United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Sen. Rand Paul: I support President Trump, but I can't support this National Emergency Declaration
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen ... national-emergency-declaration
Published: Mar 4, 2019
Author: Rand Paul
Post Date: 2019-03-04 08:50:58 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 544
Comments: 11
In September of 2014, I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution. He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.' Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.” I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.) I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security. However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate. Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Trump's just going to issue his first veto when this passes. So Rand can do an easy it's-muh-principles stance on this bill. I'm pretty sure Rand didn't have the deciding vote to begin with. And should we care all that much if the bill is stopped by a Senate vote as opposed to a Trump veto? If the Dems don't have the votes for a veto override in both houses of Congress, it is largely a meaningless distinction other than being a measure of Trump's control of the party. Trump would prefer that the Senate stop it for him but I don't see how Trump finally being forced to veto something makes that much difference.
I can't say he's wrong on this, but there's talk of this being a "Constitutional Crisis". How much of a "Constitutional Crisis" is it when nearly all Dems are willing to derail the entire country simply because they despise Trump?
Apparently, it only takes 40 dems to block something in the Senate. Might be a good time for 40 R's to prove a point.
Why wasn't it a constitutional crisis back when the GOP still held the House and we could have at least passed supporting legislation (and we did)? Our hold on the Senate is stronger now but we still have the problem of inadequate support. This "emergency" seems more political than actual. And the timing of it, in the wake of losing the House and strengthening GOP numbers in the Senate, raises questions.
That the R-controlled house didn't act on this until after they lost control in the Nov elections does expose hypocrisy. However, even last year, the Senate dems would likely have blocked things with their stronger minority as they can do now with their weaker minority. You know what the problem is here? Political parties. If you could not label an office holder by the letter next to their name, we wouldn't have this blind loyalty gangsterism all the time. It really would be a decent representative system if congress was filled by lottery rather than elections. The laws of averages would ensure that views and values would be reasonably representative of the American people. No campaigning and no 30 year incumbents lobbyists can establish a permanent personal relationship with. And the word "partisan" goes away as you couldn't label someone evil or good based on the letter by their name. Everyone would have to look at legislation alone to decide whether to vote for or against it, instead of looking at the cheerleading label of the person who first drafted it.
However. Anyone that would put a D next to their name is by defintion evil. That means they support theft, murdering children, faggots pretending to be married, cutting off and sewing on of penises. So the D is a good label to identify people with Demonic personalities. To bad the R doesn't always mean Right. At least with the D label we know to avoid it no matter what.
Stone, that is exactly the type of crap I'm talking about.
I know, but I disagree. If you are for abortion then you are evil. That is murder. If you support faggots. Then you are a pervert. More evil. Then lying to kids that they were born that way. Stealing your money to give to asswipes is immoral. 99 percent of democrats support that stuff. So they are 99 percent evil give or take a percent. When a political party takes obviously immoral positions and puts them into their plank. You can certainly say with confidence that democrats are evil. All of them or about 99 percent of them. I'm not saying all Republicans are good or even most of them are good. I'm just saying that all democrats suck and should never be voted for. That is just my opinion backed up by facts. I mean do you really think any baby killers are good people? I don't I know all baby killers are evil. 100 percent of the time.
Hey stupido. Rand already said he was supporting Trump in 2020. In 2028 after Donald Trump is finished with his 3 terms then we can support Rand. Is that other guy Mike Lee? I'm not sure. I would never support Mike Lee. Even though he is good on a couple of issues.
That was before Trump stomped on the US Constitution again, and again. No one at LF seems to care, no replies. Damn the Fetal Tissue, full speed ahead!
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#3. To: Tooconservative (#1)
#4. To: Pinguinite (#2)
I can't say he's wrong on this, but there's talk of this being a "Constitutional Crisis". How much of a "Constitutional Crisis" is it when nearly all Dems are willing to derail the entire country simply because they despise Trump?
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)
This "emergency" seems more political than actual. And the timing of it, in the wake of losing the House and strengthening GOP numbers in the Senate, raises questions.
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone, *2020 The Likely Suspects* (#0)
#10. To: hondo68 (#9)
#11. To: A K A Stone, Aborted Baby Parts, Humanized Mice, Clyven, Fetal Tissue (#10)
Rand already said he was supporting Trump in 2020.
HHS Extends Contract to Make 'Humanized Mice' With Aborted Baby Parts for Another 90 Days
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]