Both claims are false.
And this one too.
Both claims are false.
Years ago (like Bush or Clinton) I was in a farmer hangout/coffeshop and the guys were complaining about the gov't (surprising I know!) I started on this rant about lines on the road, and how expensive they were, and how we are just coddling the next generation and they were helpless (see post about auto headlights somewhere around here) and if more people would just die that would lead to a better populace, but no, they wouldn't want to lose their tax base, and it turned out that most people actually wanted lines on the road, that that was going too far, but they all had their pet projects and peeves.I have a question for the panel.
In all the ranting and yelling and blind loyalty, what could we do better. I mean Red wants the Gov. to dissolve and go away. To be replaced with what and at what cost.
Others want more Gov on this topic but scream about interference on that topic.
What to do. What to change. And at what costs.
Yea but you know that they are smarter than that, if only marginally. The fact that she actually said this out loud is a testament to how incrementalism works.Good. I would encourage Pelosi to do all the motivational speaking that she wants. I hope she keeps it up.
NeverTrumpers slinging around "loyalty" as a poor trait of those who support our president don't seem to have an alternative.
Other than of course disillusioning and poisoning the middle ground voters into not voting, throwing their vote away or even voting for the enemy.
Not all executive orders are equal, I thought many BHO eo's were wrong and thought it right for DJT to eo to remove them. It is in no way hypocritical to be opposed to eo's in the first place and support their use to remove previous eo's. As for the wall eo, that too is different in that the President is exercising a law, duly passed 40 years ago, not just pulling rabbits out of hats. I hope that both sides come together and repeal this law. It is mind boggling to me just how much power lazy congresses have given away over the years, they literally write a law as an outline of the goal and have the agencies fill in the details. That to me is not Constitutional...
MM
I don't think EO's are bad per se. It's how the government works. However, when you use them to attempt to accomplish things congress said no to, using loopholes and whatever legal maneuvering WH lawyers can dig up, that's overstepping executive authority. Congress has a right to say no to the president even if you're fiercely loyal to the president. Congress said no to cap-and-trade, and Obama wrote executive orders effectively implementing that through regulatory code. Trump's EO ordering the justice department to redefine bump stocks as machine guns is on par with that or probably worse. Not because bump stocks matter. They're just novelties. Because that EO sets a really dangerous precedent for changing legislated definitions by stroke of the executive pen. But some loyal Trumpers seem incapable of even criticizing that. Team Trump. Loyal no matter what.
And this one too.
I agree. Yours is too.
I don't think EO's are bad per se. It's how the government works. However, when you use them to attempt to accomplish things congress said no to, using loopholes and whatever legal maneuvering [STRIKE]WH lawyers can dig up[/STRIKE] that Congress gave them when it comes to declaring an emergency, that's not overstepping executive authority. Congress has a right to say no to the president even if you're fiercely loyal to the president. Congress said no to cap-and-trade, and Obama wrote executive orders effectively implementing that through regulatory code. Trump's EO ordering the justice department to redefine bump stocks as machine guns is on par with that or probably worse. Not because bump stocks matter. They're just novelties. Because that EO sets a really dangerous precedent for changing legislated definitions by stroke of the executive pen. But some loyal Trumpers seem incapable of even criticizing that. Team Trump. Loyal no matter what.
The bumpstock eo was definitely unconstitutional just as the cap and trade was. Others were coal plant eo, amnesty that congress would not pass.
MM
I don't always agree with Trump, but think of what kind of shape we would be in, if Hillary was in office. For me, Trump was the lesser of the two evils. I think if Hillary were in office we would be seeing national gun registration or a federal tax on each firearm purchased. We all know where she stands on gun control.
Thanks!
I just figured since you get to throw around unqualified and inaccurate statements, the rest of us should be granted the same privilege.
Glad you agree.
Google must be pro Trump, because no matter how I phrase it they will not direct me to President's Bump Stock Ban EO. There are a lot of articles about it by the MSMBS, but no eo number can be found.
This is the ATF finding.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5635249/Bump-Stock-Final-Rule.pdf
So the ATF is just making it up on their own without direction? Wow. Brass balls on those guys.
So the ATF is just making it up on their own without direction? Wow. Brass balls on those guys.
All I am saying is I cannot find an EO. Someone said there was an EO.