Impressed by Trump administration

• O-Trap

  

  Spock;1867339 wrote:Obama EO were illegal in many cases

  Please do explain this, Mr. Cochran.
• Automatik

  

  In for these explanations. LOL
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;1867330 wrote: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.
  
  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.

  
  Effectively the administrative state has circumvented congress. Until congress reasserts its duty-bound authority, the president will have to act on behalf of The People, not in creating or adding to the bureaucratic morass to the detriment of The People (such as in the case of obama edicts), but by subtracting from the administrative state's radical over-regulation and overreach.
• Spock

  

  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violates-constitution-let-us-count-ways-2015-edition
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1867345 wrote:Effectively the administrative state has circumvented congress. Until congress reasserts its duty-bound authority, the president will have to act on behalf of The People, not in creating or adding to the bureaucratic morass to the detriment of The People (such as in the case of obama edicts), but by subtracting from the administrative state's radical over-regulation and overreach.

  Did this come STRAIGHT out of an Obama speech after his EO? It sure sounds like it. According to him at the time, Congress wasn't doing his job, so he had to do what was best for the American people.
  
  Same bullshit. Different numbnuts in office.
• QuakerOats

  Except it is not the same; in fact the effects are the opposite --- see # 2372 above.
• Heretic

  

  QuakerOats;1867527 wrote:Except it is not the same; in fact the effects are the opposite --- see # 2372 above.

  "It's not the same! It's a guy from MY PARTY doing it!!!"
  
  We know, QQ, we know.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1867527 wrote:Except it is not the same; in fact the effects are the opposite --- see # 2372 above.

  President wants to do something. He says he believes that it is good for the people. Doesn't appear to trust Congress to put it through. Signs EO to put it through himself.
  
  Which one am I talking about?
• QuakerOats

  Heretic;1867530 wrote:"It's not the same! It's a guy from MY PARTY doing it!!!"
  
  We know, QQ, we know.

  
  Your OC career is riddled with failure and/or inability to read the fine print. Sometimes you have to get into the weeds.
  
  
  Good luck.
• Spock

  

  Trump is killing it. " we are not going to tell anyone about strategy, troop numbers, dates or anything."
  
  Nice to see a president not play politics with the military
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  It's not bad. It was largely the same stuff we have heard the last 16 years: build up Afghan troops, keep Taliban down, try and force Pakistan to do their share, involve India, and hunt terrorists.
  
  There were nice changes, not micromanaging from the White House is one, and saying the others must help as well.
  
  Largely, it is the same stuff from the last 16 years. I really didn't hear a way to try and get the Taliban to start peace talks, which is really the only way this ends.
  
  And, hey Trump didn't sound like too much of an idiot, so win!
• iclfan2

  

  I liked when he said "we aren't nation building anymore, we are killing terrorists". Not an exact quote but the gist.
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• Spock

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1868038 wrote:It's not bad. It was largely the same stuff we have heard the last 16 years: build up Afghan troops, keep Taliban down, try and force Pakistan to do their share, involve India, and hunt terrorists.
  
  There were nice changes, not micromanaging from the White House is one, and saying the others must help as well.
  
  Largely, it is the same stuff from the last 16 years. I really didn't hear a way to try and get the Taliban to start peace talks, which is really the only way this ends.
  
  And, hey Trump didn't sound like too much of an idiot, so win!

  The last 16 years..... Obama didn't sound that tough ever.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Spock;1868041 wrote:The last 16 years..... Obama didn't sound that tough ever.

  WTF does sounding tough have to do with anything?
  Sure, he sounds tougher, but the Taliban don't give a shit about how he sounds.
  It is the policy that matters. In the end, it is largely the same.
  
  DOD additional troops numbers about shy of 4k, so not a big change.
  Add that to our 8,500 there and we are still well below the 2009 surge.
  So, again, it was a nice speech, but not one that largely changed anything.
• iclfan2

  

  I mean at least Trump pretends to listen to his military contacts on the ground rather than come up with bullshit timelines and other things himself like Obama did. Pakistan will be the interesting piece if they can actually force them to do their part or do it for them
  
  
  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah, I'm all ears on Pakistan. We have tried the hardball and softball approach to them and both approaches have failed by both previous Presidents.
  Although, involving their sworn enemy, India, in Afghanistan may not help....
• gut

  Once again, all kinds of partisan bickering about Trump's military policy and decisions....as it was with Obama....and, like Ptown said, it's largely the same.
  
  Whether Trump or Obama didn't want to lead, or are incapable of leading doesn't matter. They're basically the same. Checks and balances, and the rest of the govt is fully capable of doing just fine with an empty suit in the oval office.
  
  There's a lot more similarities, at least in impact and effect, between Obama and Trump then either's kool-aid drinkers would ever want to admit.
• FatHobbit

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1868038 wrote: And, hey Trump didn't sound like too much of an idiot, so win!

  Pretty much this.
• O-Trap

  

  gut;1868059 wrote:Once again, all kinds of partisan bickering about Trump's military policy and decisions....as it was with Obama....and, like Ptown said, it's largely the same.
  
  Whether Trump or Obama didn't want to lead, or are incapable of leading doesn't matter. They're basically the same. Checks and balances, and the rest of the govt is fully capable of doing just fine with an empty suit in the oval office.
  
  There's a lot more similarities, at least in impact and effect, between Obama and Trump then either's kool-aid drinkers would ever want to admit.

  And also this.
• QuakerOats

  I guess it always seemed like obama was calculating how to win politically, amidst international turmoil; with Trump it seems like he is planning to win the war, and to hell with the politics of it. I appreciate that.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1868109 wrote:I guess it always seemed like obama was calculating how to win politically, amidst international turmoil; with Trump it seems like he is planning to win the war, and to hell with the politics of it. I appreciate that.

  An increase of less than 5k troops I highly doubt is going to tip the balance.
  
  We had over 100k there in 2009-2011 and that did not win the war.
  
  Trump also failed to suggest what winning means. Sure, killing terrorists and keeping the Taliban down, and economic progress are tactical goals, but in the end the big question is what role will the Taliban play in any Government? That is the million dollar question and did not get answered or even addressed last night.
  In Trump's defense, I don't think he cares really about it. He just went through the motions last night and just passing the buck to the generals.
• salto

  

  I'm impressed drumpf didn't fuck up more of his script written for him last night. At least we know our President can read from a couple teleprompters.
• salto

  

  Spock;1868041 wrote:The last 16 years..... Obama didn't sound that tough ever.

  You really are an idiot sometimes. Seriously.
  
  [video=youtube;ZNYmK19-d0U][/video]
• Heretic

  

  Spock;1868041 wrote:The last 16 years..... Obama didn't sound that tough ever.

  This is international politics, not an elementary school playground. Terrorists aren't going to stop terrorizing because a politician "sounds tough". The only things that matter are policies and proper implementation of them (ie: something better than "bomb a bunch of places and create more terrorists due to destabilizing the region").
• QuakerOats

  Spock;1868041 wrote:The last 16 years..... Obama didn't sound that tough ever.

  
  To be fair, he may have sounded tough every now and then, but all the while he was decimating the military, and undermining our wherewithal to win .............and in war, winning is all that matters.