Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[dmp]

Seriously ?? who is President Trump messaging  by cutting a deal with the democrats in congress... But as I have said before he is not a typical elite politician and not a hard core republican.
BTW the chronic debt limit fights are pure political theater with the party out of power trying to embarrass the party in power. it is arguing about money that has already been authorized and already spent, save any debate for actual spending decisions  (like budgets).
JR
PS: The good guys don't wear masks (except for fictional characters like the lone ranger and batman).

Hum, the Republicans in 2011 & 2013 were putting on political theater to oppose and obstruct Obama. They were certainly cheered on by their base. Trump thinks this agreement will clear the way for tax cuts. He's desperate for some kind of success. Unfortunately he doesn't know how to make a deal or navigate a success since all his experience with deal making is based on spending money he inherited. Politics doesn't work that way.
The freedom caucus is pretty unhappy I think (and no, the Repubs in the house are not the party out of power).
Republican's have a hypocrisy level that is unbelievable. Debt ceiling, storm relief, etc...  I don't see any decision making based on principles.
Interesting interview with Ralph Nader on the current mess in politics:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

 

[Gold]

There was an XO not to deport people while the legislation was being crafted.  XO's can change policy but not law.  DACA is a policy change not a change of law.

 

[dmp]

There was an XO not to deport people while the legislation was being crafted.  XO's can change policy but not law.  DACA is a policy change not a change of law.

Additionally, Congress underfunds enforcement of many laws (including immigration) so the executive has the responsibility and discretion to prioritize enforcement. Obama prioritized enforcement & deportation of people who had committed other crimes. Deportations under the Obama administration were higher than the previous admin.  DACA communicated this policy. 

Republicans have led the charge on underfunding and defunding gov. programs as part of their anti-government "starve the beast" ideology. Recently they (and Trump) had proposed cutting funding to FEMA, for example. Ironic considering Harvey and Irma. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hum, the Republicans in 2011 & 2013 were putting on political theater to oppose and obstruct Obama.

yes team politics has been around for as long as I have been paying attention.

They were certainly cheered on by their base.

Not just republicans. Pres Obama lost democratic super majority because of ACA.

Trump thinks this agreement will clear the way for tax cuts. He's desperate for some kind of success. Unfortunately he doesn't know how to make a deal or navigate a success since all his experience with deal making is based on spending money he inherited. Politics doesn't work that way.

I do not think it is productive for me to argue about what you think President Trump thinks.

The freedom caucus is pretty unhappy I think (and no, the Repubs in the house are not the party out of power).
Republican's have a hypocrisy level that is unbelievable. Debt ceiling, storm relief, etc...  I don't see any decision making based on principles.

DC doing nothing is not the worst thing that could happen... Years ago when the tea party first started winning seats I said it would take a number of election cycles for them to gain enough seats to garner much influence. Right now they have enough seats to block the old line (elite) republicans. The republican party is in the middle of transition. The democratic party seems pretty much the same.

Interesting interview with Ralph Nader on the current mess in politics:

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/25/ralph-nader-the-democrats-are-unable-to-defend-the-u-s-from-the-most-vicious-republican-party-in-history/

Is Ralph nader still around ...  (rhetorical). His last financial disclosure revealed some $3M in stock holdings. I vaguely recall him throwing his weight around with cisco (he reportedly owned $1M worth of CSCO). I guess he didn't spend all his own money on his presidential run.  He does support a number of charities and even funded a "tort" museum (in CT).

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

There was an XO not to deport people while the legislation was being crafted.  XO's can change policy but not law.  DACA is a policy change not a change of law.

You say Pres Reagan did the same thing. I can not find that XO.

XOs are limited to temporary or limited actions within the executive branch (like enforcement variations).

Permanent immigration policy changes need to be codified by law. The dream act covering an innocent and very sympathetic group of illegal immigrants (children) was first proposed in 2001. Over the years it has been reissued several times but never won a vote in congress.

Maybe this time around they will get er dun. I repeat we need complete immigration reform but this seems like popular low hanging fruit. It would not hurt to get some clarity surrounding how citizenship can be acquired.

JR

 

[Gold]

You say Pres Reagan did the same thing. I can not find that XO.

XOs are limited to temporary or limited actions within the executive branch (like enforcement variations).

It has been widely reported Reagan the same type of thing. I don't have the XO order number.

DACA was written as a temporary limited enforcement action.  Hence it expires at the end of the two year period without a renewal. Immigration is under the purview of the executive branch.  Maybe there is some wiggle room on issuing work permits. I don't know if issuing work permits is a matter of law or of policy.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It has been widely reported Reagan the same type of thing. I don't have the XO order number.

apparently incorrect... President Reagan signed a bill into law, President Obama issued an XO.

DACA was written as a temporary limited enforcement action.  Hence it expires at the end of the two year period without a renewal. Immigration is under the purview of the executive branch.  Maybe there is some wiggle room on issuing work permits. I don't know if issuing work permits is a matter of law or of policy.

Legal immigration in the US is covered by the Immigration and Naturalization act...(a Law).  The president in consultation with the congress sets targets for immigration for different classifications within the general framework of the INA.

The executive branch issues temporary visa but again within the framework of the law.

----
There are some 800k "dreamers" who range in age from 15 to 36YO.

The courts already blocked President Obama's second XO regarding amnesty for the dreamers after the last time the dream act failed to pass congress.

This 800k are a small fraction of the 11M illegal immigrants here.  While Pres Trump campaigned on deporting them he appears to have softened his position since gaining office.

This is now up to congress (again) and I suspect President Trump will sign it if it passes, while that passage is not a sure thing, and congress has a bad habit of tacking undesirable extras onto any legislation with momentum. So it isn't over until the fat lady sings. 

JR

 

[Matador]

apparently incorrect... President Reagan signed a bill into law, President Obama issued an XO.

Reagan And Bush Made The Same Immigration Move That Has The GOP Enraged At Obama

In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.

Also, from Reagan-Bush Family Fairness: A Chronological History

The plight of “split-eligibility” families immediately becomes a key issue post-IRCA. For example, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops criticizes the separation of families, and urges Reagan’s intervention.”
The Los Angeles Catholic archdiocese reports that up to 30 percent of the legalization applications it was assisting involved “split-eligibility” families.

In an effort to address “split-eligibility” families, Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) offers an amendment to an unrelated bill that would give spouses and children excluded from IRCA a path to legalization. The Senate defeats the amendment by a 55-45 vote.
Among others, IRCA’s lead Senate sponsor, Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-WY), opposes Chafee’s amendment as a “second amnesty” that “destroys the delicate balance of the recently passed immigration reform legislation.” Citing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report, Simpson stated “[t]here is no question about what the legislative intent is or was.”

Two weeks later, Reagan’s INS Commissioner Alan C. Nelson announces INS’ “Family Fairness” executive action. The INS’ memo explains the “clear” Congressional intent in 1986 to exclude family members from the legalization program. Nevertheless, the INS defers deportation for children living in a two-parent household with both parents legalizing, or living with a single parent who was legalizing. As to spouses, though, the INS directs that similar relief “generally not be granted”—only if “compelling or humanitarian factors” exist on top of marriage alone.

The Washington Post editorial board, among other news outlets, applauds INS’ policy. Citing IRCA’s Congressional history and the recent Senate defeat of Chafee’s amendment, the Post argues that “If Congress will not be moved, the INS should have a heart.”

In case that wasn't clear: Congress explicitly rejected Reagan's proposed 1987 modification to allow dependent children to remain in the country, as  “[t]here is no question about what the legislative intent [of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act] is or was.”  Reagan then instructed his INS commissioner (a division reporting to the Attorney General of the DOJ) to not enforce the deportation provisions for minor dependents of undocumented immigrants.

 

[tands]

Seriously ?? who is President Trump messaging  by cutting a deal with the democrats in congress... But as I have said before he is not a typical elite politician and not a hard core republican.

Well, we'll see how that goes, I imagine the Nazis and their fellow travelers will be happy to have the wall then too. I don't put it past Trump to make these kinds of decisions based on pleasing the racists, who certainly do find him helpful to their cause. Peas in a pod, it's looking like.

BTW the chronic debt limit fights are pure political theater with the party out of power trying to embarrass the party in power. it is arguing about money that has already been authorized and already spent, save any debate for actual spending decisions  (like budgets).

Agree, but somehow I doubt you say that with such alacrity when dem proposals need to be funded. Not that those are that much better than the craven graft on the rep side. You can hear them salivating all the way to Alaska at the talk of a slush fund/bill they have a hope of getting passed.

PS: The good guys don't wear masks (except for fictional characters like the lone ranger and batman).

Really? Why not? Seems only prudent to me, when the cops are on the Nazis side. What is it about a mask that makes a person a 'bad guy', John?

By the way, that officer—the Nazi—is still policing the streets of Philadelphia, as is the guy who shot two people in the back.

http://www.theroot.com/philadelphia-police-union-head-defends-nazi-cop-calls-1798746986

Why Did A State Trooper Try To Stop Medics From Performing CPR On Heather Heyer?

https://itsgoingdown.org/state-trooper-try-stop-medics-performing-cpr-heather-heyer/

.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Reagan And Bush Made The Same Immigration Move That Has The GOP Enraged At Obama

Also, from Reagan-Bush Family Fairness: A Chronological History
In case that wasn't clear: Congress explicitly rejected Reagan's proposed 1987 modification to allow dependent children to remain in the country, as  “[t]here is no question about what the legislative intent [of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act] is or was.”  Reagan then instructed his INS commissioner (a division reporting to the Attorney General of the DOJ) to not enforce the deportation provisions for minor dependents of undocumented immigrants.

Thanks I read most of that....  From your timeline I see where both Bush and Reagan signed immigration laws. It may be a matter of perspective how similar or different President Obama's XO to create DAPA and expand DACA was to Bush and Reagan's immigration tweaks.

Of course the executives argue it is within their authority to set immigration policy the 5th circuit has already reversed XOs from president Obama (DAPA) in 2015.  In 2016 the 8 member SCOTUS deadlocked at 4-4 so failed to yield a ruling for or against, leaving the lower court reversal intact. Next time with 9 justices a tie is less likely. 

On Sept 5th Texas and other states voluntarily dismissed their pending legal action in the 5th court against DACA, the same court that reversed DAPA. If Pres Trump did not act now DACA could have been terminated abruptly by that same court that stopped DAPA (while this would have probably been appealed up to SCOTUS too).

Some can argue that President Trump is just acting like a politician as he offers verbal support for Dreamers and kicks this back to the congress...  I can't accurately predict the future but I see little chance of comprehensive immigration reform.  The 700k dreamers are a very sympathetic subset of the 11M or so illegals, so I could imagine some narrow legislation that covers just them. (Probably attached to something Trump wants as a horse trade..) but he is not a typical politician so we shouldn't expect him to act like one.

I am pretty angry about congress punting on this for decades. Maybe now something will happen about this one aspect... or not..

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well, we'll see how that goes, I imagine the Nazis and their fellow travelers will be happy to have the wall then too. I don't put it past Trump to make these kinds of decisions based on pleasing the racists, who certainly do find him helpful to their cause. Peas in a pod, it's looking like.

I do not share your opinion.

Agree, but somehow I doubt you say that with such alacrity when dem proposals need to be funded. Not that those are that much better than the craven graft on the rep side. You can hear them salivating all the way to Alaska at the talk of a slush fund/bill they have a hope of getting passed.

yes both parties are a little too happy to spend our tax dollars.  The debt ceiling is a poor vehicle for spending discipline, since that spending is already authorized and happening. Spending discipline needs to be applied in advance at budget writing. The federal budget process seems broken too... Temporary budget and/or debt ceiling extensions just postpone and perpetuate the contention instead of actually resolving something.

Really? Why not? Seems only prudent to me, when the cops are on the Nazis side. What is it about a mask that makes a person a 'bad guy', John?

The masks are used to conceal their identity hopefully to escape justice as they perform premeditated criminal acts of violence.

http://www.theroot.com/philadelphia-police-union-head-defends-nazi-cop-calls-1798746986

One bad apple does not mean the whole barrel is rotten. There are bad apples in any large group.

https://itsgoingdown.org/state-trooper-try-stop-medics-performing-cpr-heather-heyer/

.

An "anarchist street medic", that seems unusually practical with their strategy of perpetuating street violence.

It is unclear exactly what happened in that incident, if he was still wearing his mask or costume while performing CPR that may have made his motives harder for police to determine.

JR

 

[tands]

I'm not familiar, but I don't think the medics mask up or actually do anything but treat people, it would make them targets of the police.

Captain America wouldn't be as effective at fighting Nazis if Red Skull knew his identity and where his family lived, now would he? For the others, like I said, it seems only prudent to me for them to hide their identities from Nazis/cops. 

 

[Tubetec]

Ok ,first of all its well past 5 am on a Saturday morn ,Im more or less fully loaded with liquor and dope ,Im not going to waste my time re-reading extracts of previous posts interspersed by moments of clarity or otherwise .
When the state barks 'terroristic threat' yet allows its own henchmen to adopt the balaclava WTF is the difference.
The real enemy isnt you , I,your neighbour,next village,town, city, state or even country, its a global hedge-bet-fund that gambles on outcomes for profit.
'Divide and conquer ,northside<>southside ,eastside <>westside , its the same game,you and me are so caught up in who gets what the global hedge gets away with murder on the quiet,by remote control and theres no wires resistors caps or circuit boards involved,its a game as old as the hills,and the longer we continue with the us vs them mentality the wider the hedge-men cast their nets.History was loaded since day one so why are we still rolling the dice?

 

[tands]

https://twitter.com/darren_cullen/status/905874298904211456

.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm not familiar, but I don't think the medics mask up or actually do anything but treat people, it would make them targets of the police.

Captain America wouldn't be as effective at fighting Nazis if Red Skull knew his identity and where his family lived, now would he? For the others, like I said, it seems only prudent to me for them to hide their identities from Nazis/cops. 

It sounds like you are living in some imaginary dystopia. Captain America is fictional.

The police are not the bad guys, while there may be a few isolated bad officers,that does not make the entire police force nazis.

I miss the old days when nazi references meant the argument was over, because that is just crazy.

JR

 

[dmp]

It sounds like you are living in some imaginary dystopia. Captain America is fictional.
The police are not the bad guys, while there may be a few isolated bad officers,that does not make the entire police force nazis.
I miss the old days when nazi references meant the argument was over, because that is just crazy.
JR

Unfortunately, there are people who seem to defend (sometimes tacitly) widespread and systemic behavior that is unfair or outright bad by the police force, and even avoid or suppress stories of outrageous bad actions. Luckily the media keeps shining on this. A terrible story this week of a officer trying to draw blood illegally from an unconscious suspect was opposed by a nurse, doing her job. The officer turned his abuse of power onto the nurse, arresting her.

In other news of people attacking the media, Tuesday Rush Limbaugh made the accusation that the media was hyping Irma to promote the global warming theory:  "advance this climate change agenda."

 

[volker]

In other news of people attacking the media, Tuesday Rush Limbaugh made the accusation that the media was hyping Irma to promote the global warming theory:  "advance this climate change agenda."

You forgot to add that he had to evacuate his residence due to the hurricane.

 

[DaveP]

Maybe someone can explain?

The US government doesn't seem to have an opposition or an opposition spokesman/woman, how does that work?

For example, in the UK we have Jeremy Corbyn, who (God forbid), would be the next Prime Minister if the government lost an election, we all know and understand that.

However, in the US you don't have the knowledge of who will be the Democratic candidate in 3 years time.  I would have thought that you need to get to know someone for more than a few months before you vote for them or not.

I don't understand why someone isn't creating a public platform now, especially with Trump supplying so much ammunition.  It seems like a wasted opportunity.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Maybe someone can explain?

The US government doesn't seem to have an opposition or an opposition spokesman/woman, how does that work?

It is a different form of government so we don't assemble ruling coalitions from however many it takes to assemble a majority, whenever that ruling majority is challenged, but have full elections on a fixed cycle.

For example, in the UK we have Jeremy Corbyn, who (God forbid), would be the next Prime Minister if the government lost an election, we all know and understand that.

The US is basically a two party system (also for better and worse). Bernie ran as a democrat in the primary because he could not get arrested as an independent (socialist).

The closest we have to opposition leaders are opposition leaders AKA minority leaders in the congress. Sen Schumer is the minority (opposition) leader in the senate, and Nancy pelosi is the minority (opposition) leader in the house. Neither are ready for prime time in a general election. Paul Ryan the majority leader of the house is on the succession list right after the VP should our top executives die suddenly.

However, in the US you don't have the knowledge of who will be the Democratic candidate in 3 years time.  I would have thought that you need to get to know someone for more than a few months before you vote for them or not.

Our election system is wastefully expensive and time consuming. I very much prefer the shorter and cheaper elections you have. We have lengthy and very divisive primary elections that generally hurt candidates who must posture hard right or hard left for the primary, then pivot to the moderate middle for the general election.  Better IMO to just have them all run against each other in a full election then pick the top 2.  Prior to 1804 when the 12th amendment was ratified the second place winner became vice president.

We could do a lot of good with the money thrown at political elections to gain power and influence but as Willie Sutton (bank robber)  famously said, that is where the money is. The only fix for this is to reduce the massive size (and therefore spending) of government.

I don't understand why someone isn't creating a public platform now, especially with Trump supplying so much ammunition.  It seems like a wasted opportunity.

DaveP

Potential candidates are already jockeying for position for 2020, but 2018 (mid term only for congress) will mainly be about holding the narrow majority in the senate or hopefully overturning it if your preference is for democratic influence.  It will be interesting to see celebrities come out of the woodwork trying to copy the trump playbook, but I suspect there is only one Trump (for better and worse).  Oprah and a small handful already have name recognition and a following as large or larger than Trumps. 

Trump who has been criticized for not being a classic republican, just cut a debt limit (and hurricane relief) bill deal with the democrats.  The elite republicans are feeling some TDS. These are indeed interesting times.  8)

JR

PS: I will wait to see how much media attention this gets but Facebook admits to accepting over 3,000 ads from a Russian organization in 2016 ($100k worth) to "amplify divisive social and political messages across the spectrum" . This is what they do...they don't like stable democratic systems so try to upset the apple cart. They may have found a legal loophole by not targeting specific candidates with their ads but it sure seems like meddling into our politics to me (not that we are pure as snow, President Obama's state department spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer money to influence the Israeli election against Netanyahu, unsuccessfully)

 

[DaveP]

Thanks
Got it

DaveP