Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 633K
  • Politics 
Geisterfahrer said:
That it’s Congress’s power to legislate and spend. As far as I know, they’ve never ruled the President can destroy that power by fiat.
Click to expand...
And in the end it won't be destroyed. Money will go where it is by law supposed to go. And he will use the authority he has to reduce the size of the executive branch and the spending along with it.
 
CFordUNC said:
We’ve always had a “largely open border.” The border is the exact same as it has always been under every single presidential administration. There are patrolled ports of entry and there are thousands upon thousands of miles of unpatrolled land where people who are desperate enough to cross over rivers or other rough terrain often gain illegal entry in the United States. Short of literally building some sort of mythical impenetrable fortress wall along 100% of the border, we’re never going to be able to stop 100% of illegal immigration. What we *can* do, and what I support wholeheartedly, is robust reinforcement of our border security through beefed up border patrol personnel, beefed up technological infrastructure, strict policies on apprehension and expulsion- you know, exactly like the bipartisan border bill created by Republican Senator Jim Lankford. That bill was a fantastic start. I’m more than happy to spend whatever money we need, and allocate whatever resources and personnel we need, to secure the border as best we can. I’m happy to spend whatever money we need and allocate whatever resources and personnel we need, to detain and expel migrants who commit crimes here in the U.S. I think we should allocate whatever money and whatever resources we need to make our system of legal immigration more efficient. But we’ve always had a “largely open border” and we will always have a “largely open border” unless you think that spending tons of taxpayer money and tons of military manpower to literally secure thousands of miles of empty border land is a good use of resources.
Click to expand...
I'm not really taking a strong position on border wall versus other solutions, nor am I claiming to want a 100% secure border. I do wonder if the short-term cost of a border wall are less than the long-term cost of additional manpower, but that is a separate topic.

My issue has a lot more to do with the political side of the border and the fact that The Democratic Party seems to want to label as racist anyone who wants to have a more secure border while, again, sitting in there million dollar Manhattan townhome, far from the southern border.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
And in the end it won't be destroyed. Money will go where it is by law supposed to go. And he will use the authority he has to reduce the size of the executive branch and the spending along with it.
Click to expand...
That would be for the negotiations for the next budget. Once Congress has allocated money to the various programs, departments and agencies the president cannot refuse to spend the money.
 
Callatoroy said:
And in the end it won't be destroyed. Money will go where it is by law supposed to go. And he will use the authority he has to reduce the size of the executive branch and the spending along with it.
Click to expand...
Congress approves funds to spend on various items, but Trump apparently thinks he can decide whether or not to actually fund those items decided on by Congress. Does he have this authority? I don't think so ...

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, his administration briefly paused federal spending on various programs. Although that spending has been restored, the move led to questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.
constitutioncenter.org

If Trump gets his way ...
Executive branch >> Legislative branch = Judicial branch

Unless you're Tommy Tuberville, and then
Executive branch >> Senate branch = House branch
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
I'm not really taking a strong position on border wall versus other solutions, nor am I claiming to want a 100% secure border. I do wonder if the short-term cost of a border or less than the long-term cost of additional manpower, but that is a separate topic.

My issue has a lot more to do with the political side of the border and the fact that The Democratic Party seems to want to label as racist anyone who wants to have a more secure border while, again, sitting in there million dollar Manhattan townhome, far from the southern border.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's absurd for anyone to reflexively label someone 'racist' for wanting to have a more secure border or border enforcement policies. I also think that it's equally absurd to pretend that the Republican Party has any desire to secure the southern border. If they did, it would be done. They had majorities in both houses of Congress for the first part of Trump 1.0, and have majorities in both here in the first part of Trump 2.0. If they wanted there to be a border solution, there would be a border solution. Texas, in particular, is not an impoverished state. Arizona is not an impoverished state. You can say that blocking the Republican-generated bipartisan border bill- one that was the stuff of Republican wet dreams and was a total surrender by the Democratic Party- was smart election year politicking (if not incredibly cynical). But then why, with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the executive branch who will rubber stamp any bill that passes the Republican Congress, is there nothing being done (and nothing going to be done) except performative border outrage theater?
 
Bobfripp said:
Congress approves funds to spend on various items, but Trump apparently thinks he can decide whether or not to actually fund those items decided on by Congress. Does he have this authority? I don't think so ...

Can a president refuse to spend funds approved by Congress? | Constitution Center

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, his administration briefly paused federal spending on various programs. Although that spending has been restored, the move led to questions about the separation of powers between the president and Congress.
constitutioncenter.org

If Trump gets his way ...
Executive branch >> Legislative branch = Judicial branch

Unless you're Tommy Tuberville, and then
Executive branch >> Senate branch = House branch
Click to expand...
Much of it is determined by how the appropriations were worded. Some he will have no control over this go around but will have more control next year. I'm good with the money going where legally required to go and in the end trump will follow. I'm happy with just highlighting the spending bullshit now so that future funding will be cut. I think most of his voters will agree in the end. So, keep turning over every rock elon. highlight every penny spent on bullshit so that it will end.
 
Callatoroy said:
I know its precisely the role of the courts to determine the legitimate power of the president. A court ruling may or may not do that. He is talking about activist judges ruling just to impede his actions. He isn't talking about SCOTUS issuing a ruling and trump disregarding it. He isn't saying trump is above the law and shouldn't following court decisions.
Click to expand...
Without doing a whole bunch of research, I know at least one of the recent injunctions against Trump's nonsense came from a judge he appointed 6 years ago. Very much like when he lost 70+ lawsuits contesting the election and many of the rulings came from judges he appointed. So I don't think anyone on this board wants to hear some bullshit about activist judges without some argument as to why the rulings are actually wrong.
 
Callatoroy said:
Much of it is determined by how the appropriations were worded. Some he will have no control over this go around but will have more control next year. I'm good with the money going where legally required to go and in the end trump will follow. I'm happy with just highlighting the spending bullshit now so that future funding will be cut. I think most of his voters will agree in the end. So, keep turning over every rock elon. highlight every penny spent on bullshit so that it will end.
Click to expand...
Why does Elon Musk, an unelected official, and also not confirmed by Congress or the public, get to decide what's bullshit and what isn't?
 
Callatoroy said:
nope, not in the least
Click to expand...
Uhhh, have you opened your bible recently?
What did Jesus say we are to do to immigrants? Separate them from their families and deport them? Criticize Catholics who help them?
What did Jesus say we are to do to the hungry? Cut off their aid? Stop paying USAID? Eliminate free school breakfast and lunch?
What did Jesus say we are to do to the sick? Kick them off their health insurance? Cut Medicaid? Stop payments to Lutheran Family Services for providing long term care?
 
Callatoroy said:
I know its precisely the role of the courts to determine the legitimate power of the president. A court ruling may or may not do that. He is talking about activist judges ruling just to impede his actions. He isn't talking about SCOTUS issuing a ruling and trump disregarding it. He isn't saying trump is above the law and shouldn't following court decisions.
Click to expand...
And how do you know what he's talking about any better than I do? Do you have some sort of direct thought line to JD Vance?

Also, it doesn't need to be a SCOTUS ruling for it to be a legitimate limitation on executive power. Thats not how the judiciary works.

And Vance damned well knows he's talking out of his ass.
 
“… Musk’s success so far is the fruit of his decision to pick the easiest targets – like USAID and CFPB. Foreign aid is rarely popular with voters, especially in an era when an “America First” president runs the White House. And the consumer bureau has been in the sights of Republican lawmakers for years.

But the next targets could be more politically painful for Trump and his base. He’s hinted that the Education Department is high on the list – and he could pull off a feat dreamed of by several GOP presidents with a closure. But any disruption to student loans or important education programs in the states could anger voters beyond those upset about the gutting of USAID.

Trump called on Tuesday for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he’s been softening up for months with his inflated claims that it failed North Carolinians after a hurricane hit last year. A new system of sending disaster aid directly to states seems like a great money-saving idea that could cut through bureaucracy. But the loss of FEMA’s institutional knowledge and infrastructure could rebound politically against the White House if the response to a future natural disaster fails.

Musk is posing some searching questions for the federal government and will inevitably find waste in such a large organization – even if many of his claims are not backed up by full weight of evidence to allow voters to judge for themselves. …”

 
superrific said:
Out of curiosity, how do you find these random tweets or skys?
Click to expand...
I look

I have a fairly extensive list of follows that curates my following feed

That informs what appears in my feed

In addition I can further narrow using search functions on specific topics
 
Last edited:
CFordUNC said:
I agree that it's absurd for anyone to reflexively label someone 'racist' for wanting to have a more secure border or border enforcement policies. I also think that it's equally absurd to pretend that the Republican Party has any desire to secure the southern border. If they did, it would be done. They had majorities in both houses of Congress for the first part of Trump 1.0, and have majorities in both here in the first part of Trump 2.0. If they wanted there to be a border solution, there would be a border solution.
Click to expand...
I think that there are a lot of Republican voters, and some Republican politicians, who want a more secure border.
Texas, in particular, is not an impoverished state. Arizona is not an impoverished state. You can say that blocking the Republican-generated bipartisan border bill- one that was the stuff of Republican wet dreams and was a total surrender by the Democratic Party- was smart election year politicking (if not incredibly cynical). But then why, with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican in the executive branch who will rubber stamp any bill that passes the Republican Congress, is there nothing being done (and nothing going to be done) except performative border outrage theater?
Click to expand...
I don't think being a border state is automatically synonymous with being impoverished. Arizona, given how fast they are growing, probably benefits from it's population of illegal immigrants. They provide a much needed labor force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top