"Department of Homeland Security [DHS] testing of a steel slat prototype proved it could be cut through with a saw."
a 2017 DHS report showed that all of Trump's eight prototypes (steel slats included) are "vulnerable to breaching."
In response to the picture, Trump told reporters on Thursday morning, "that’s a wall designed by previous administrations."
"It's very, very hard — the wall that we are doing is very, very hard to penetrate,"
In response to the picture, Trump told reporters on Thursday morning, "that’s a wall designed by previous administrations."
"It's very, very hard — the wall that we are doing is very, very hard to penetrate,"
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/10/tru...by-saw-report/
Derp advocates government by poll.
Polls good now.
Do tell, Spurtacular, can you explain how the Republican majority failed to fund this important priority for two years?
What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—
he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority.
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.
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 ins utions might not save us from a presidential power grab.
They might be what takes us down.
1. “A LOADED WEAPON”
2. AN INTERNET KILL SWITCH?
The president could seize control of U.S. internet traffic, impeding access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return pro-Trump content as the top results.
3. SANCTIONING AMERICANS
Americans might be surprised to learn just how readily the president can deploy troops inside the United States.
4. BOOTS ON MAIN STREET
5. KINDLING AN EMERGENCY
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/
Read again.
I said screw it up.
This is how utterly mixed up red teams messages Is.
But Thanks anyway bozo.
Trump's wall is about to start screwing Texans:
https://www.texasobserver.org/trumps...first-victims/When the feds take land for border wall, the process is quick and brutal. A decade ago, the Bush and Obama administrations built 110 miles of wall in Texas, including through landowned by Cavazos’ cousin, leaving behind a mess of undercompensated landowners, bureaucratic errors and blatant corruption. Some landowners are still haggling over payment in court today, but the wall was built regardless. That’s because the feds use a supercharged version of eminent domain, allowing them to take property without first settling on a price. Top Texas Republicans, typically shrill opponents of the “grasping hand” of government, have shown little interest in defending Texans from this particular federal intrusion.
Fed intrusion of Texas ok now for Republicans.
in a
Republicans absolutely do not want "the gubmint involved in private citizens lives"Fed intrusion of Texas ok now for Republicans.
in a
except when.... the gubmint does exactly that.
Texas Republicans absolutely want no part of the Federal government until they demand the Feds get involved
^ Funny but also an actual thing that exists
https://keepandbear.com/products/bui...EaAjgvEALw_wcB
RGV is mostly blue Texas, so TX Repug pols won't fight for them.Fed intrusion of Texas ok now for Republicans.
in a
and there's no votes down there, anyway
https://us-places.com/Texas/population-by-County.htm
There's a wall at the RGV any way. I wonder how all the "come and take it" weirdos in far West Texas will respond to it
How illegal drugs actually get into the United States
The notion that a border wall will stem the flow of narcotics into the U.S. is ignorant of the facts and overly simplistic,
https://thinkprogress.org/how-illega...-2a9aac5ed5d8/
There are partial walls in the RGV. There are big gaps.
Well you're a bit of a sloppy poster so your haiku posting style with riddles is too tedious to decipher.
But McAllen is still safe.
Are the gaps lawless murderlands?
Pentagon extends mission to Mexico border through September
Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan approved the extension in response to a request from the Homeland Security Department, the Pentagon said in a statement.
There are about 2,350 troops assigned to the border mission.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-pentagon/pentagon-says-
extending-mission-to-mexico-border-through-september-idUSKCN1P904R?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&u tm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign= Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics +News%29
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-14-2019 at 10:29 PM.
Florida did the same:
...be hilarious if there was a Bundy type situation in TX over the eminent domain....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
