📘 Tutorial: Setări Internet pentru Counter-Strike 1.6 – Reduce Loss, Choke și Ping Descriere: În acest tutorial vei învăța cum să îți optimizezi conexiunea la internet în Counter-Strike 1.6 pentru a reduce loss-ul, choke-ul și ping-ul. Ghidul este explicat pe înțelesul tuturor, pas cu pas. Download: Momentan nu este disponibil un fișier de descărcat. Autor: Anonim Sursa: Nu a fost specificat un link oficial 🔍 Ce înseamnă Loss, Choke și Ping? 🔴 Ce este LOSS? „Loss” indică numărul de pachete de date pierdute între server și client. Aceasta poate fi cauzată de o conexiune instabilă, nu neapărat lentă. Dacă conexiunea ta este mai slabă decât cea a serverului, trebuie să reduci numărul de pachete pe care le primești pentru a evita pierderea acestora. 🟠 Ce este CHOKE? „Choke” apare atunci când calculatorul tău nu poate trimite suficiente pachete către server, de obicei din cauza conexiunii slabe sau a unor setări incorecte. ⚙️ Comenzi Importante pentru Optimizare ✅ 1. rate XXXX Această comandă definește viteza maximă de transfer de date între client și server. Setări recomandate în funcție de tipul de conexiune: Tip conexiuneValoare recomandată rate 28.8k modem1500 – 2200 33.6k modem2000 – 3500 56k modem3500 – 4000 ISDN4000 – 6000 xDSL, Cable, T1 etc.6000 – 9999 Exemplu: rate 9999 ⚠️ Dacă valoarea este prea mare sau prea mică în raport cu serverul, poate genera loss și choke. ✅ 2. cl_updaterate XX Definește câte pachete pe secundă primește clientul de la server. Setări recomandate: Modem: 15 – 25 Broadband (internet rapid): 25 – 40 ✅ 3. cl_cmdrate XX Stabilește câte pachete pe secundă trimite clientul către server. Setări recomandate: Modem: 25 – 35 Broadband: 40 – 50 📉 Cum influențează comenzile conexiunea LOSS este influențat de comanda cl_updaterate CHOKE este influențat de comanda cl_cmdrate 🛠️ Pași pentru testare și ajustare: Deschide Counter-Strike. În consola jocului, scrie:   net_graph 3 (Pentru a dezactiva: net_graph 0) Intră pe un server populat. Urmărește valorile pentru loss și choke. Ajustează comenzile astfel: 🔧 Dacă ai loss: Scade valoarea cl_updaterate cu pași de 5. Dacă dispare loss-ul, poți încerca să crești treptat valoarea pentru un ping mai mic. 🔧 Dacă ai choke: Scade valoarea cl_cmdrate cu pași de 5. Dacă dispare choke-ul, poți încerca să o crești treptat. 🔧 Dacă ai loss și choke: Scade valoarea rate. 🔧 Dacă NU ai loss și choke: Poți încerca să crești valoarea rate pentru performanță mai bună. 💾 Salvarea setărilor După ce ai găsit valorile optime: Salvează-le în fișierul config.cfg sau userconfig.cfg Le poți salva și într-un fișier .cfg personal, cu condiția ca acesta să fie executat la fiecare pornire a jocului. 🔔 Recomandări finale: După fiecare modificare, așteaptă 5-10 secunde pentru a vedea rezultatele. Nu modifica valorile prea rapid. Ajustările fine fac diferența între un joc fluid și unul enervant.

Cum pun arma pe dreapta / Arma la cs pe dreapta Pentru a pune arma la counter strike pe mana dreapta este nevoie sa introduceti in consola urmatoarea comanda: cl_righthand 1 Dupa introducerea comenzii arma va fi pe partea dreapta si va puteti juca linistiti.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin CNN —  Angela Lang is about to send her canvassing teams door knocking. But first, a moment to outline the stakes: “Fair maps, abortion, voting rights,” is Lang’s list. “It’s not a seat we can afford to lose because if Republicans and conservatives gain control of the court, that’s Elon Musk and that’s a through line to the Trump agenda.” On paper, the April 1 election pits Susan Crawford against Brad Schimel for a vacancy on the Wisconsin state Supreme Court. Liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is retiring, and the election will determine the court’s ideological balance. Crawford currently serves as a Dane County Circuit Court judge and is a former prosecutor and legal counsel to a past Democratic governor. Schimel is a Waukesha County Circuit Court judge and was the state’s GOP attorney general from 2015 to 2019. Ad Feedback The court race is a reminder that Wisconsin isn’t just a 50-50 state in presidential races. Close contests for Supreme Court seats have been common in recent years, and liberals are fighting in this one to maintain the 4-3 edge in the court they won in 2023. President Donald Trump’s weekend endorsement of Schimel only elevates the national stakes of the contest. They’re even bigger for Lang and organizations like Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, of which Lang is executive director. She preached a version of that “can’t afford to lose” argument five months ago, but Trump won Wisconsin on his way to a swing-state sweep and the White House. Now, with November’s bruises still tender, she faces another giant organizing and turnout challenge. “There’s always the finger-pointing after an election,” Lang said in an interview. “This would be the first true local test to see if there are lessons learned.” Ad Feedback Trump increased his vote total and vote share in Milwaukee in November, including in the predominantly Black neighborhoods where BLOC operates. Lang’s way of doing things is among the points of post-election debate. Pro-Trump groups were nowhere near as visible or active as BLOC when it came to door knocking and community meetings. Yet Trump increased his share of the Black vote and, with help from Musk and others, used digital tools to reach and activate voters. In this Supreme Court election, Musk has funneled nearly $7 million to a conservative group in the state that is trying to mirror the 2024 strategy to mobilize voters for Trump. It includes digital targeting as well as traditional canvassing operations. A super PAC Musk has supported in the past is also spending heavily on television advertising. It is not required to disclose its donors. Lang hears the criticism that old-fashioned door-knocking isn’t as effective or necessary anymore. But she dismisses it as uninformed. “We will definitely increase some of our digital stuff,” Lang said. But, “I will always take stock in listening to our team that is knocking all day every day and has more of a pulse on the community than any overpaid consultant that likely is not even from our state and hasn’t set foot in our community.” We visited with Lang several times last year as part of our All Over the Map project tracking the 2024 campaign through the eyes and experiences of Americans who live in key states and are part of crucial voting blocs. Lang was well aware, especially in the final weeks, that Trump was running stronger in her community, especially among Black men. Black Leaders Organizing for Communities canvassers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  CNN “People didn’t feel the Democrats were addressing the needs and the issues of the average voter,” Lang said. “People wanted to try something different.” Now, despite the enormous stakes in the Supreme Court race, Lang and other progressives here told us turnout remains a giant worry. “There’s so much voter fatigue,” Lang said. “People don’t want to talk about politics right now. They feel completely checked out.” That voter fatigue is just one piece of a complicated challenge for Democrats. There are tensions between grassroots activists and consultants over what went wrong in 2024 and how to fix it, both on how to prioritize an issues list and how to then communicate it more effectively; over whether they can or should make Musk an election foil. There is also anger at Democratic leaders for not showing more fight – and having more success – as President Trump moves at a frenetic pace. “We need to hold our ground,” is how Democratic consultant Josh Klemons put it. “Then Senate Democrats cave and absolutely people are frustrated. There’s no question about it. … It’s very hard to keep asking people to give their everything when they don’t see real progress.” Klemons is trying, with frequent TikTok posts about the stakes of the court election. He is the first to admit that – at first glance, anyway – he might not look the part. “I’m not a camera guy,” Klemons said in an interview at his Madison home. “I didn’t grow up wanting to be a digital influencer.” But he posted a TikTok complaining about how Republicans drew Wisconsin legislative maps a couple of years ago. “And it blew up,” he said. “And I did another a few days later, and it blew up even harder.” Now, he posts one a day on average, some shot in his basement office, others on a woodsy trail near his home. “My whole message is that we are in this together,” he said. “No campaign is going to save us.” On our latest Wisconsin visit, we stopped by a Milwaukee Democrats monthly meeting where the discussion was mostly about the urgency of the court race. But one member offered a resolution urging the group to invest in new organizing offices in Black and Latino sections of the city where Trump improved his vote share in 2024. Klemons has no issue with more visibility and brick-and-mortar party offices. But he says Democrats and progressives need to think and act on a much grander scale. “Republicans have built a massive media infrastructure that allows them to get out their message in a way Democrats cannot compete with,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if our messages are better or not because they are not getting heard.” Klemons sees a 2024 replay in the final weeks of the Crawford-Schimel race: Musk pouring millions into advertising and turnout efforts. “Wisconsin has a real chance on April 1 to show money cannot buy elections,” he said in the interview – echoing one of his TikTok themes. “The world’s richest man cannot pick and choose who should serve in our government at every level.” Democrats are making Musk as much of an issue, if not even more of one, than Trump himself. “We live in Elon Musk’s world right now,” Klemons said. “I’m working very hard to make sure we don’t live in Elon Musk’s Wisconsin.” Kate Duffy, like Klemons, calls her path to Instagram accidental. She founded a group called Motherhood for Good back in 2022 and now posts regularly on issues she sees as essential to busy mothers like herself. Kate Duffy films a TikTok in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  CNN “I try to make content that can be digested between bath and bedtime,” Duffy said in an interview at her home in suburban Milwaukee. “A quick video that somebody can watch in two or three minutes is going to do really well.” One Duffy staple is 60-second explainers of key issues and themes. She augments the posts with maps and graphics. But she is also now leaning into longer posts – for her, a key lesson of her 2024 experience trying to help Kamala Harris. “My biggest takeaway is to listen to my gut more,” Duffy said. “We can do a longer video. We can explain things more. We can add more nuance. People are craving that.” Messages from campaign consultants dissuaded her from doing more of that last year. “(I) kept hearing, well, ‘These are the messages. It needs to be quick and simple. And hit this.’ And looking back, I’m realizing that is probably what came off as inauthentic and didn’t really resonate with as many people.” Another takeaway: Talk more and smarter about the economy and the cost of living. “There’s so many women who make all the household purchasing decisions and are in charge of the budget and that is certainly somewhere where we can do better,” Duffy said. Democratic consultants, she said, urged a focus on abortion rights and women’s rights. “That’s foundational,” Duffy said. “I’m always going to believe in that. But we can’t discount somebody’s actual struggle they are feeling to put food on the table for their kids. That is a daily trauma they are dealing with. So I think we need to do a better job messaging towards the economy.” The barbershop was a daily town hall long before the internet, long before new media and social media and big data. Eric Jones stops by the Exodus Hair Studio in Milwaukee once a week for a trim and for crackling conversations about the Bucks and the Brewers, about the local economy and about everything under the sun when it comes to politics. Jones was part of our All Over the Map Project last year and repeatedly told us – in part because of the chatter at Exodus – that Trump was running stronger among Black men than he had in 2016 and 2020. He is, again, worried about Musk money late in a campaign. Eric Jones talks with John King at a barbershop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  CNN “Any political campaign is essentially an information war,” Jones said. “And any war needs a budget. The guy with the biggest budget tends to win.” And he is worried, again, about Black turnout. “I’ve asked a good amount of people,” Jones told us in an interview at Exodus. “It’s bad when you don’t know the candidates.” Jones was a reliable barometer of his community throughout 2024. Now, in the early days of the new Trump term, he has two takeaways. Jones hears some buyer’s remorse among Latino friends who shifted to Trump and now regret it because of the administration’s crackdown on the undocumented. “They are regretting it now – right now,” Jones said. “But his policies haven’t gotten to the Black community yet.” Many of Jones’ friends, for example, believe the federal government can be cut substantially and yawn when Trump critics complain about installing loyalists at the FBI and Department of Justice. “That doesn’t resonate with them,” Jones said. “Let him do something that affects their day-to-day.” So far, Jones said he sees little to nothing that convinces him Democrats have learned their 2024 lessons. That worries him some in the context of the Supreme Court election. “But it’s kind of unfair,” Jones is quick to add. “Because it just happened to them. I don’t know if anybody can learn a lesson that quickly. … The midterms will be a better chance to see it.”

Democrats are sounding the alarm over a cluster of recent polls showing that the party’s public image is more bruised and battered than at any point in decades. Those poor ratings from voters may signal long-term problems for the party if they persist through the 2028 presidential campaign. But the negative reviews probably won’t have nearly as much impact on the upcoming elections in 2025 and 2026 as many analysts in both parties are anticipating. Looking across recent midterm elections, there’s no evidence that such broad measures of party favorability have influenced the outcome in any consistent way. For instance, the Democrats’ image in most polls was at least as favorable as (and sometimes more favorable than) the Republicans’ in both 2010 and 2014 — and the GOP achieved historic landslides in those midterm elections anyway. Ad Feedback The best evidence shows that attitudes toward the incumbent president are now exerting far more influence on midterm election results than views about the party out of the White House. What’s more, the historical record suggests the best way for the opposition party to raise its own standing is to weaken the president’s position. That means the Democrats’ best chance to recover before 2026 likely depends less on their efforts to refurbish their own image than on their ability to crystallize public discontent with the actions by President Donald Trump and the Republicans who control both chambers of Congress. “The Democratic party having the lowest negative rating in 30 years has consequence, but midterm elections are about the status of the economy, direction of the country, and presidential approval,” said longtime Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “Trump’s job approval before the election will tell us a lot more about the outcome of 2026 than the rating of the Democratic party.” The White House gave a clear sign last week that it agreed when Trump forced an obviously reluctant Elise Stefanik to withdraw her nomination as UN ambassador for fear of losing either her seat or one of the vacant Republican-held Florida seats during special elections this year. Needless to say, for all the teeth-gnashing among Democrats, the White House would not have taken such an unusual step if it believed the other party’s poor image rendered it unelectable in the months ahead. Democrats’ ‘deep hole’ For weeks, Democrats have been rattled by polls showing the party’s public image has hit its lowest point in decades. A recent NBC poll (conducted by McInturff’s firm, Public Opinion Strategies, and a Democratic partner) found just 27% of Americans viewed Democrats favorably, the lowest rating that poll has recorded for the party since 1990. The latest CNN/SRSS poll similarly found just 29% of adults holding a favorable view of the Democrats — also the lowest that survey (and earlier Gallup Polls) had found since 1992. One reason Democrats’ ratings have plummeted is that an unusually large share of the party’s own voters are unhappy with it — a reflection of the widespread frustration that the party’s national leadership has not formulated a more effective opposition to Trump. But the Democrats’ decline also reflects brutally low ratings among independents. Attendees listen to speakers during the Michigan Democratic Party People’s Town Hall in Warren Michigan, on March 29.  Rebecca Cook/Reuters These dismal readings have inevitably triggered end-is-near style warnings from many Democrats, particularly those who believe the party in recent years has tilted too far to the left. Democrats are “truly in a deep hole,” Ruy Teixeira, a longtime Democratic analyst who has become an unremitting critic of the party, wrote recently. “The party’s severe image, identification, governance, and geographic weaknesses cannot be remedied by mounting the (rhetorical) barricades against Trump and waiting for his administration to self-destruct.” Election trends in the Trump era indeed offer Democrats plenty of reason for concern about their long-term trajectory. The party has become uncompetitive in what many strategists consider an unsustainably large number of states, and the 2024 presidential results showed substantial movement toward Trump among non-White men and younger White men, as well as some erosion among Latina women. If those geographic and demographic trends harden, Democrats will face an increasingly difficult climb to piece together majorities in the Senate or the Electoral College. But history suggests the cries of imminent doom for Democrats significantly overstates the near-term risks the party faces from its weakened public image. In elections through this century, the public’s view of the party outside of the White House has not been nearly as strong a predictor of the results in the midterms as their assessment of the performance of the president and his party. Voter choices in the midterm are “more a reaction to the party in the White House,” said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist. “How people feel about the out-party is probably not that important because if they are not happy with what is going on they are going to blame it on the president’s party and the president, and they are going to vote against them. That’s why the president’s party almost always loses seats.” Indeed, as I’ve written, no president has defended unified control of the White House and Congress through a midterm election since 1978 — the longest such stretch in US history. At times, the public’s general attitudes toward the two parties have seemed to presage the midterm results. The clearest example was in 2006, when substantially more Americans in Gallup polling expressed a favorable view of the Democratic Party (52%) than the GOP (37%) — a result that foreshadowed big Democratic gains in both chambers on Election Day. The relationship wasn’t quite as direct, but in 2022, the fact that voters were also mostly negative on Republicans (especially after the Supreme Court decision rescinding the constitutional right to abortion) helped Democrats to contain their losses in House elections and gain ground in the Senate, despite the pervasive discontent with President Joe Biden’s job performance. The president’s image matters more But more often in midterm elections, the relative favorability of the two parties has not been a reliable indicator of the outcome. In 2018, for instance, Republicans were viewed favorably by almost exactly as many voters as Democrats in polling by Gallup and NBC that fall, and by only slightly fewer voters than Democrats in CNN’s survey closest to election day. Yet the GOP lost 41 House seats in the election. In 2014, the Democrats’ public image was considerably more positive than the Republicans’ in polling that fall from Gallup and what was then the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. But in the election, Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and a crushing nine in the Senate. The most dramatic divergence came in 2010. The Gallup and CNN polls that fall showed that the share of voters viewing each party favorably and unfavorably was almost identical; the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll actually put Democrats in a slightly stronger position. Yet on Election Day, Republicans gained six seats in the Senate and 63 in the House — the biggest mid-term gain for either party since 1938. The common thread in these consecutive midterm routs was widespread discontent with the president. In Gallup polling, the approval rating for President Barack Obama in 2010 and 2014, and for Trump in 2018, all stood at just 42% to 45%, with most Americans disapproving of their performance. To many analysts, those judgments about the incumbent president have become the crucial factor in shaping midterm elections. In exit polls, 85% to 90% of voters who disapprove of the president’s performance now routinely vote against his party’s candidates in House elections, with a comparable share of voters who approve backing his party. Many strategists believe there’s little reason to expect that will change much in 2026, especially with Trump pursuing such a polarizing conservative agenda. “We are heading into a midterm where Republicans are very much the incumbent party, and if people aren’t happy with what they are doing, and how the country is doing, I think that will matter more than almost anything else,” said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, whose firm conducts the NBC poll with McInturff’s. The Democrats’ path back If anything, recent elections strongly suggest that the fastest way for Democrats to rebuild their image is to coalesce public concern about Trump. At other recent points when either party has faced broad public disapproval, it has tended to recover less because of any dramatic changes it made than because voters soured on the other side. In the normal hydraulics of a two-party system, when one party falls, the other tends to rise. Republicans, for instance, enjoyed a significant advantage in Gallup over Democrats in party image immediately after President George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004. But amid discontent over the Iraq War and Bush’s attempt to restructure Social Security, Democrats moved to their substantial lead by the fall of 2006. Democrats likewise held a big lead in favorability immediately after Obama’s victory in 2008. But amid frustration over the slow recovery from the financial crash of 2008, the bitter controversy over passage of the Affordable Care Act, and a steady decline in Obama’s approval numbers, the parties moved to parity in Gallup polling by fall 2010 (though also with more Americans negative than positive on each). Republicans likewise faced a big deficit after Trump left office in 2021, but moved slightly ahead in favorability by 2022 amid the discontent with Biden (albeit with substantially more voters again negative than positive about each side). In each case, the primary means that the party out of power used to redefine itself was opposition to the president’s agenda. In 2010, Mitch McConnell, then the GOP Senate leader, famously said that the party’s highest goal was to make Obama a one-term president. Ken Spain, who served as communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2010, said discontent with Obama opened the door for voters to reconsider Republicans. “Republican favorability had cratered in 2008” as Bush’s second term ended, Spain said. But “in the eyes of voters, Democrats took their eye off the ball — the economy. Within two years, Republican favorability had continued to inch upward, and by the time of the 2010 midterms, the party was once again viewed as a viable alternative.” Dan Sena, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during 2018, described virtually the same dynamic during Trump’s first term. In the DCCC’s private polling, “Going into January of ’17, on every major issue you could think of we were losing to Trump,” Sena said. “Then by August, we had turned them all around.” Democrats improved their standing, he argued, initially by pushing back against Trump initiatives that proved unpopular with voters, particularly the tax cuts tilted to the affluent, and the GOP’s unsuccessful attempt to repeal the ACA. “It is important to remember there’s an arc to this, and it takes about six months historically for the resistance to take hold,” Sena said. A weak public image is hardly without cost for Democrats. Party strategists worry that the low numbers among their own partisans could affect fundraising and the availability of volunteers. Discontent with Democrats likely would not prevent the party from gaining House seats in 2026 if most voters are negative on Trump, but it might reduce those gains, as the GOP’s negative image did in 2022. And if these dismal assessments of the Democrats persist, they would likely represent a greater threat in the 2028 presidential race: The party viewed more favorably in Gallup polling has won every presidential race since 1996, except in 2016. But, as Abramowitz noted, the party images in 2028 likely will be shaped less by today’s sparring than by the public’s reaction to their eventual presidential nominees (which may be why party favorability appears to better predict presidential election than midterm results). In the meantime, he believes there’s little chance even Democratic voters frustrated with their leaders will sit out 2026 given their disgust at Trump’s presidency. “Democrats might not be happy with their party, but they still despise Trump,” Abramowitz said. Fighting more forcefully against Trump won’t resolve all the Democrats’ problems with voters. But fanning more doubts about the president may be the party’s indispensable first step toward its own recovery.

President Donald Trump speaks during an event with auto racing champions at the White House on April 9, 2025.    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. CNN —  The emergency of the moment is the economy. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency to address a long-standing trade imbalance and declare a global trade war. After a week of market calamity and recession fears, Trump blinked on the most severe new taxes, which his aides had recently promised were not a negotiating tactic but were meant to restore trade balance. Instead, he’ll focus tariffs on China — now set at 125% — and give other countries 90 days to negotiate out of 10% blanket tariffs that remain in place. Markets surged with relief. Either the president’s economic team was bluffing when they promised the reciprocal tariffs were here to stay or the economic minds in the White House saw signs of an emerging real-time emergency — a cratering bond market alongside a cratering stock market — and realized a full-on economic implosion was possible. The economic emergency is just one of a galaxy of emergencies and emergency authorities Trump’s administration cites for his actions. There’s a drug flow emergency Earlier tariffs against Canada and Mexico were imposed, the president said, because of the flow of fentanyl, leading Trump to declare emergencies at the US’ northern and southern borders. Canadians have been angered by the idea that Trump imposed tariffs due to the flow of drugs across the northern border because there’s little evidence of much drug flow there. “At the end of the day, what we know is the relationship between Canada and the US will never be the same,” Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Tuesday. There’s a border emergency The military is playing a larger role at the southern border because of the national emergency Trump declared there, saying that “America’s sovereignty is under attack.” The language of invasion also plays into Trump’s invocation of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, by which the administration deported some migrants without due process. The Supreme Court allowed the deportations to continue, but said this week that deportees must get a hearing. President Donald Trump holds up an executive order on American energy production after signing it during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on April 8, 2025, in Washington, DC.  Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images There’s an energy emergency Trump declared an emergency authority to supercharge energy production, particularly in the oil and gas industry, and get around environmental and wildlife protections on federal land. He’s cited that emergency also to invoke wartime powers to supercharge mineral production in the US. Separately, he’s trying to move the US back toward reliance on coal and cited his energy emergency to reclassify coal as a mineral and make its production a matter of national security. Coal is not, technically speaking, a mineral. He also cited the energy emergency to ask his secretary of energy to add more redundant — which presumably means carbon-based — energy sources to the energy grid. And it was by citing the energy emergency that Trump forced California to open up dams and release billions of gallons of water that was not able to reach fires in Los Angeles and which farmers opposed. There’s a lumber emergency Trump wants more logging in the US, so his administration has invoked emergency authority to boost lumber production in the US. The idea, again, is to sidestep some environmental protections to open 112 million acres of forestland and make it more difficult for conservation groups to object to logging. Trump has complained that the US relies on lumber from Canada. This is not how it’s supposed to work Elizabeth Goitein at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University has been warning for years about the overuse of emergency power by presidents. “Emergency powers are designed to let a president respond swiftly to sudden, unforeseen crises that Congress cannot act quickly or flexibly enough to address,” she wrote recently. “Emergency powers are not meant to solve long-standing problems, no matter how serious those problems may be. Nor are they intended to give a president the ability to bypass Congress and act as an all-powerful policymaker.” But efforts to limit emergency power, perhaps by limiting it to 30 days instead of a year, have gone nowhere in Congress. Trump is not alone in declaring emergencies Presidents frequently use them to impose sanctions. There’s been an emergency declared with regard to Iran since the 1970s, and Ukraine for more than a decade, for instance. But Trump’s use of emergency authority to fiddle with the world economy, regulate immigration, police borders and end-run around environmental laws has been supercharged in his second term. Trump cited a long-standing national emergency with regard to Venezuela not simply to continue sanctions on the country, but also to apply tariffs to any country that does business with Venezuela and to declare the Tren de Aragua criminal network a terrorist organization. Congress can technically undeclare an emergency Congress has the power to rescind a president’s national emergency declaration. The House and Senate both voted to rescind Trump’s first-term border emergency declaration, but could not override his veto. It would take a supermajority to undeclare an emergency. That means his mercurial on-and-off approach to imposing tariffs is here to stay. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump’s U-turn Wednesday was the plan all along. Trump later said he calibrated his approach because people were getting “yippy.” Anyone who has been watching politics for the past decade will wonder: If organizing other countries against China’s export might was the goal, why did Trump blow up the Trans-Pacific Partnership during his first term? That multi-country trade deal was aimed at arresting China’s economic influence. Trump blew it up, and the other countries involved carried on without the US. Now, over the next 90 days, Trump will engage in negotiations with countries the US could have been in a trade deal with for the past 10 years. He’s also negotiating with Canada and Mexico, countries he signed a trade deal with during his first term. If the end goal of addressing the trade balance emergency were restoring manufacturing in the US, one could wonder why Trump has turned against the CHIPS Act, the bipartisan law passed during the Biden administration that intended to seed semiconductor manufacturing in the US.