POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I wouldn't trust much from England or Australia, the people are wonderful but the media is complete rubbish.

Others were already noted but I'd take the BBC over anything coming out of the U.S. in that medium.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

"Operational reasons" up to and including a president that valued the lives he was putting at stake and wasn't taking advice from a dip**** son-in-law that should never have been allowed near the White House.

But your argument is "Well yeah, but Obama might have too, even though he actually didn't..." Like I said, "some other factors".

I guess this is the story that I must have read, and the quote that Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night, and the next one wouldn't be until after Trump took office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Thinking some more..

Have come to the conclusion that Lawyers are going to make a FORTUNE in this administration.

As I look back on trump Co and seeing the same patterns in the first two weeks- there's little discussion of the rules, little thought about application or legality of the rules. If you don't like them, you can either get fired (see the acting AG or just leave (see the response to the State Department). Which leaves the courts to decide whether EO's (and potentially many laws coming from this group) are legal or not. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

We already know that environmental groups are lining up lawyers to fight cut backs at the EPA. If you don't think this will work- many of EPA's rules are due to them being sued. We saw this travel ban that has to be fought in court as opposed to properly coming up with a plan that doesn't screw everything up.

And I'm quite sure that the courts will be attacked for "legislating from the bench" whenever a law or rule is overturned for not actually being legal.

What sucks- in the time from the law or rule being announced to the point where it's either suspended or quickly overturned- thousands of people will suffer, illegally. And with no consequence other than *maybe* getting paid off for it.

Having lunch with a don fan, he's perfectly ok with that. Enforce the rules and "laws" even if they are not legal.

Something to really look forward to.

Yeah. The issue is, will this executive branch abide by a court's decision if their actions are ruled unconstitutional?

We've already seen it with the immigration rule, where an appeals court judge. stayed the order, and yet, CPB and other government entities would not allow lawyers to visit with people being held, and continued to hold the people, based on orders from the administration.

And if they don't abide by the courts' decisions, who's going to compel them to? The Justice Dept? The Republican controlled Congress? Don't make me laugh.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Others were already noted but I'd take the BBC over anything coming out of the U.S. in that medium.

Agreed. And a lot depends on what other voices are being heard in the marketplace. Most countries have much better access to Al Jazeera than we do. I don't know about UK and Au. Of course, a great many people in this country believe anyone with an Arabic sounding name, reporter or not, is wearing a suicide vest.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

So calling out the need for free speech and a violence free campus is a bad thing now because Pres. Trump is the one to say it? Holding colleges and universities fiscally responsible for not holding to these values is about the only way you're ever going to see more than just lip-service to them on campus.

I don't like the man being our president as the vast majority of the things he's said the past two weeks have been cringe-worthy and potentially dangerous, but knee-jerking against absolutely everything the man says or tweets isn't going to do anybody any good. Free speech is a good thing. Ending on-campus violence is a good thing.

I would agree with you if Trump was just saying he thinks they are wrong to limit speech. (cause they are) Cutting off Federal funding is the wrong precedent to set and is way too easy to abuse.

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Trump killed a Navy SEAL because he sent them in on a mission that Obama passed on due to lack of available intel--based on advice from his son-in-law, who the Trump team bragged had "overcome" anti-nepotism laws to become a top advisor--and surprise!, it went poorly.

I imagine anyone who was up in arms about Benghazi!!! will be deeply concerned about this....unless there was some other factor guiding that outrage.

All I hear is crickets just like we did about Flynn and Petraeus...must be a broken connection

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I would agree with you if Trump was just saying he thinks they are wrong to limit speech. (cause they are) Cutting off Federal funding is the wrong precedent to set and is way too easy to abuse.

I would be comforted if he would just show he is capable of thinking through his decisions and not acting out of pure impulse. It is just an annoyance much of the time, but it could easily be very very costly.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I would agree with you if Trump was just saying he thinks they are wrong to limit speech. (cause they are) Cutting off Federal funding is the wrong precedent to set and is way too easy to abuse.

His way is to bluster, so some of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, when you think about funding, if a publicly funded university is willing to curb the rights of students as laid out by our government, then should they continue to be publicly funded universities? If you want to set speech rules on students, take a new road, similar to what that Michigan college whose name I can't remember does.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I guess this is the story that I must have read, and the quote that Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night, and the next one wouldn't be until after Trump took office.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/world/middleeast/donald-trump-yemen-commando-raid-questions.html

Special Operations teams normally want new moon nights. Why? Complete darkness. They have the IR vision gear and most targets don't.

I'm not sure you can equate this with Benghazi. What's that phrase? Oh, yeah, false equivalence.

Benghazi: The US Ambassador (considered "flag" rank by the US military and the Marines that protect embassies) was under assault and we (and I mean that as the collective US population WE) did not send help. Net result? Dead ambassador.

This case: The POTUS sent US forces in (we were the aggressor) and a troop died. Here, we were the aggressor.


That said, yes, this POTUS made a call, in alignment with the operational schedule asked for by the Pentagon, and a US trooper died. Was it the right call to go? That's on Trump and Trump alone.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

His way is to bluster, so some of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, when you think about funding, if a publicly funded university is willing to curb the rights of students as laid out by our government, then should they continue to be publicly funded universities? If you want to set speech rules on students, take a new road, similar to what that Michigan college whose name I can't remember does.

You can't take anything he says with a grain of salt. He lies constantly, and his policies so far are far worse than what he campaigned on.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

His way is to bluster, so some of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

If by "grain" you mean one scoop by this thing ...

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

... his policies so far are far worse than what he campaigned on.

I'd say what he's done so far is exactly what he campaigned on.

What is hard to adjust to is most elected officials do those things over the course of their term. He's doing them in his first two weeks. That's a shocker to the business-as-usual folks (politicos, media, the US population).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'd say what he's done so far is exactly what he campaigned on.

What is hard to adjust to is most elected officials do those things over the course of their term. He's doing them in his first two weeks. That's a shocker to the business-as-usual folks (politicos, media, the US population).

No, he's done more than he ever talked about and he's set policy positions on things he never talked about during the campaign. Add that to the plethora of lies, untruths, and just plain falsehoods that have come out his mouth since he took office and it's far far far worse than I ever imagined. And I imagined pretty bad.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm not sure you can equate this with Benghazi. What's that phrase? Oh, yeah, false equivalence.

Correct, because, as you point out, one wound was entirely self-inflicted.

I'm sure you're printing up your 'Lock Him Up' bumper stickers as we speak.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Correct, because, as you point out, one wound was entirely self-inflicted.

I'm sure you're printing up your 'Lock Him Up' bumper stickers as we speak.

Like I said, he owns that decision.

That job sucks.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'd say what he's done so far is exactly what he campaigned on.

What is hard to adjust to is most elected officials do those things over the course of their term. He's doing them in his first two weeks. That's a shocker to the business-as-usual folks (politicos, media, the US population).

For those of us who witnessed, for the past eight years, a President responding to all situations and inquiries with "FORE!", it's a bit of a breath of fresh air.

 

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'd say what he's done so far is exactly what he campaigned on.

What is hard to adjust to is most elected officials do those things over the course of their term. He's doing them in his first two weeks. That's a shocker to the business-as-usual folks (politicos, media, the US population).

And all by himself via executive orders, with no hint at all that he plans to involve Congress in, you know, legislating, which is what they're supposed to do.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Well what do you know, Infowars going back on their claims of promoting knowledge of the Constitution in order to "fall in line" with a regime... http://www.infowars.com/city-council-member-urges-illegals-not-to-cooperate-with-ice/

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

And the non-voters are back again to deflect even more.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

And all by himself via executive orders, with no hint at all that he plans to involve Congress in, you know, legislating, which is what they're supposed to do.

What executive orders do not involve either enforcement of a law that is already in place, or a policy statement on how to execute the lawful powers the executive branch has?