It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Hmmm... you do have a short attention span, don't you?


I'm beginning to think it's you and Xtrozero who have the short attention spans.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
Er, that was my point. If property can be questionably seized under Eminent Domain anyway without declaring a National Emergency, what is the difference between that and using a National Emergency?


Apparently you do not see any risks with linking pet-policies/campaign-promises that seize private property, and declaring National Emergencies in order to enact them. Setting the precedent of linking the two is what I see serious problems with, and what I've been attempting to highlight.

If you see no risk in such, then that's your prerogative, and that's all you need to say, but the straw-man arguments aren't needed.



originally posted by: redmage
I still think declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property is a dangerous road to go down. Like I said previously, that just might kick open the door for the next Dem to declare a national emergency for climate change and seize "fuel-inefficient" trucks/SUVs, or declare a National Emergency with the 1st school shooting on their watch and seize firearms. The possibilities go on and on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
That is a strawman argument.


No it's not.

It's the possible risks of setting the precedent linking a declaration of "National Emergency" with "a pet policy that seizes private property" that I find disturbing, and it's that argument that you and Xtrozero are either not picking up on (short attention span?), or are just intentionally straw-manning.

A strawman is when you argue against a mischaracterization of someone else's argument... which is exactly what you and Xtrozero have been doing when responding with bastardizations of my stated concern instead of addressing the actual notion that I've presented.

It's not about addressing pet policies, especially those that don't seize private/personal property, or those that were implemented without declaring a National Emergency to do it.

It's not about addressing National Emergencies, especially those that don't involve seizure of private/personal property, or those declared for reasons other than fulfilling pet policies/campaign promises.

It's not about addressing eminent domain declared without the use of a National Emergency.

It's about setting the precedent of linking them all together. The sum is greater than the parts.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
We're really not even talking about seizing property, either. We're talking about forcing an easement, which is simply an area where the US government has the right to construct and access the border wall. A little semantic, I know, but there is some difference.


A slight difference, but more semantic in my opinion.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
The Constitution does not allow for the seizing of firearms or vehicles or anything like that; it forbids it. Trump is not violating the Constitution with any National Emergency Declaration over the wall...


Presidential Emergency Powers are vast and expansive. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse which is exactly what he would be attempting to usurp by declaring a National Emergency in order to fund his pet policy (specifically, one that seizes private property).


originally posted by: TheRedneck
Incidentally, firearms have been seized by a government already, and in recent memory. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that was a common practice in New Orleans. Come to think of it, I believe that was under a National Emergency... I could be wrong.


Nope, you're right. They took advantage of a National Emergency and seized firearms in the hurricane aftermath... and to think... above you correctly stated "the Constitution does not allow for the seizing of firearms or vehicles or anything like that".

Emergency Powers are vast and expansive. Now imagine no hurricane, and just declaring that National Emergency to fulfill a gun control campaign promise after the first "mass shooting" on a new Dem President's watch, then you may start to see where I'm coming from because Trump is debating setting such a precedent right now through his notions of declaring a National Emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private property.

It's setting the precedent of linking them all together that I find disturbing. You and Xtrozero appear to be too distracted by the parts to see the whole. The sum is what I'm talking about, and the sum is greater than the parts.
edit on 1/14/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

No, I understand your points; I simply don't agree they are applicable.

Eminent Domain does not apply to non-real property. It only applies to real property. That's what makes it a strawman. The guns seized during Katrina (thank you for the verification... my mind wants to reject that cluster) were not seized under Eminent Domain. They were not seized under Federal policy at all, actually... that was state agencies that implemented the seizures.

For the record, I was one of those who adamantly opposed the seizures.

My point is, this does not set any precedent. It has been done before, and even the circumstances you mention as dire potentials have also occurred. We already have precedents.

I will say this: compared to the previous arguments I have been hearing (walls 'don't work,' walls are immoral, walls are insufficient, walls are 'archaic,' it's too much money, it'll take too long, etc.), at least you are presenting an argument that makes some sense. I thank you for that, even though I do not agree. The Interstate highway system Eisenhower embarked on has been an economic boon for the nation; few would disagree that Interstate highways are a bad thing today. Yet, during the time it was being debated, many opposed it for the same reasons the wall is being resisted including the amount of Eminent Domain that was required. TVA has been a Godsend for my area; it brought clean, cheap electricity to the area, tamed a rogue river, and established natural beauty that today sets us apart. Growing up, however, I continually heard about how evil TVA was for seizing property under Eminent Domain.

Those were both someone's pet projects. Both had intense opposition.

The wall is such a project. It will establish peace along the border, ensure sovereignty, and protect people from a criminal element that uses our open border policies to terrorize the population from sea to shining sea. The only reason it requires a National Emergency is that our leaders (Pelosi, Schumer) are refusing to lead. I do not see that as a precedent toward anything other than having extreme gridlock, and that is now unavoidable.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

So you don't agree that private property will be seized if he declares a National Emergency to divert emergency funds from disaster relief towards building his wall?


Two questions here...


Eminent domain. n. the power of a governmental entity (Federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use...


How is that not for public use, public interest? So no I do not have a problem with it...

Diverting funds.. You act like someone will starve or go unsupported in another emergency, and that would not happen, so if the President diverts funds from whatever, it is his right and it will not effect anything else, so you are trying to make an issue from a non-issue.




It seems you are the one who doesn't understand eminent domain.


I'm kind of thinking that about you...




Campaign promises are the definition of "pet policies" whether they're full blown, or not. Trump's pet policies were more coal, banning Muslims, and Mexico paying for a border wall.


Your definition means nothing...call it what you will...was Obama Care a pet policy?



The rest of your post was basically, orange man bad...





edit on 14-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Eminent Domain does not apply to non-real property. It only applies to real property. That's what makes it a strawman.


No, it doesn't make it a straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent someone else's position, then argue against that misrepresentation instead of addressing what they're actually saying... exactly what you're doing right now.

Like I said "It's not about addressing eminent domain declared without the use of a National Emergency." which is exactly what you're debating right now. Arguing the isolated notion of eminent domain itself.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. What I'm talking about is the combination of three conditions being met together. Seizure of personal/private property under specific conditions. Instances of eminent domain could possibly fall under half of that umbrella (if the instance were done under a National Emergency declared to fulfill a pet policy) since it seizes private property, but the guns seized in Kartina were not seized by eminent domain, and the Emergency wasn't declared to enact a campaign promise/pet policy, so even Katrina (while concerning on its own) did not set the dangerous precedent that concerns me now.


originally posted by: TheRedneck
The guns seized during Katrina (thank you for the verification... my mind wants to reject that cluster) were not seized under Eminent Domain. They were not seized under Federal policy at all, actually... that was state agencies that implemented the seizures.


I never claimed eminent domain was used to seize the guns in Katrina, nor was that emergency declared for the purpose of a pet policy. smh


originally posted by: TheRedneck
For the record, I was one of those who adamantly opposed the seizures.


As did I.



originally posted by: TheRedneck
My point is, this does not set any precedent. It has been done before, and even the circumstances you mention as dire potentials have also occurred. We already have precedents.


Yes it would, no it hasn't, and no we don't.

I'm talking about the combination of A, B, and C into a dangerous "perfect storm" of sorts, and meanwhile you're claiming, "but A happened in isolation so the precedent has been set", "but B happened in isolation so the precedent has been set", or "but C happened in isolation so the precedent has been set".

Katrina is probably one of the closest examples of what is concerning me now because it did meet two of the three criteria I'm referring to (seizure of property, while under a National Emergency), but it doesn't set the precedent of all three together (the emergency was declared for a hurricane, not for a pet policy/campaign promise).


originally posted by: TheRedneck
Those were both someone's pet projects. Both had intense opposition.


I'm not aware of Presidents declaring National Emergencies for TVA, or the interstate highway system to be built. Those don't set the precedent I'm concerned about.

Again, I'm concerned with setting the precedent of declaring a national emergency to enact a pet policy that seizes private/personal property.

There are three conditions there to be met, and as of yet no one has provided a prior precedent that meets those three conditions because it hasn't been set yet.





edit on 1/14/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


Diverting funds.. You act like someone will starve or go unsupported in another emergency, and that would not happen, so if the President diverts funds from whatever, it is his right and it will not effect anything else, so you are trying to make an issue from a non-issue.

In one sense, that could actually happen: someone might go hungry because of the diversion of funds. I truly believe Trump has resisted declaring a National Emergency because he wants the construction jobs from the wall in the economy. If he uses the military, that won't happen. So yeah, some poor soul could go hungry because there wasn't a job for him.

Of course, that is the opposite of Trump's fault if I am right. It's Congress' fault for keeping the money instead of letting it be used.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

I guess where I am having trouble is the concept of "pet policy." That phrase indicates a policy that someone advocates... and of course there has never been a policy that someone didn't advocate, so every policy can be considered a pet policy. I really don't see a difference in that respect between a pet policy and a pet project, either.

So you're talking about a conjunction of conditions A, B, and C, and I'm just not seeing where C is not a constant condition.

The phrase "pet policy" carries some negative connotations as well, as in a policy that is embraced without regard for any other policy or for any negative consequences... but again, is that not the norm in national politics?

Maybe if you could use a more precise definition of what you mean by "pet policy"?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
How is that not for public use, public interest? So no I do not have a problem with it...


I asked if you thought private property would be seized, not if you thought it was for public use, or if you had a problem with it.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
Diverting funds.. You act like someone will starve or go unsupported in another emergency, and that would not happen


Coffers are not limitless, money would be diverted from Texas/PR hurricane relief, and CA wildfire relief.


originally posted by: Xtrozero
Your definition means nothing...call it what you will...was Obama Care a pet policy?


Yes, it was.



originally posted by: Xtrozero
The rest of your post was basically, orange man bad...


Riiiiiiiiight. SMH

That's why I specifically addressed my concerns about what the left would do if Trump set such a precedent.

Take off the partisan blinders and open your eyes.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Maybe if you could use a more precise definition of what you mean by "pet policy"?


Swap in "campaign promise" if that makes it easier to understand. They're effectively the same, but I've opted towards "pet policy" in this instance primarily because the "promise" in question was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, so technically he's deviated from the actual "campaign promise".


originally posted by: TheRedneck
So you're talking about a conjunction of conditions A, B, and C, and I'm just not seeing where C is not a constant condition.


I think there's a pretty stark difference between between declaring a National Emergency due to a natural disaster like tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, etc., and declaring a National Emergency for a campaign promise to simply bypass Congress. The former is understandable, but latter is too authoritarian/dictatorial for my comfort.

Like my example of what the left might do over a pet policy (campaign promise) of gun control, or climate change.

Setting this precedent just might kick open the door for the next Dem to declare a national emergency for climate change and seize "fuel-inefficient" trucks/SUVs, or declare a National Emergency with the 1st school shooting on their watch and seize firearms. The possibilities go on and on.

I know, earlier you dismissed this notion on the basis of taking guns being unconstitutional, but then there's Katrina (which met 2 of the 3 criteria).

The idea of setting the precedent of declaring a national emergency to enact a "campaign promise" that seizes personal/private property is something that doesn't sit well with me at all.
edit on 1/14/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage


I asked if you thought private property would be seized, not if you thought it was for public use, or if you had a problem with it.


I don't know and don't really care as long as it is within the normal limits of eminent domain, and we are not even talking about taking someone's house, but open land.
edit on 14-1-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

(Apologies for the delay; I was called away.)


The idea of setting the precedent of declaring a national emergency to enact a "campaign promise" that seizes personal/private property is something that doesn't sit well with me at all.

I'll admit to having too many inches of skull to get through sometimes, but that paragraph finally did it. Congratulations! Obtaining comprehension in a redneck can be quite the achievement.

Now, considering I just got your point and I hate to waste a post, I am going to consider it in something akin to a stream of consciousness here:

The issue with government corruption and overreach has existed throughout history. I would argue that it is our system of checks and balances, which are designed to place our officials at odds with each other, that has led to our relative success. By that, I mean our lack of having an actual dictator take power for 235 years. So what are the checks and balances on the declaration of a National Emergency?

Well, for one, the declaration of a National emergency becomes a very real possibility in two cases: invasion of the US (the actual intent) and governmental gridlock. I concentrate on the latter. Gridlock implies that there is split power between the President and Congress. So we can safely say that impeachment would be a possibility. Another check would be legislation passed by Congress wherein the power of the President could be limited... that one concerns me because we all know how slowly Congress can act, even when it has resolve.

There is also the check of the Judiciary via the Supreme Court. That can also be a very slow solution.

OK, let's consider the idea you brought up: a pet policy of Global Warming policy compliance. There is nothing in the Constitution about Global Warming, so that would be a good example. Could the President, through a declaration of a National Emergency, confiscate SUVs? Possibly yes. That's a bad thing.

On the other hand, a National Emergency is temporary. Once over, the President will have to answer for the declaration. If an SUV is taken from me, I can sue the government at that time for the replacement cost of an SUV. The ordeal turns out to be an inconvenience.

I'll be thinking some more about your point, but right now I just don't see where the possibility justifies limiting the power to declare a National Emergency, especially when that power exists in order to allow a quick response to things like an armed invasion by hostile forces.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

I think there's a pretty stark difference between between declaring a National Emergency due to a natural disaster like tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, etc., and declaring a National Emergency for a campaign promise to simply bypass Congress. The former is understandable, but latter is too authoritarian/dictatorial for my comfort.



Out of the 31 still active today your domestic crisis ones are the lest, so why all of a sudden do you say this would be so wrong other than you just do not like the idea at a fundamental level.




posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I wonder if it got transfered to his bank and enjoyed some if the interest rates before putting it back



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 05:15 AM
link   
This lame attempt at funding the wall was always going to be an epic fail. Everyone knew this except the suckers who fell for it.



posted on Jan, 15 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: TinySickTears


GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors


Nah, those that were stupid or gullible enough to donate should not be reimbursed.

Gofundme should just donate it all to a charity or something.


GoFundMe should donate it to an immigration-based charity that supports those trying to come into the country through the asylum process. That would make my day!



posted on Jan, 21 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: TinySickTears


GoFundMe To Reimburse Border Wall Campaign Donors


Nah, those that were stupid or gullible enough to donate should not be reimbursed.

Gofundme should just donate it all to a charity or something.


GoFundMe should donate it to an immigration-based charity that supports those trying to come into the country through the asylum process.


My thoughts exactly.




top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join