Trump II

[Raul_82]

Obama's edict did nothing to protect them permanently as we now find out with Trump's decision reversing the 2015 rules.  Better that Congress enact legislation that can give permanent status at some point and allow them to become full citizens in the future.  Otherwise they'll be on tenterhooks the rest of their lives.  Trump is in favor of doing the right thing by them.  So he'll support legislation that will let them stay eventually.  It's actually a positive development for dreamers although there has to be fear as well.  Better to have fear and hope then having to look over your shoulder the rest of your life.

Obama was being blocked by a Republican Congress that offered no solutions, as happened  during much of his term. Sure, he didn't protect them permanently, but at least something got done. Remains to be seen if Reps will reach an agreement on this.

[scyth]

But I find the word "bride" an unusual word for Putin to claim he wasn't. I'm thinking there might have been something lost in translation...could what he said be better translated as He's not my bitch"?

he was using a polite wording on purpose so the "bride" was a good way to translate...  otherwise he'd use something like "шестерка" (N6) - it is a more direct equivalent of the word "bitch" in such context

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

he was using a polite wording on purpose so the "bride" was a good way to translate...  otherwise he'd use something like "шестерка" (N6) - it is a more direct equivalent of the word "bitch" in such context

Hey, can you send me a PM? I am curious about the origin and meaning of the No.6... have not heard that one before.

[scyth]

Hey, can you send me a PM? I am curious about the origin and meaning of the No.6... have not heard that one before.

https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%A3%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_playing_cards

where 6 was the lowest one

[Alan Klein]

Obama was being blocked by a Republican Congress that offered no solutions, as happened  during much of his term. Sure, he didn't protect them permanently, but at least something got done. Remains to be seen if Reps will reach an agreement on this.

DACA doesn't provide permanent safety for dreamers.  Only legislation will do that.  After all, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  Now it's up to Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to work out a permanent solution so the country can move forward.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

DACA doesn't provide permanent safety for dreamers.  Only legislation will do that.

And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.

After all, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  Now it's up to Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to work out a permanent solution so the country can move forward.

The chance of moving forward is slim, due to the polarization (and despite the Republican majority). Trump hasn't achieved any major legislation, he is only obsessed with what Obama tried to achieve, and attempts to destroy policies based on scientific insights in order to protect his swamp buddies.

One of the most recent cases in point;
EPA runs all grants past a political appointee in its PR office
Consultant with no science background reportedly on lookout for climate change.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/epa-runs-all-grants-past-a-political-appointee-in-its-pr-office/

QUOTE "While the EPA is often portrayed as a massive bureaucracy, about half of its budget goes directly to other organizations through grants. While many of these are focused on cleanups and reducing environmental risks, the agency also funds scientific research into various health and environmental risks. The money for these research grants has historically been allocated based on a combination of scientific merit and environmental concerns.

All that started to change in August. That's when the EPA issued a new policy dictating that all grant programs must be run past a political appointee from the EPA's public affairs office. Now, a new report indicates that this PR specialist is cancelling individual grants.

The appointee is named John Konkus. He occupies the position of Deputy Associate Administrator for Public Affairs, which is a public relations position. Konkus has a bachelor's degree in government and politics, and he appears to have no scientific background—the closest is having worked for former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) back when Boehlert chaired the House Science Committee. Since then, Konkus worked for then-Lieutenant Governor Rick Scott in Florida, spent time at a political consulting firm, and then got involved with the Trump campaign.

Despite the complete lack of scientific qualifications, however, the EPA decided to put him in charge of grants. In August, E&E News obtained a policy document stating that any proposals for grant programs need to be run through the Office of Public Affairs, specifically John Konkus. No funding program is allowed to go forward if Konkus does not approve it. This can include scientific funding, as well as grants for educational or environmental programs.

Now, The Washington Post is reporting that Konkus isn't only reviewing future grant programs; he has cancelled millions of dollars in grants that had already been through the review process and deemed worthy of funding. Some of these grants went to universities and so were likely involved in funding basic research. In addition, the report notes that the EPA briefly suspended funding for grants to Alaska at a time when the Trump administration was feuding with one of its senators.

According to the Post, "Konkus has told staff that he is on the lookout for 'the double C-word'—climate change—and repeatedly has instructed grant officers to eliminate references to the subject in solicitations."
"



It's sad to see that the USA is really turning into a banana republic.

Cheers,
Bart

[scyth]

And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.

you mean GOP blocked attempts to push an amnesty for illegal aliens /Dutch are welcome to take them all in ... / and Obama circumvented the legislative branch in an attempt to buy the brown vote ?

[Otto Phocus]

And which was blocked by Republicans during Obama's term, which only left him the imperfect DACA option.

It was blocked by both Democrats and Republicans.  Both presidents Bush and Obama, between 2001 and 2011 have attempted to get their versions of the "dream' like legislation passed and it failed.  Even when the Democrats controlled the congress, during the Obama administration, the legislation did not pass. 

There is credence in the claim that DACA was an abuse of executive power.

Presidents Bush and Obama attempted to get similar legislation passed through the congress. That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation and the Legislative Branch makes the decision about laws. When the Legislative Branch did not pass this law, President Obama went around congress and issued an Executive Order.

This "Yes, I asked congress' permission first but I am going to do it anyway" attitude goes against the concept of separation of powers.

President Obama could not even use the excuse of "better to ask forgiveness than to get permission" as he asked for permission and was told no.

Since DACA was an Executive Order, the current executive, President Trump, can easily change it. Can change it, not necessarily should change it, in my opinion.

It is unfortunate, and in my opinion unfair, that many people will be adversely affected if President Trump changes/rescinds President Obama's Executive Order.

But this is the risk that the Obama administration assumed when President Obama defied congress and issued what he knew could only be a temporary Executive Order. This is why these types of policy need to be enacted by law so that they remain in place between administrations.

One of my criticisms of the DACA was that it did not have an exit path. DACA, if enacted as law, could serve as a pathway to permanent residency for the applicants. Unfortunately, due to DACA being an Executive Order, this option was not possible. So what was left was this state of limbo where the applicant could reapply every 18 months and hope that their application was renewed. Rinse and repeat until???

We have to keep in mind that every applicant for DACA understood that they were going to be deported.  All DACA promised was that this deportation would be deferred for two years. This two year deferment could be extended by two years upon a successful renewal, but at no time was the deportation action being removed.

These types of policy need to be codified into law and not decided by Executive Order. If the congress, decides not to enact a DACA type law, then that is the legislative position of the US.

[scyth]

like father like son or where the moral guidance comes from for the crooked lady & dem-schizo = http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/clinton-pastor-book-pulled-plagiarism/index.html

[scyth]

It was blocked by both Democrats and Republicans.

for the same reasons, right  ?

That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation and the Legislative Branch makes the decision about laws.

seriously ? president brings a text and they vote ? I think native born citizens shall take an exam...

We have to keep in mind that every applicant for DACA understood that they were going to be deported.

absolutely not - there are all arrogant in their brazen, impertinent, you name it
 beliefs that somehow the country owes them something and have no intention to cease their illegal activities - namely to continue their presence here.

DACA, if enacted as law, could serve as a pathway to permanent residency for the applicants.

yet another amnesty that will only further stimulate inflow of illegal aliens... the only compromise solutions is to get a law that will give them a temporary non-immigrant status (a-la working visa/student status), allow them to seek employment based permanent residency sponsor just like people who come legally do (common grounds) and bar them from ever applying/obtaining US citizenship in such case (at best leave them PR for life) and bar them to sponsor their relatives for immigration...

[Otto Phocus]

Nothing in that chart invalidates what I posted.  Did you even look at the number one block in the chart you posted?

The president can, and often does propose legislation to the congress.  I did not write that this was the only way legislation is proposed. Nor did I write that the president is responsible for the wording of the legislation. Even when the president proposes legislation it still goes through the same process as if the proposal came from anyone else.  Did you know that an ordinary citizen can also propose legislation to the congress? 

[scyth]

Nothing in that chart invalidates what I posted.  Did you even look at the number one block in the chart you posted?

anybody can come with an idea, even a president or the next village idiot ...

 

I did not write that this was the only way legislation is proposed.

it is exactly what you did = that is the way how the text "That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation" looks like...

[Alan Goldhammer]

yet another amnesty that will only further stimulate inflow of illegal aliens... the only compromise solutions is to get a law that will give them a temporary non-immigrant status (a-la working visa/student status), allow them to seek employment based permanent residency sponsor just like people who come legally do (common grounds) and bar them from ever applying/obtaining US citizenship in such case (at best leave them PR for life) and bar them to sponsor their relatives for immigration...

Why bar them?  We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake.  Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?

[Otto Phocus]

anybody can come with an idea, even a president or the next village idiot ...

 
it is exactly what you did = that is the way how the text "That's the way our system works -- The president proposes legislation" looks like...

Perhaps you are confusing proposing legislation and drafting a bill. The two are quite different.

[scyth]

Why bar them?  We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake.  Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?

why not ? it is a simple trade - we pay low wages while they fight and die for the United Fruit of Marines and then taxpayers shall have no further obligations - there will be a lot of takers - just it is high time to end the defined benefits options here for all federal/state & municipal parasites and only allow defined contributions ... if you are so charity minded by all means please adopt couple of kids from Guatemala or simply send your money there ...

[scyth]

Perhaps you are confusing proposing legislation and drafting a bill. The two are quite different.

anybody can express some incoherent desire or propose some absurd idea or tweet some BS... but the actual proposal (which is some coherently written text that we call a bill) is done by a member of the legislative branch ...

[Alan Klein]

The president regularly submits budget requests to congress which then legislates it for his approval or veto.   Of course they can start any legislation they want on their own for his final approval or veto.
https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+federal+budget+process&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSlwEJZYtzXWMxRIsaiwELEKjU2AQaBAgBCAkMCxCwjKcIGmIKYAgDEiiMCd8I2wiZE-AI7xP0E48KvAP3E789nz2TN7Y-vj3hPbE07zONN7I0GjCNtXrAGok0Id1-6QBnwlegPFbEnduxjMzWgH_1la-f1pnMZlb01BRk5XHcFVXuaGWogBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBHTzFiwM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNssG0jZHWAhUMaVAKHb0eCRwQwg4IIigA&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=mrERBaEI1Nz_YM:

[James Clark]

anybody can express some incoherent desire or propose some absurd idea or tweet some BS... but the actual proposal (which is some coherently written text that we call a bill) is done by a member of the legislative branch ...

Yes, that's the letter of the law. 

However the practical reality is that frequently bills are drawn up more or less directly by other sources (lobbying groups, special interests, the President and his advisors) in conjunction with a member of Congress, who then submits the bill under his/her name.  And as Alan says, the President also submits a budget to Congress. 

On how laws get written:  http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill

On the budget process (with helpful pretty pictures):  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/federal-budget-process/budgetprocess.pdf

[Schewe]

DONALD TRUMP TWITTER: WHO WRITES THE PRESIDENT’S TWEETS?


U.S. President Donald Trump's tweeting threatens to derail his administration's message, says former Trump White House
communications director Mike Dubke.

President Donald Trump’s off-the-cuff tweets serve to derail his administration’s message and leave White House staff scrambling to do damage control, former White House Communications Director Mike Dubke said Tuesday.

One of Trump’s tweets can change “the entire narrative” on cable news, Dubke said, speaking at a Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service event at Georgetown University.

“The president writes a number of his own tweets, while some are suggested to him,” Dubke said.

The tweets that aren’t checked for accuracy or passed through the filter of Trump’s closest aides and staff, Dubke said, can often leave those same people scrambling to clean up after a tweet storm resulting from a post that wasn’t vetted before it went out.

A single tweet from the president can dictate the programming “for the next hour and a half on cable news, which was an amazing power but also an amazing distraction,” Dubke said, according to Georgetown University’s The Hoya.

--snip--

Despite these difficulties, Trump is very savvy when it comes to the impact the media has on his presidency. “I think that’s where a good level of his frustration comes, where he is hearing things come out of the press that he doesn’t believe are true or are a slant on the truth that is trying to paint an entirely different picture,” Dubke said.

Many of Trump’s sharpest tweets focus on the ongoing Russia investigations looking at whether his campaign helped Russia in their attempts to interfere in the 2016 election.

Trump has argued that Twitter and other forms of social media are the key way that he’s able to get his unfiltered message directly to his supporters. “Only the Fake News Media and Trump enemies want me to stop using Social Media (110 million people),” he wrote August 1. Polls, however, show that his tweets are alienating the average voter.

Since this is the first "job" Trump has ever held (and running his own company does count as a job) he still doesn't understand the difference between being a candidate running for office vs an office holder that needs to govern. Trump could use Twitter for good, but he uses it as a weapon against his enemies and often his own supporters. But he doesn't really care about governing...he just wants to have fun and order people around. That's really his only job experience that he has.

[texshooter]

Why bar them?  We allow them to fight in the US armed forces, they pay income and other tax, they often work at jobs that others don't want to undertake.  Are they not worthy for citizenship in the US?

Their descendants overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  So of course they should be granted amnesty.
And why should undocumented children pay for the crimes of their parents?  Make American children pay the costs, instead.





And let's not leave out the cousins.  It would be cruel to separate families. 






But seriously, why can't we have both amnesty AND secure borders?  Is that so unreasonable?