form of "HYPHENATED AMERICAN",  or white, or black, or whatever...

 

THEY WANT TO DIVIDE US BY RACE, AND GENDER, AND POLITICAL BELIEFS, etc........

 

EVERYTHING TODAY IS ABOUT HOW TO DIVIDE OURSELVES INSTEAD OF UNITE US........

 

TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER........

 

THE SCHOOLS ARE FULL OF THIS PROPAGANDA..............

 

These Colleges and Schools that teach and push this division must be stopped..........

 

Trump,  draining the swamp that allows this division to happen,  is a necessary beginning to the process of re-uniting us as a PEOPLE.....

 

One American People...........

 

Edited by Illurion
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, mthebold said:

As long as you paid for it and are happy with the outcome, I can't complain.  We disagree, but it's your right to choose your own education.  If I'm correct that your ideas are ineffective, then they'll ultimately fail you.  If you're correct, then my ideas will fail me - and I'll be forced to concede the point.  The problem is when people use the state to subsidize ideas, preventing competition from sorting the wheat from the chaff. 

There's a spectrum from "liberal" to "conservative", and not everyone on that spectrum is indoctrinated.  There are moderate, sensible positions on both sides of the aisle, and we'd all do well to consider these individually, adopting the effective ones.  That's why I identify as "libertarian" instead of feeding the political duopoly. 

It's possible you're not aware that your conversational style borders on trolling.  It's not a coincidence that no less than three people on this forum took exception to your methods and matched your pace.  I tend to enjoy conflict, so my reaction is to be expected.  The others... not so much.  Their behavior is a response to yours.  You may also consider whether your behavior brings honor to your leftist, Christian education. 

The remainder of this reply is in a harsh tone, and for good reason: some things have serious consequences and must be handled accordingly.  Society papers a thin veneer of civility over harsh realities; I've no patience for that.  Western leftists are too comfortable.  They don't understand the demons their policies are toying with.  I have been to third world countries and participated in war.  I know how America was built, and I know that we're not maintaining it.  I also know that Western leftists are not prepared for the violent hell they're creating. 

I strongly disagree with some of your positions and will happily refer to the worst as libtarded.  However, I reserve that term for cases where there's overwhelming evidence the idea in question doesn't work.  Cases that can only be explained by willful ignorance, obstinacy, or malicious intent.  More to the point, cases where I would violently oppose the idea because it's unquestionably dangerous.  I don't want violence, but if leftists insist, better them than me.  If I call you a libtard, you should be concerned

Most recently, I took issue with you putting words in my mouth.  Having lived in a civil society for many generations, we seem to have forgotten the norms and rules necessary for civilization to function.  One such rule is that you may disagree with me, but you may not speak for me.  Twisting another's words is disingenuous.  Disingenuous behavior renders civil communication impossible.  Without civil communication, our only recourse is conflict.  Thus, if you twist my words, I must view you as just another target to be put down.  An animal to be hunted.  Put simply, if you can't be civil, you don't get to enjoy civilization.  Choose your words more carefully.

Leftist incivility has been breeding conflict for over a decade, and that conflict won't stay contained to words forever.  I invested a lot into this nation, and I have loved ones to protect.  When leftist incivility finally breaks into active conflict, I'll gleefully inflict upon them every ounce of the pain and suffering I endured in war.  They will suffer until the consequences of their actions are seared into their memories, thus preventing relapse. 

We can have civil discourse, or we can fight.  It's your choice. 

People here take offense to alternative viewpoints.  The desire to surround yourself with "like-minded" individuals is too strong here.  Alternative views are shamed as fake news, or outright blocked; anything confirmatory is lauded - textbook confirmation bias.

Would be a very boring forum without debate.  If you can't handle my words feel free to ignore them. Yes, some people dislike my conversational style - It's been described as intimidating and excessively authoritative, even when I've made no appeals to authority.  I'm not fighting anyone, I'm here for amusement... and to check oil prices.

🍺 Cheers.  If you feel insulted by my words, just remember I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out where you are wrong. :)

P.S. Threats of violence aren't cool (moderators on other forums would put you on time-out).  Oh and by the way, if we did fight you would lose badly.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that the Supreme Court is going to strike down Trump's emergency declaration unanimously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would bet that the Supreme Court is going to strike down Trump's emergency declaration unanimously.  

I am not a betting person,  but i expect Trump will win 5 to 4,  or lose 4 to 5 based on whatever Roberts chooses...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS will uphold it, if for no other reason because of their tradition of adhering to precedence.  Especially since in the Trump Wall case there is no seizure of private property or other infringement upon the rights private citizens.  Trump maintains that terrorists, drugs and criminals entering the country undetected is a matter of National Security, the responsibility of which is clearly vested in the Executive Branch by our Constitution.  It doesn’t matter what pundits and John Q think in that regard.  

The National Emeregency Act gives very broad power to the president to decide when an emergency exists and no definition within the law prescribing what an emergency is or is not.  Nor does it require proof from the president of an emergency.  

The remedy is congress.  2/3 majority in both houses can overturn the emergency declaration immediately.  Or, Congress can go to work and abolish or amend the act.  Otherwise, SCOTUS should stay in their lane and Congress should command theirs.  Doubt it will happen though because each party knows eventually, their guy will be back in the White House and they may want him to be able to exercise the same power on an issue important to them.

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

We'll find out, won't we? Precedence says that the power of the purse is with Congress, not with the president.  If SCOTUS rules elsewise it sets a terrible precedent as it means the next Democrat who becomes president can declare a national emergency on climate change or guns, neither of which I support (nor do I support the wall).  

Furthermore, regardless of how the court cases goes, by the time Trump gets through his legal challenges and start on the wall (assuming even SCOTUS rules in his favor) his presidency would already be over, and the next president can scuttle Trump's executive order with an executive order of their own. 

The wall declaration is a typical Trump move.  Lots of symbolism with no follow through.   

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2019 at 2:43 PM, Enthalpic said:

Just like the POTUS.  Remember we already went through this and we agreed he lies (you just think his lies are good for the country).

i did not agree to that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites