Senate votes down Trump’s National Emergency for border wall

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,443
Dallas, TX
So for 2020, that’s Gardner, Tillis, McSally, Cornyn, Perdue, Daines, and Ernst backing up Trump. Collins is the only even remotely vulnerable GOP Senator for 2020 to side against Trump. It probably helps Daines and Ernst in MT and IA to be ultra pro-wall, but it’s probably serious ammo for whatever Dems end up running in CO/AZ/TX/NC/GA. Dems need to slam them all hard on this.
 

OuterLimits

Member
Nov 2, 2017
881
So he has a Veto proof number in House and Senate correct? Assuming override votes went same way of course.
 

bdbdbd

Member
Oct 27, 2017
980
Pretty decent chance the next president will be a democrat and if this somehow gets through the courts, it gives us a ton of power. Not power the president really should have, mind you.
Any more than the other 30 or so active national emergencies that I hardly know what emergency they really address?

Trump has been undermining norms and breaking precedent in general for 2 years and the party has stood by without saying boo. Republicans couldn't care less about preserving the fundamental constitutionality of our democracy, so I don't get the sudden "show" over this.
They aren't.

They know hes going to veto it. 100% they know. This is them trying to look tough, to not be total pushovers, BUT, they're all cowards doing a bullshit vote that they know he will veto.
Sure there's always that angle, but why now? Why so many willing to play like they have spine now rather than at any other time when they still would have had the cover of a veto or the majority voting in favor of Trump anyway?
 

Commedieu

Member
Nov 11, 2017
5,565
Any more than the other 30 or so active national emergencies that I hardly know what emergency they really address?

Trump has been undermining norms and breaking precedent in general for 2 years and the party has stood by without saying boo. Republicans couldn't care less about preserving the fundamental constitutionality of our democracy, so I don't get the sudden "show" over this.
Sure there's always that angle, but why now? Why so many willing to play like they have spine now rather than at any other time when they still would have had the cover of a veto or the majority voting in favor of Trump anyway?
Sir/Ma`am/ don't look to traitors for taking some noble stand. If anything, its for selfish non USA related reasons. This isn't a dramatic show, if they wanted it to be Veto proof, you'd have a point. Nothing has changed, so there is no reason to think of it that way.
 

Kevtones

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,723
Gun violence is a national emergency.
A lack of affordable healthcare is a national emergency.

I guess the GOP play here is that there will never be a democratic president again?
 

Volimar

Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
10,291
Why does every one of his tweets read like Michael's "I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" scene from The Office.
 

Paltheos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,679
If he vetos it, then he opens it up for the next Democratic President to declare a national emergency when needed.
The declaration itself did this already. The veto just affirms it.

The question facing Mitch and gang is whether or not to override the veto. If they don't, they tacitly approve another president doing the same in the future. As hard on as Era's hate-boner for them, they do know this and this isn't something that they like, but they're probably still going to come down as party-first. Why stop Trump now lol
 

Yerba_Sutra

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,140
Appalachia
Checked Rand Paul's FB page to see if he commented on his voting decision (I used to be a Paul guy before I learned more about how policy he supports isn't as rosy as he makes it sound), and between this and his determination to end US involvement in Afghanistan his base is not happy with him right now lmao
 

Blizzard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,685
What the fuck is the point of voting against the president if he can just go "nah".
In this case: Because it allows you to posture yourself as moderate in some sense because you voted against that evil Trump who everyone hates, while still not actually hindering him or your party in any way, since you know he can just veto.

Also in this case: Because a couple Republicans might realize that unless Trump manages to permanently seize power for Republicans, a future Democratic President could use this same power if they're willing to abuse it for good.

In general: Theoretically a Senate with a conscience or a brain could override an insane President, but obviously that doesn't apply in this case since they don't have enough votes to override the veto.
 

StarCreator

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,316
Nah, the Court's won't let it through
It might not even come to that. Technically, it's possible the veto override can get more votes than the actual resolution, because voting to defending the Senate's role in legislating the country is more defensible a position than just saying "nope, I disapprove of Trump".

Of course, I'm of mind to let it happen Trump's way, so that a Democratic POTUS can just do the same thing and sweep everything Trump ever did away.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,264
South Carolina
Will he actually veto though? I'll believe Mr. Non-Confrontation when I see it.

Gun violence is a national emergency.
A lack of affordable healthcare is a national emergency.

I guess the GOP play here is that there will never be a democratic president again?
They're cowards. This is what happens when theyre pressed into a corner where there are no good answers for them.

Why does 1 guy get to decide what the senate gets to vote on?
Big money, the desire for rightwing activist judges, and McConnell being the kind of guy to burn everything down to pull it off.
 

Finalrush

Member
Dec 7, 2017
411
Any more than the other 30 or so active national emergencies that I hardly know what emergency they really address?
Yes -- more than those other emergencies, because those emergencies were never used to override Congress's power of the purse. That's what this is about. The issue is that Trump asked for the money, congress used their check on the executive branch and said no, and Trump now is attempting to use national emergency powers to override that check that congress is guaranteed by the constitution. They know the left has multiple causes they could easily use a national emergency on and with much more substantial factual backing, so it's a bad call for them to support it.
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
810
Guys, the “reasonable” and “moderate” Republicans vote with Democrats on liberal bills that they know won’t actually succeed (either through a veto or a failure to gain a majority) as a tactic in order to maintain or win the support of centrist and independent voters.

They also do the inverse, where they’ll vote against extra heinous conservative bills if they know the bill will get enough votes from Republicans in deep red districts and/or states, so they put as few reps/senators at risk as possible should there be any backlash.

Please don’t let them play you like this.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,685
Our nation's best hope: "Maybe Trump will get distracted and go golfing / not realize that VETO on Twitter isn't an actual veto."
 

Wrighteous86

Member
Oct 27, 2017
616
Chicago
His base doesn't like him he's a president with an (r) next to his name

trust me they would much prefer someone who was even remotely effective at governance
I disagree. Most of the Republicans I know who want an effective Conservative President despise him, and have left the party, or at the very least, are NOT a part of his base and don't approve of him and would desperately take another Republican in his stead.

The ones I know that are his "base" like him because he's a monster. They prefer him to anyone else.
 

KojiKnight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,270
Quick: someone tell him that that tweet constitutes an actual veto and he doesn't have to go through anymore effort!
That's not how it works, he has to sign anything passed by congress into law unless they veto-proof the bill. You'd have to trick him like they did in 90's sitcoms by making him think he was signing something else.
 

Capra

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,298
That's not how it works, he has to sign anything passed by congress into law unless they veto-proof the bill. You'd have to trick him like they did in 90's sitcoms by making him think he was signing something else.
Considering Trump's level of reading comprehension this is probably actually feasible.
 

affeinvasion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,094
From a philosophical (not a legal) standpoint it's weird to be able to veto a rebuke against oneself. "We disagree with what you have done"--"No. Officially you do not."
 

higemaru

Member
Nov 30, 2017
1,284
Hey Toomey did a not reprehensible thing for once. Good on him.

Pennsylvania's still gonna take you out first chance we get.