Donald Trump

mrussel1

CM189191 said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Kat said:

Do they mean it or is it just for public show?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-daca-dreamers_us_59a9a57de4b0b5e530fe901b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I honestly believe trump is cruel and evil. I'm not likening him to any previous historical figure though. He's in a horrible class of his own. :(

This is what happens when you legislate through EO.  No matter who you like or anyone likes as POTUS using a EO to create new laws is only as good as long as that person is POTUS.  Real reform has to come through Congress not the Executive Branch. 

Legislation has to come through Congress and the Executive Branch.  Obama did his part.  The obstructionist Republican Congress are the ones who shat the bed here. 

Obama over stepped his part when he didn't get what he wanted from the Republican congress. The same way Trump tried to over step his authority with the travel ban. Unfortunately, if you don't like getting "no" for an answer that doesn't mean you get to make up your own rules. You definitely wouldn't support it for Trump, so why so much leeway for Obama? Obama had good intentions, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate. Trump is merely falling back to rule of law.

Obama presented a pathway, a solution, a way forward.  

What Trump did was not leadership, it was cowardly.  

He was in a box.  The delay was probably the only legitimate solution available to him.  At least Congress can attempt to do it properly now.  

wtf was stopping Congress from doing it properly back in 2012 when DACA was enacted?  Or prior to that?

Nothing at all. I am not mounting a defense of the GOP congress by any means.  But Trump is dealing with this hand, and only part of it is his making (the part where he campaigned on this..it's now a handcuff).

Go Beavers

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Kat said:

Do they mean it or is it just for public show?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-daca-dreamers_us_59a9a57de4b0b5e530fe901b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I honestly believe trump is cruel and evil. I'm not likening him to any previous historical figure though. He's in a horrible class of his own. :(

This is what happens when you legislate through EO.  No matter who you like or anyone likes as POTUS using a EO to create new laws is only as good as long as that person is POTUS.  Real reform has to come through Congress not the Executive Branch. 

Legislation has to come through Congress and the Executive Branch.  Obama did his part.  The obstructionist Republican Congress are the ones who shat the bed here. 

Obama over stepped his part when he didn't get what he wanted from the Republican congress. The same way Trump tried to over step his authority with the travel ban. Unfortunately, if you don't like getting "no" for an answer that doesn't mean you get to make up your own rules. You definitely wouldn't support it for Trump, so why so much leeway for Obama? Obama had good intentions, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate. Trump is merely falling back to rule of law.

I would 100% support something that is morally just and good for the country, like this particular EO of Obama's was. If Trump somehow managed to come up with an EO that was morally just and good for the USA, I would support that too (obviously that isn't going to happen, lol). There are good and bad executive orders, depending on the details. It's not hard to think grey when it comes to EOs.

There is no doubt that Obama did this out of humane and moral sensibility, but that doesn't mean it's any more legal. If we start bending rules on this then where does it end? There are also people who think what Trump wanted to do with the travel ban was good and a way to protect our country even if you and I don't. It isn't our decision, but we can have a view and a voice in the outcome. There are plenty of good reasons to make DACA a permanent law, but until that is accomplished, the point is moot on whether to extend it while the lawsuits pile up.

I also don't have an issue with legal weed, driving with an open container or a lot of other laws, but until my state and the rest of the country gets on board, that doesn't make it ok in the places where it's still not legal. Do it the right way.

But sometimes doing it the "right way" takes so long (or Congress just blocks literally everything, as was the case for most of what Obama wanted to do), that those at risk would suffer ... I think that would have been the case here. It was a good EO.

And it sets up exposing who the assholes are down the road. And now we're down the road. 

tbergs

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Kat said:

Do they mean it or is it just for public show?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-daca-dreamers_us_59a9a57de4b0b5e530fe901b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I honestly believe trump is cruel and evil. I'm not likening him to any previous historical figure though. He's in a horrible class of his own. :(

This is what happens when you legislate through EO.  No matter who you like or anyone likes as POTUS using a EO to create new laws is only as good as long as that person is POTUS.  Real reform has to come through Congress not the Executive Branch. 

Legislation has to come through Congress and the Executive Branch.  Obama did his part.  The obstructionist Republican Congress are the ones who shat the bed here. 

Obama over stepped his part when he didn't get what he wanted from the Republican congress. The same way Trump tried to over step his authority with the travel ban. Unfortunately, if you don't like getting "no" for an answer that doesn't mean you get to make up your own rules. You definitely wouldn't support it for Trump, so why so much leeway for Obama? Obama had good intentions, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate. Trump is merely falling back to rule of law.

I would 100% support something that is morally just and good for the country, like this particular EO of Obama's was. If Trump somehow managed to come up with an EO that was morally just and good for the USA, I would support that too (obviously that isn't going to happen, lol). There are good and bad executive orders, depending on the details. It's not hard to think grey when it comes to EOs.

There is no doubt that Obama did this out of humane and moral sensibility, but that doesn't mean it's any more legal. If we start bending rules on this then where does it end? There are also people who think what Trump wanted to do with the travel ban was good and a way to protect our country even if you and I don't. It isn't our decision, but we can have a view and a voice in the outcome. There are plenty of good reasons to make DACA a permanent law, but until that is accomplished, the point is moot on whether to extend it while the lawsuits pile up.

I also don't have an issue with legal weed, driving with an open container or a lot of other laws, but until my state and the rest of the country gets on board, that doesn't make it ok in the places where it's still not legal. Do it the right way.

But sometimes doing it the "right way" takes so long (or Congress just blocks literally everything, as was the case for most of what Obama wanted to do), that those at risk would suffer ... I think that would have been the case here. It was a good EO.

And it sets up exposing who the assholes are down the road. And now we're down the road. 

I also think it gives Trump an out because he can defer this to Congress just like the ACA failure. Unfortunately or fortunately, his inability to work with others equates to low success rates on anything he does. I'm highly doubtful congress will get this figured out. The Trump base of most republicans won't risk their voter demographic on any legislation related to immigration laws expanding privilege. Let's face it, these assholes were one vote away from a complete disaster of a healthcare plan that would hurt millions of legal citizens. No way they protect anyone who wasn't legally born or immigrated here.

The Juggler

His supporters always talk about how "tough" Trump is. Pretty weak move to leave it to Sessions today to make the announcement.

what dreams

I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.

Today marks a low, low point for humanity.

tbergs

what dreams said:

I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.

Today marks a low, low point for humanity.

That was me and I'm not a Trump defender. Sorry if my description offended you. 

HesCalledDyer

For Trump, this has nothing to do with legality, morality, or ethics. It's just the latest iteration of "Did Obama do it? Then end it!" by President Ego.

He gave Congress no direction. No idea of what he wants to do with DACA (or immigration in general). Just "Obama did it, so it's wrong."  This idiot couldn't lead a fucking game of solitaire.

brianlux

tbergs said:

I'm not in total agreement with ending DACA, but I also find it hard to support a program that automatically gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act. We do have laws in place and while Trump is his own worst enemy because of his track record with immigration, racism and any other negative relationship you can have with anyone not white, this would have been less of a target without all of his other abominable orders.

And yes, it is great to see a well written statement from a president. Eloquent and pretty words always make it easier to accept the decisions behind them, but they are not the whole story either. Of course Obama is only going to speak to the positives and great people in the DACA program. I would expect nothing less and believe that for the most part what he said is accurate. That still doesn't make it any more legal.

I completely agree with this though unfortunately some here may see this as a sign of supporting Trump.  Speaking for myself, that, of course, is not the case.  It's very unfortunate that Trump of all people would be the one to bring into question and act that has little logic to support it.  Politicians on the the left and the right have  admonished us to "play by the rules" and yet some expect us to accept an  act that, as tbergs so aptly put it, gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act?  That doesn't make much sense and getting upset about removing a program that has not been engineered in a way that makes it legitimately legal really just plays into the hands of the people some of you are so angry with. 

If you want this kind of program to get support from those who may question it in the first place (there are many such people out there), then some logic and proper procedure are called for.

And now that I've blown my cover and probably made some enemies here (Christ I hope not, you people know enough about who I am to have already made that assessment one way or another), I'm not sure the immigration policies pushed by many who describe themselves as "left" or "liberal" are well thought out or reasonable in the first place.  There are legal ways to immigrate into this country.  Wouldn't it make sense to either follow those procedures or enact laws that the majority agrees on in order to change them?

what dreams

tbergs said:

what dreams sjaid:

I can't wait to see which Congressperson votes against innocent children -- otherwise known as "by-products," according to a Trump defender a few pages back.

Today marks a low, low point for humanity.

That was me and I'm not a Trump defender. Sorry if my description offended you. 

I'm not offended. I'm disgusted. I've always thought it was bad enough to call people "illegal." People cannot be illegal. They can perform illegal actions, but it is never a crime to be a human being. Now we have children being called "by-products" from someone agreeing with Trump's decision to rescind the order (definition of a defense? Idk what that word means if not that).

 I guess it's just my personal involvement with multiple dozens of students over multiple decades of teaching that tears my heart up over this. How do I, in serving my country, look a group of teenagers in the eye and tell them that "In America, you can be whatever you dream to be. Do your work, get a good education . . . Oh, wait. Not you, or you, or you. You're going back to El Salvador to be gang raped."

How lucky we native-borns are to have experienced the accident of our birth.

Go Beavers

brianlux said:

tbergs said:

I'm not in total agreement with ending DACA, but I also find it hard to support a program that automatically gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act. We do have laws in place and while Trump is his own worst enemy because of his track record with immigration, racism and any other negative relationship you can have with anyone not white, this would have been less of a target without all of his other abominable orders.

And yes, it is great to see a well written statement from a president. Eloquent and pretty words always make it easier to accept the decisions behind them, but they are not the whole story either. Of course Obama is only going to speak to the positives and great people in the DACA program. I would expect nothing less and believe that for the most part what he said is accurate. That still doesn't make it any more legal.

I completely agree with this though unfortunately some here may see this as a sign of supporting Trump.  Speaking for myself, that, of course, is not the case.  It's very unfortunate that Trump of all people would be the one to bring into question and act that has little logic to support it.  Politicians on the the left and the right have  admonished us to "play by the rules" and yet some expect us to accept an  act that, as tbergs so aptly put it, gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act?  That doesn't make much sense and getting upset about removing a program that has not been engineered in a way that makes it legitimately legal really just plays into the hands of the people some of you are so angry with. 

If you want this kind of program to get support from those who may question it in the first place (there are many such people out there), then some logic and proper procedure are called for.

And now that I've blown my cover and probably made some enemies here (Christ I hope not, you people know enough about who I am to have already made that assessment one way or another), I'm not sure the immigration policies pushed by many who describe themselves as "left" or "liberal" are well thought out or reasonable in the first place.  There are legal ways to immigrate into this country.  Wouldn't it make sense to either follow those procedures or enact laws that the majority agrees on in order to change them?

Logic wasn't on the mind of Republicans when Obama was president, so they got an EO. Logic today says to maintain daca until Congress can effectivley deal with the issue. Too bad they can't even do that. It's another unnecessary upheaval and stressor for an entire group since trump got elected.   

tempo_n_groove

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

tbergs said:

CM189191 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Kat said:

Do they mean it or is it just for public show?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-daca-dreamers_us_59a9a57de4b0b5e530fe901b?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

I honestly believe trump is cruel and evil. I'm not likening him to any previous historical figure though. He's in a horrible class of his own. :(

This is what happens when you legislate through EO.  No matter who you like or anyone likes as POTUS using a EO to create new laws is only as good as long as that person is POTUS.  Real reform has to come through Congress not the Executive Branch. 

Legislation has to come through Congress and the Executive Branch.  Obama did his part.  The obstructionist Republican Congress are the ones who shat the bed here. 

Obama over stepped his part when he didn't get what he wanted from the Republican congress. The same way Trump tried to over step his authority with the travel ban. Unfortunately, if you don't like getting "no" for an answer that doesn't mean you get to make up your own rules. You definitely wouldn't support it for Trump, so why so much leeway for Obama? Obama had good intentions, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate. Trump is merely falling back to rule of law.

I would 100% support something that is morally just and good for the country, like this particular EO of Obama's was. If Trump somehow managed to come up with an EO that was morally just and good for the USA, I would support that too (obviously that isn't going to happen, lol). There are good and bad executive orders, depending on the details. It's not hard to think grey when it comes to EOs.

There is no doubt that Obama did this out of humane and moral sensibility, but that doesn't mean it's any more legal. If we start bending rules on this then where does it end? There are also people who think what Trump wanted to do with the travel ban was good and a way to protect our country even if you and I don't. It isn't our decision, but we can have a view and a voice in the outcome. There are plenty of good reasons to make DACA a permanent law, but until that is accomplished, the point is moot on whether to extend it while the lawsuits pile up.

I also don't have an issue with legal weed, driving with an open container or a lot of other laws, but until my state and the rest of the country gets on board, that doesn't make it ok in the places where it's still not legal. Do it the right way.

But sometimes doing it the "right way" takes so long (or Congress just blocks literally everything, as was the case for most of what Obama wanted to do), that those at risk would suffer ... I think that would have been the case here. It was a good EO.

And it sets up exposing who the assholes are down the road. And now we're down the road. 

Trump wanted to "drain the swamp" so let congress do, or don't do their jobs and come up with an immigration solution in the next 6 months and the ones that don't do them will most likely face not getting reelected.

brianlux

Go Beavers said:

brianlux said:

tbergs said:

I'm not in total agreement with ending DACA, but I also find it hard to support a program that automatically gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act. We do have laws in place and while Trump is his own worst enemy because of his track record with immigration, racism and any other negative relationship you can have with anyone not white, this would have been less of a target without all of his other abominable orders.

And yes, it is great to see a well written statement from a president. Eloquent and pretty words always make it easier to accept the decisions behind them, but they are not the whole story either. Of course Obama is only going to speak to the positives and great people in the DACA program. I would expect nothing less and believe that for the most part what he said is accurate. That still doesn't make it any more legal.

I completely agree with this though unfortunately some here may see this as a sign of supporting Trump.  Speaking for myself, that, of course, is not the case.  It's very unfortunate that Trump of all people would be the one to bring into question and act that has little logic to support it.  Politicians on the the left and the right have  admonished us to "play by the rules" and yet some expect us to accept an  act that, as tbergs so aptly put it, gives a legal right to a by product of an illegal act?  That doesn't make much sense and getting upset about removing a program that has not been engineered in a way that makes it legitimately legal really just plays into the hands of the people some of you are so angry with. 

If you want this kind of program to get support from those who may question it in the first place (there are many such people out there), then some logic and proper procedure are called for.

And now that I've blown my cover and probably made some enemies here (Christ I hope not, you people know enough about who I am to have already made that assessment one way or another), I'm not sure the immigration policies pushed by many who describe themselves as "left" or "liberal" are well thought out or reasonable in the first place.  There are legal ways to immigrate into this country.  Wouldn't it make sense to either follow those procedures or enact laws that the majority agrees on in order to change them?

Logic wasn't on the mind of Republicans when Obama was president, so they got an EO. Logic today says to maintain daca until Congress can effectivley deal with the issue. Too bad they can't even do that. It's another unnecessary upheaval and stressor for an entire group since trump got elected.   

But if your going to talk politics, you need to use logic and  work within or to change the laws.  The other option is anarchy (not the popular version, I mean true anarchy-- which is not my choice).

what dreams

The Dream Act went before both houses of Congress under Obama, and the Republican Congress voted it down.  People can't act like they didn't have their chance to do the right thing.

Not only did they not do the right thing, but more people like them got elected next time around. Plus Trump. Anyone who thinks the "normal" course of business in Congress is the better option doesn't know squat about what our Congressional map looks like.

You're all assuming Ryan and McConnell will even bring it the floor. I'm not betting my money on that in the next 6 months prior to 2018.

brianlux

what dreams said:

The Dream Act went before both houses of Congress under Obama, and the Republican Congress voted it down.  People can't act like they didn't have their chance to do the right thing.

Not only did they not do the right thing, but more people like them got elected next time around. Plus Trump. Anyone who thinks the "normal" course of business in Congress is the better option doesn't know squat about what our Congressional map looks like.

You're all assuming Ryan and McConnell will even bring it the floor. I'm not betting my money on that in the next 6 months prior to 2018.

People can't just rail about how the government doesn't work the way they want it to.  They have to get involved and I don't mean doing the one click of a button on-line petition thing, I mean write and call your representatives, attend and speak at state legislative proceedings, county board meetings, and city hall meeting when possible and allowed (I've done all of those things).

And people can't expect immigration reform by just griping about it and not actually doing something.  They have to help those who they feel deserve legal immigration and support others who have done the same.  I've done those things as well, including in the mid 80's having a couple of "boat people" , post war Vietnamese  immigrants, working under my supervision while in management at a college bookstore.  Because of extreme language barriers and vastly differing cultures, that was difficult for both the Vietnamese folks and me and the rest of my crew.  That didn't make us heroes, but we had a job to do and we did it.

It would be great to hear about what others here are actually doing, not just saying, because I have no doubt some of you have taken some very inspiring actions.

Bentleyspop

Bentleyspop

From twitter........

Let this sink in. Joe Arpaio gets a pardon while 800k productive young people face deportation-that's POTUS picking and choosing the rule of law
 

PJ_Soul

Bentleyspop said:

From twitter........

Let this sink in. Joe Arpaio gets a pardon while 800k productive young people face deportation-that's POTUS picking and choosing the rule of law
 

Yup. Revolting, disgusting, nauseating, evil.

Halifax2TheMax

Didn't the Third Reich deport people they considered "illegal" or "undesirable?" Just asking.

Go Beavers

Halifax2TheMax said:

Didn't the Third Reich deport people they considered "illegal" or "undesirable?" Just asking.

trump being his white supremacist self. 

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

Didn't the Third Reich deport people they considered "illegal" or "undesirable?" Just asking.

Can't we just start exiling deplorables instead?