The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[SheepDog4Life]

And yet, consistent with the theme of the article, where is the outrage from the Trump supporters? I'm not seeing it here on INGO, nor in the MSM - which actually did cover the fight against gun control. The response is muted, IMHO.

In the context of that article, I think it is because peoples' view on that issue is malleable.

I'll agree it was muted, in fact I don't recall see this at all in my morning news feeds. IMO, it was muted by the MSM since it might draw some (not the prototypical INGO'er) to view Trump as more "reasonable" on gun control. Far more than "trumpeting it" would erode Trump support in a "baby with the bath water" fashion.

And, not a peep from the progessives about abuse of power, executive written law in an unconstitutional end-run around the legislature in doing so... because that end of the spectrum support the "ends" by any "means".

So here's a shock: I disagree.

First, let me be clear in my disagreement - I think both sets of EOs were "legitimate" in the sense that POTUS has the power to do these things. I think both were/are bad policy, built on a terrible foundation of executive agency rulemaking.

Having said that, though, DACA (which I think is what we're talking about) was an enforcement program. Meet certain criteria, and the rules would be enforced a certain way. There was an absence of specificity in the legislation that allowed for it - an absence that continues. POTUS has the power, in the immigration context, to exercise discretion in a bazillion different ways. DACA is one of them. Or really, a set of them.

Likewise, in the visa ban, Congress didn't say which countries, or really even what criteria. It gave POTUS discretion, which he probably has anyway for national security and foreign policy reasons. (That's going from memory, so if there's more to it than that, I'm open to the text that you're referring to.)

Both EOs established enforcement rationales that are exercises in executive discretion.

Yes, I am referring to DACA. But it had two parts, one was enforcement (rather non-enforcement). It has long been executive prerogative to set enforcement priorities and non-priorities. For example, the Obama's non-enforcement of pot laws in states that legalized it. Upper-right-hand corner of the envelope for prosecutorial discretion, but legitimate none the less.

Not prosecuting immigration law and enforcing deportation against DACA recipients was one thing. Changing their status and making them eligible for work authorization and benefits was something else entirely with no Constitutional authority nor delegation in law. He wrote new law.

 

[jbombelli]

This is what I am referring to.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/3394275.html

Not the delay or forbearance of deportation, the creation of some sort of non-statutory legal status.

Congress didn't act after Obama's EO, and I seriously doubt that they will act after Trump's. Why should they do anything that might make people angry, when they can just let the president do it and take all the heat?

 

[Fargo]

Congress didn't act after Obama's EO, and I seriously doubt that they will act after Trump's. Why should they do anything that might make people angry, when they can just let the president do it and take all the heat?

Hey, if we the people want a king versus a congress, why should we receive anything else. Outside of conquest, society usually gets exactly the government it wants/deserves. The U.S is no exception.

 

[jamil]

I think that depends on how you define "Republican."

What depends on how I define "Republican"?

 

[jamil]

Agreed, but something more... abstract... like, let's say... the propriety of Executive Orders. I think that kind of thing is more malleable.

In fact, I think the effect informs how people can react differently to the same action, depending on whether it is from "their team" or not. It isn't really about principles at all. (Too often.)

That's not more abstract. It's quite a specific thing. Other than that, yeah. It's the same thing.

It's not a lot different from the golf discussion. It's either a sin or acceptable for Obama to play golf. It's either acceptable or a sin for Trump to play golf. I changed my own opinion on this. With Obama I was more reluctant to think it was okay for presidents to play golf frequently. In fact, since he was the **********-in-chief, I was quite eager to accept that it was excessive. It wasn't until I was freer from my own bias to evaluate exactly what is wrong with presidents playing golf frequently. I decided there's really not much wrong with it at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's not more abstract. It's quite a specific thing. Other than that, yeah. It's the same thing.

It's not a lot different from the golf discussion. It's either a sin or acceptable for Obama to play golf. It's either acceptable or a sin for Trump to play golf. I changed my own opinion on this. With Obama I was more reluctant to think it was okay for presidents to play golf frequently. In fact, since he was the **********-in-chief, I was quite eager to accept that it was excessive. It wasn't until I was freer from my own bias to evaluate exactly what is wrong with presidents playing golf frequently. I decided there's really not much wrong with it at all.

...would it be fair to say that with Trump being "your guy," you were inclined re-evaluate? Or do you think if another golfing Liberal had followed Obama, you would have reached the same conclusion, at essentially the same time you did with Trump?

 

[jbombelli]

I'll say here what I said when Obama played golf. Being president is a 24/7/365 job. He has a smartphone, and secret service guys around. Probably has a whole communications setup in the parking lot. He can do his job from anywhere on earth; he doesn't need to spend all his time in the oval office. I'll not begrudge him golf.

 

[Hawkeye]

I'll say here what I said when Obama played golf. Being president is a 24/7/365 job. He has a smartphone, and secret service guys around. Probably has a whole communications setup in the parking lot. He can do his job from anywhere on earth; he doesn't need to spend all his time in the oval office. I'll not begrudge him golf.

Agreed. But since I’m not a POC, and not screaming my head off about Trump playing golf, I realize that I AM TGE PROBLEM.

Does this mean I’m “woke”?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The closest I can get, while not exactly an EO, is the bumpstock movement by Trump.

Although, now that I think about it, Trump's EOs about restricting visas from certain countries is comparable. If he has the power to do that, Obama probably had the power to do what he did, too.

I'd say his recent EO/proclamation regarding the caravans would be closer. Forbidding them entry/closing entry points is a lawful power he has, same with Obama not enforcing immigration laws for DACA. Automatic denial of asylum claims for those that illegally entered (except for a few certain classes, unaccompanied minors being one) is not, same with Obama granting work permits under DACA.

Yes, I am referring to DACA. But it had two parts, one was enforcement (rather non-enforcement). It has long been executive prerogative to set enforcement priorities and non-priorities. For example, the Obama's non-enforcement of pot laws in states that legalized it. Upper-right-hand corner of the envelope for prosecutorial discretion, but legitimate none the less.

Not prosecuting immigration law and enforcing deportation against DACA recipients was one thing. Changing their status and making them eligible for work authorization and benefits was something else entirely with no Constitutional authority nor delegation in law. He wrote new law.

Yep, same as Trump's recent proclamation, half legal and half not.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, I am referring to DACA. But it had two parts, one was enforcement (rather non-enforcement). It has long been executive prerogative to set enforcement priorities and non-priorities. For example, the Obama's non-enforcement of pot laws in states that legalized it. Upper-right-hand corner of the envelope for prosecutorial discretion, but legitimate none the less.

Not prosecuting immigration law and enforcing deportation against DACA recipients was one thing. Changing their status and making them eligible for work authorization and benefits was something else entirely with no Constitutional authority nor delegation in law. He wrote new law.

And as Fargo noted, that got shut down.

Again, this isn't really about immigration as an issue, but about use of EOs. Obama pushed as far in one direction as he could, and got called out for it. Trump is pushing the other direction and we'll see how it plays out legally. But, because it is in a direction many INGOers like, he's not getting called out for it.

That's the illustration of the phenomenon described in the Scientific American article, IMHO.

What depends on how I define "Republican"?

Whether the Democrats are the biggest threat to the Republic.

The Dems in the House are a pretty big threat to our ongoing national stability, but I'm not convinced they are the biggest threat.

 

[T.Lex]

I'd say his recent EO/proclamation regarding the caravans would be closer. Forbidding them entry/closing entry points is a lawful power he has, same with Obama not enforcing immigration laws for DACA. Automatic denial of asylum claims for those that illegally entered (except for a few certain classes, unaccompanied minors being one) is not, same with Obama granting work permits under DACA.

Yep, same as Trump's recent proclamation, half legal and half not.

Honestly, I haven't followed that much - probably not as much as I should. So, please educate if I get something wrong!

From a policy perspective, I'm not concerned about the people who aren't here yet. But, it seems to me that Executive discretion could fashion the process such that someone who has entered illegally could be required to depart in order to participate in the asylum process.

I am not nearly familiar enough with the statutory provisions of the asylum process to know where there is discretion and where it is lacking, though.

So in the meantime, I believe you.

 

[jamil]

...would it be fair to say that with Trump being "your guy," you were inclined re-evaluate? Or do you think if another golfing Liberal had followed Obama, you would have reached the same conclusion, at essentially the same time you did with Trump?

Well, no. Trump isn't "my guy". My guy was Ted Cruz. I'm not sure if he plays golf anyway.

But, to the point, I don't like Trump but I don't hate his policies, at least the policies that aren't authoritarian. I don't like Obama either, but I absolutely hated his progressive policies, and so there was some bias at play there. With Trump, he's just the POTUS, who does some stupid/bad things and does some good things. So it's probably easier to look at things face value.

But about another "Obama", I wouldn't say the thing I dislike about him is his liberalism. There are many social issues for which I lean more liberal than conservative. Primarily in the live and let live sense. The thing I'm against is bat**** crazy progressives. Obama is a liberal but he's also a progressive liberal, which is anathema. Another progressive like Obama or worse, and I'm guessing I may not be as objective about the golf play. Could be though. If someone makes a convincing and reasoned argument I'm usually responsive to that notwithstanding personal bias.

 

[jamil]

Agreed. But since I’m not a POC, and not screaming my head off about Trump playing golf, I realize that I AM TGE PROBLEM.

Does this mean I’m “woke”?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. You misspelled some things. That's a prerequisite for being "woke".

 

[AtTheMurph]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yep, same as Trump's recent proclamation, half legal and half not.

I'm assuming that you are referring to Trump's proclamation that those entering illegally will be deported rather than allowed to stay until their asylum claims are heard.

My understanding is that the "wet foot, dry foot" policy (originally implemented for Cuban refugees) that Trump's proclamation would reverse was just that, executive branch policy, not enshrined in law. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any law that requires one illegally present to be allowed to stay in order to start an asylum case.

And as Fargo noted, that got shut down.

Fargo's link was DAPA, DACA-like provisions for adult parents of DACAs. DAPA was indeed shut down, DACA remained and now is court-ordered that Obama's EO remain in effect.

[qupte]Again, this isn't really about immigration as an issue, but about use of EOs. Obama pushed as far in one direction as he could, and got called out for it. Trump is pushing the other direction and we'll see how it plays out legally. But, because it is in a direction many INGOers like, he's not getting called out for it.[/quote]

I see it as two parts, one is whether or not the policy being implemented is considered a good one by the opinion holder, the second is whether the way the policy/law/regulation is implemented is "by the rules" and within the authority of the executive branch. Lot's of (all?) progressives want to see bump stocks banned, yet none protest that Trump is doing so in a lawless manner. They similarly cheered when Obama was equally lawless in implementing DACA (and attempting DAPA).

Beware when the "other" side determines that "playing by the rules" is only a unilateral thing that should be jettisioned.

 

[BugI02]

And as Fargo noted, that got shut down.

Again, this isn't really about immigration as an issue, but about use of EOs. Obama pushed as far in one direction as he could, and got called out for it. Trump is pushing the other direction and we'll see how it plays out legally. But, because it is in a direction many INGOers like, he's not getting called out for it.

That's the illustration of the phenomenon described in the Scientific American article, IMHO.



Whether the Democrats are the biggest threat to the Republic.

The Dems in the House are a pretty big threat to our ongoing national stability, but I'm not convinced they are the biggest threat.

Glad to see you are aware of the existential threat represented by The Federal Reserve Act

 

[nonobaddog]

Sometimes I wonder just how much time the USA has left. With the dems destroying it from the inside, socialism is openly promoted and socialists are running for office and even winning some elections. The government is being obstructed from doing anything that does not agree with the left and everything that does not meet their agenda is constantly tied up in court. The military is under assault by obummer firing selected generals and attempts to weaken it by forcing it to become the go-to source for sex change surgeries.
The dems already own the media which is a powerful tool to influence the easily fooled masses. They have political activists in places where there shouldn't be any like the FBI, IRS, the judiciary(9th Circus), election judges, etc. And now with massive influxes of muslims and latinos along with voting fraud. And on and on.
This is a pretty comprehensive attack on the country and it will be difficult to withstand for an extended period. Once weakened from the inside a country then becomes vulnerable to attacks from the outside as well.

 

[Phase2]

Just as Global Cooling as become the latest... Doesn't matter if carbon dioxide has any effect at all. It is all about mining the electorate for more taxes and increasing govt control of the economy.

GOP Lawmakers Join Democrats to Put a Price on Carbon to Curb Climate Change


Bill Link

 

[bwframe]

Looking like 3 star General Mike Flynn lost everything for nothing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mu...ning-key-details-about-russia-probes-progress

Russia, Russia, Russia

 

[hoosierdoc]

Give me two years, 16 prosecutors, subpoena power, and an unlimited budget. Guarantee I could successfully prosecute multiple people in anyone’s circle of friends for something