Kaspar Hauser Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Regarding the Muslim ban: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOLsI2BIM0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csyphrett Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 The ban has been injucted against but DHS is still sending people back out of the country. I guess they're more afraid of getting fired than AG Yates CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I have previously stated my firm belief that a Trump presidency would be a catastrophe of world historic proportions. Beginning to wonder if I am understating things a bit. aylwin13 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/no-%e2%80%98g%e2%80%99day-mate%e2%80%99-on-call-with-australian-prime-minister-trump-badgers-and-brags/ar-AAmxKZx?li=AAggNb9 The Washington Post is citing "senior US officials" that Donald Trump had his most contentious telephone conversation yet with a head of state: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia. Australia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I wasn't too worried at first. Then the Executive Orders started rolling out like being produced at a factory. Now I am concerned. I've always been leery of whoever is POTUS using executive powers to do an end run around Congress. That pretty much violates the intent of executive privilege and sets up bad precedent. Trump seems to think that being POTUS is equivalent to being a South American generalissimo. Congress needs to yank the short leash and soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 So he didn't want to take the immigrants Obama had agreed to. That does sound like Trump. Actually, I am confused by the terms of the deal. The US was to take Indonesians who'd tried to immigrate illegally to Australia, and Australia would take in Central Americans. Okay, I get the concept of trading, but why would they want to trade? Why wouldn't the US take the central americans and Australia take the Indonesians? (or was it Papua New Guineans? I forget) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I wasn't too worried at first. Then the Executive Orders started rolling out like being produced at a factory. Now I am concerned. I've always been leery of whoever is POTUS using executive powers to do an end run around Congress. That pretty much violates the intent of executive privilege and sets up bad precedent. Trump seems to think that being POTUS is equivalent to being a South American generalissimo. Congress needs to yank the short leash and soon. To be fair, Obama started it. What worries me is the escalation. Much like the use of the filibuster. Every time the Senate changed minorities, the new minority would use it more than the last, because "we remember how you used it against us". So, the next Democratic president will use executive orders even more brazenly than Trump, just as Trump used them more than Obama. (though to be fair, Obama didn't start being so brazen until he faced an opposition congress, and Trump doesn't yet.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just at a guess, I think the trade was to discourage refugees from each of these regions from thinking the big democracy nearest to them would automatically accept them. Sailing a few miles from home may seem less traumatic than being sent thousands of miles away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I don't know, but diplomacy 101 says not to wear your emotions on your sleeve during an initial discussion of a contentious issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I wasn't too worried at first. Then the Executive Orders started rolling out like being produced at a factory. Now I am concerned. I've always been leery of whoever is POTUS using executive powers to do an end run around Congress. That pretty much violates the intent of executive privilege and sets up bad precedent. Trump seems to think that being POTUS is equivalent to being a South American generalissimo. Congress needs to yank the short leash and soon. Balance to restrain potential abuse of power is exactly what the American founding fathers set up the three branches of government for. I suspect what Trump thinks he knows about the role of President, but really doesn't, would make a hefty list. Twilight, aylwin13 and Nolgroth 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I don't know, but diplomacy 101 says not to wear your emotions on your sleeve during an initial discussion of a contentious issue. Especially with someone who has long been a close ally. Donald Trump has no experience with diplomacy, though. Business bargaining is not comparable, despite what he professes to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoloOfEarth Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 To be fair, Obama started it. Actually, George Washington started it, with 8 executive orders issued during his two terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders Biggest number of executive orders issued was (not surpisingly) FDR at 3,522, or 290.8 per year. Obama clocked in at 276 EOs, versus 291 for George W. Bush and 364 for Bill Clinton. I expect President "My Way or the Highway" Drumpf to challenge FDR's per-year record. Sociotard and Netzilla 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 To be clear, I have no problem with the concept of using EO. Where my problem lies is using EO to bypass the legislative branch of government. I could probably go digging and come up with far too many examples to be comfortable, but Obama's immigration EO and Trumps travel ban EO are both clear examples of this. Sociotard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Congress needs to yank the short leash and soon. Why would they do that when so far he's been the hard right's wet dream come true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Iuz the Evil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Why would they do that when so far he's been the hard right's wet dream come true? This is true only for as long as Trump's interests and the hard Right's interests coincide. With Trump, who knows how long this will last? The first time Trump does something they don't like, the Tea Party faction of Congress will turn on him. It won't be pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 The thing is, the party leadership tried to turn on him already during the primary. Now he's so popular with the base that only the most well-established Republicans, ones confident they can trounce any primary challenge (McCain) will dare oppose him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylwin13 Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 The thing is, the party leadership tried to turn on him already during the primary. Now he's so popular with the base that only the most well-established Republicans, ones confident they can trounce any primary challenge (McCain) will dare oppose him. It's a damn shame they won't do what's right for the country (and their constituents), but instead do what's best for their political careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 This is true only for as long as Trump's interests and the hard Right's interests coincide. With Trump, who knows how long this will last? I haven't seen any real disagreements yet. Even on abortion. It really looks like he's just signing whatever EOs the Heritage Foundation puts on his desk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I'm not really sure he has an agenda of his own, aside from his personal brand. I assume there will eventually be conflict, and he'll alienate supporters who's ego won't let them pander to a narcissist. But other than that, not really sure how this goes down. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 I think it's just going to be an accumulation of unpopular and controversial statements, actions and policies that galvanize the opposition and alienate his base bit by tiny bit. They will grow weary of defending him. The Dubya supporters were thoroughly burned out 6 years into his tenure. I think it won't take nearly that long with Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 We can hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Certainly, I tend to believe the Republic is strong enough to endure 4 years of horrifically bad leadership. Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last. That isn't minimizing, things will occur to really upset me. Don't believe it's the end times yet. And mechanisms to challenge things I don't like remain, with varying likelihood of success, from legislative procedure (lesser) to judicial (greater). Twilight, Hermit and Lord Liaden 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Arnold responds to Trump's obsession with Apprentice ratings Nolgroth and Netzilla 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted February 2, 2017 Report Share Posted February 2, 2017 Certainly, I tend to believe the Republic is strong enough to endure 4 years of horrifically bad leadership. Not the first time it's happened, won't be the last. That isn't minimizing, things will occur to really upset me. Don't believe it's the end times yet. And mechanisms to challenge things I don't like remain, with varying likelihood of success, from legislative procedure (lesser) to judicial (greater). I worry we are heading to a new world war... but... what you post is true. We've had sucky presidents before, even monstrous ones. And we have picked up after and gone again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.