Impressed by Trump administration
-
Spock
Reports out today that there are over 300,000 high level factory jobs that require certain skills that are going untaken. -
QuakerOatsIn other news:
More than a dozen alleged members of the feared MS-13 street gang were arrested during early morning raids Tuesday in Ohio and Indiana, the Department of Justice said.
Federal prosecutors said a grand jury had charged 10 gang members of the "Columbus Clique" with conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering, as well as the use of firearms during a violent crime, in an indictment returned in late July.
The indictment alleges the 10 "conspired to commit extortion through the use of threatened or actual force, violence or fear to intimidate their victims into paying money to the defendants and their co-conspirators." Prosecutors said money was then sent "usually by wire transfer and often through intermediaries," to MS-13 members and associates in El Salvador and elsewhere to promote the group's criminal activities.
“With more than 10,000 members across 40 states, MS-13 is one of the most dangerous criminal organizations in the United States today," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "MS-13 members have killed children and pregnant women, extorted immigrant-owned businesses, and trafficked underage girls to sell them for sex. President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to reduce crime and take down transnational criminal organizations, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of these objectives. Today's charges are our next step toward making this country safer by taking MS-13 off of our streets for good.” -
O-Trap
While I can appreciate less regulation (so long as it's not selective, as many of these sorts of things are), I'm not a fan of using the executive order like that. Obama used it the same way, and it was problematic for more reasons than just what he was "ordering."
The means by which a president can unilaterally change the law of the land usurps the legislative branch AND the checks-and-balances process. The executive order should be relegated to things like recognition of national holidays and putting flags at half mast. -
superman
QFTO-Trap;1867164 wrote:While I can appreciate less regulation (so long as it's not selective, as many of these sorts of things are), I'm not a fan of using the executive order like that. Obama used it the same way, and it was problematic for more reasons than just what he was "ordering."
The means by which a president can unilaterally change the law of the land usurps the legislative branch AND the checks-and-balances process. The executive order should be relegated to things like recognition of national holidays and putting flags at half mast. -
jmog
100% agree.O-Trap;1867164 wrote:While I can appreciate less regulation (so long as it's not selective, as many of these sorts of things are), I'm not a fan of using the executive order like that. Obama used it the same way, and it was problematic for more reasons than just what he was "ordering."
The means by which a president can unilaterally change the law of the land usurps the legislative branch AND the checks-and-balances process. The executive order should be relegated to things like recognition of national holidays and putting flags at half mast. -
Heretic
Wait, you're saying a guy who cried EVERY FUCKING TIME Obama EO'd his way past something is now celebrating Trump doing the same thing. COLOR. ME. SHOCKED.O-Trap;1867164 wrote:While I can appreciate less regulation (so long as it's not selective, as many of these sorts of things are), I'm not a fan of using the executive order like that. Obama used it the same way, and it was problematic for more reasons than just what he was "ordering."
The means by which a president can unilaterally change the law of the land usurps the legislative branch AND the checks-and-balances process. The executive order should be relegated to things like recognition of national holidays and putting flags at half mast. -
O-Trap
To be fair to QO, he did often complain more about what exactly was being EO'd.Heretic;1867219 wrote:Wait, you're saying a guy who cried EVERY FUCKING TIME Obama EO'd his way past something is now celebrating Trump doing the same thing. COLOR. ME. SHOCKED.
However, without going back to look, I'm willing to wager that there were more than a couple instances of him referring to Obama's use of the EO as "abuse." I actually agree with that sentiment (obviously), but I also think this qualifies as abuse. -
gut
To be fair, the only practical way to redress that abuse is an EO undoing the other EO.O-Trap;1867225 wrote:....Obama's use of the EO as "abuse." I actually agree with that sentiment (obviously), but I also think this qualifies as abuse. -
QuakerOatsO-Trap;1867164 wrote:While I can appreciate less regulation (so long as it's not selective, as many of these sorts of things are), I'm not a fan of using the executive order like that. Obama used it the same way, and it was problematic for more reasons than just what he was "ordering."
The means by which a president can unilaterally change the law of the land usurps the legislative branch AND the checks-and-balances process. The executive order should be relegated to things like recognition of national holidays and putting flags at half mast.
At least the prez is an elected official. All the while, un-elected bureaucrats in far too numerous federal agencies write rules and regulations that are more stifling and restrictive to freedom than most can even imagine. Time for congress to rein all that back in, do their job, and drain the administrative state. I am sure your letters to your reps and senators urging them to take heed will be mailed today. -
O-Trap
Eh, perhaps. I'd just as soon get rid of it altogether, as I'm not sure I trust any one person to handle that responsibility ethically once they're put into a position of power.gut;1867231 wrote:To be fair, the only practical way to redress that abuse is an EO undoing the other EO.
Because those letters are going to make such a Cracker Jack job? No. Odds are, that rep/senator won't even see them, let alone read them in their entireties.QuakerOats;1867248 wrote:At least the prez is an elected official. All the while, un-elected bureaucrats in far too numerous federal agencies write rules and regulations that are more stifling and restrictive to freedom than most can even imagine. Time for congress to rein all that back in, do their job, and drain the administrative state. I am sure your letters to your reps and senators urging them to take heed will be mailed today.
To my local reps, however? Sure. I've done that on several occasions. Even got an audience with one of them a time or two.
And the fact that he's elected is irrelevant. He was elected to a system that is supposed to be regulated by checks and balances. The executive order usurps governmental regulation. It did with Obama. It does with Trump. -
QuakerOatsPerfect; when a liberal goes EO crazy it is ok; when a R issues one, it's the end of the world.
-
like_that
I hated EOs when Obama was president, and I hate them now. In fact I warned every Obama sheep, that using the "WELL OBAMA HAS TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE CONGRESS WON'T!!!" to justify overreach from the POTUS will come back to bite them in the ass. Now we have Trump signing off executive orders and nobody realizes it or the same people who cared that Obama signed them, are now turning a blind eye to Trump. It's never a good idea to be comfortable with being a part of the democratic majority. If you can use that power to exercise government coercion now, that same power/policy can be turned on you when you lose the democratic majority. It's incredible how so many people don't understand this and just another example of our school system's failure. -
QuakerOatsTrue. Similar to Harry Reid going nuclear .................I suppose R's can do it now, but will likely rue the day in the future.
-
O-Trap
I literally stated that it's wrong for it to be used, regardless of who is using it or what it's being used for. How did you get "when a liberal goes EO crazy it is ok" from that?QuakerOats;1867259 wrote:Perfect; when a liberal goes EO crazy it is ok; when a R issues one, it's the end of the world.
Whichever party currently holds the Executive Office, it would behoove them to work with Congress to heavily restrict EOs for the future ... provided they actually care about what happens to the country when an opposing figure is in that office.QuakerOats;1867272 wrote:True. Similar to Harry Reid going nuclear .................I suppose R's can do it now, but will likely rue the day in the future. -
QuakerOatsobama said he had a phone and a pen .............libs and media loved it. Maybe you did not.
-
O-Trap
I did not and stated as much above. I found his use of the EO equally abhorrent as I find this use of the EO.QuakerOats;1867283 wrote:obama said he had a phone and a pen .............libs and media loved it. Maybe you did not.
The EO is not for the purpose of circumventing Congress on matters of gravitas. It is meant to avoid burying Congress on trivial matters, like flags at half mast and holidays. -
QuakerOatsThis order is not to circumvent congress; it is to circumvent the bureaucratic administrative state, which The People abhor.
-
isadorefrom the spokesman for "The People." self appointed of course.
-
O-Trap
SMHQuakerOats;1867298 wrote:This order is not to circumvent congress; it is to circumvent the bureaucratic administrative state, which The People abhor.
Renaming the checks and balances process "the bureaucratic administrative state" when it doesn't suit your particular brand of politics doesn't change what it does.
Ironically, Obama had a similar indictment to justify his own EO. Funny how the checks-and-balances process was so sacred then, isn't it?
Regulation of government is annoying when it keeps you from getting your way, sure, but that doesn't make it any less important, which you'll be quick to point out the next time a Democrat is in office with his finger on the EO button.
This order is indeed to circumvent Congress. The proposition being dry-rammed through is different, but regardless of that, this is virtually identical to Obama cramming the ACA down our throats. -
QuakerOatsI did not rename anything. The order is to streamline and speed the permitting process for infrastructure projects, a bureaucratic administrative state function.
-
O-Trap
Effectively, it circumvented Congress. Saying that it circumvented "the bureaucratic administrative state" is just calling Congress part of the bureaucratic administrative state. As such, yes, you just referred to Congress, and their process in the checks-and-balances system, as more or less an unnecessary step.QuakerOats;1867318 wrote:I did not rename anything. The order is to streamline and speed the permitting process for infrastructure projects, a bureaucratic administrative state function.
The problem is, if you make this defense, you legitimize the process by which Obama pushed the ACA through.
The proposed order includes changes to the legislation surrounding the permit and approval process for infrastructure. It is not the job of the Executive Office to change legislation. It is the job of the Legislative branch ... the houses of Congress.
This is, in effect, the president legislating by running an end-around by the Legislative branch. -
gut
They're using the EO like a line item veto. Whatever happened to the line item veto? Is it dead because Congress can't actually pass anything?O-Trap;1867330 wrote: The proposed order includes changes to the legislation surrounding the permit and approval process for infrastructure. It is not the job of the Executive Office to change legislation. It is the job of the Legislative branch ... the houses of Congress. -
Spock
Obama EO were illegal in many cases
-
O-Trap
I take some comfort in the fact that it's difficult to pass something in Congress.gut;1867334 wrote:They're using the EO like a line item veto. Whatever happened to the line item veto? Is it dead because Congress can't actually pass anything?