what a bunch of one sided garbage.

the vast majority of Americans who identify as "conservative" appear to define conservatism as simply opposing whatever they believe liberals support and vice versa.

I can actually agree (a bit) to this statement
But the key here is the "and vice versa"
Then that statement gets completely fouled up by claiming Conservatives are dependent upon liberals for their position. Uhhhh, can you not also claim Liberals are dependent upon liberals for their own position and the liberals simply want to be anti-conservative? it does go both ways.

Here's a unique idea, why not say what YOU think instead of what others think? How about speaking your own mind and not regurgitating the liberals talking points?

rickyp wrote:fate

Are you saying that liberals were not enthralled with Chavez?

Here's a couple of opinions from people who answered this question elsewhere. I think they are valid.

In the first place, exactly how are you defining "liberal"?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans who identify as "conservative" appear to define conservatism as simply opposing whatever they believe liberals support and vice versa.
This leaves them dependent on progressive views (as the Right perceives them) for their own opinions--for which any supporting "evidence" must then be cherry-picked and appended post hoc.
However, it hardly defines liberalism (except as "those people self-described 'conservatives' hate").
(b) In the second place, America has upwards of 300 million citizens.
If you define "liberal" as every American whose political views are left of a theoretical median, that's 150 million people.
Do you actually suppose that so many people all have the same view about anything, let alone a foreign politician about whom most Americans probably think about less often than they do their big toes?

marla bunker..

That's a rubbish answer. I think most of us know what a liberal is.

American liberals are of mixed opinion regarding Chavez, but they have tended to regard him with animosity due to his authoritarianism. The New York Times and the Washington Post, for example, rarely have anything positive to say about Chavez, or his successor, Nicolas Maduro, for example.

james keilkopf.

How about Noam Chomsky? Michael Moore? Joseph Stiglitz (Hillary adviser) https://panampost.com/daniel-raisbeck/2 ... evolution/

Do you deny that Trump is an authoritarian?

Can you, after a FULL week in office, establish that he is? Why should I affirm or deny whether he is when you've not established it?

One thing that alarms me with Trump so far, and I said this long ago when Obama pretty much started this...

Executive Orders
Obama went and bypassed congress all the time by using such executive orders. I said he was playing with fire back then and said liberals should not be so happy about them because it WILL come around. Well, now we have a non liberal in office and he is taking a page out of the Obama handbook and using executive orders to pass a whole slew of things already. I do think even these things I may agree with should not be worked around. Blame Obama my friends, while he didn't exactly "start" this, he made it common place.

Revisionist history. Republicans absolutely refused to work with Obama. He then was forced to use executive orders in order to get things done AFTER Republicans refused to work with him and after making sure they were within executive power. And no I don't want to get into an argument with DF as to whether it was Obama who refused to compromise. We just disagree, though I have better of that argument. But what is clear is that Obama only used executive orders in questionable gray areas of power overlap between executive and legislative power after he and Congress were unable to reach an agreement. Then, needing to get things done and assured that he did in fact have the power to act unilaterally --he did. Now you got a guy signing executive orders left and right in area of questionable constitutional authority without any attempt to reach agreement with Congress. That is acting like an autocrat, with no sense of how our system of government, of checks and balances, works. This is a sea change and the only thing that can stop him is a judge.

GMTom wrote:One thing that alarms me with Trump so far, and I said this long ago when Obama pretty much started this...

Executive Orders
Obama went and bypassed congress all the time by using such executive orders. I said he was playing with fire back then and said liberals should not be so happy about them because it WILL come around. Well, now we have a non liberal in office and he is taking a page out of the Obama handbook and using executive orders to pass a whole slew of things already. I do think even these things I may agree with should not be worked around. Blame Obama my friends, while he didn't exactly "start" this, he made it common place.

Yeah, Executive Orders. Terrible thing.

Guess what, Obama issued fewer Executive orders than any 2-term President since Grover Cleveland. He issued fewer than single-term Presidents such as Carter, LBJ, and Taft. And fewer even than Harding who did not serve a full term. The only recent Presidents he issued more than are Bush Sr, JFK and Ford. But in terms of rate, he was still less prolific than they were.

And yet I see plenty of people claiming that Obama was the worst for Executive Orders of all.

danivon

And yet I see plenty of people claiming that Obama was the worst for Executive Orders of all.

That's called stating "an alternative fact. "

freeman3 wrote:Revisionist history. Republicans absolutely refused to work with Obama.

Question: Can you point to a major overture by former President Obama to the Republicans?

He then was forced to use executive orders in order to get things done AFTER Republicans refused to work with him and after making sure they were within executive power.

Are you sure about that? How many times did Obama himself say he didn't have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws--and then he did it anyway?

Oh, and who "forced" him into using executive orders? No one!

He chose to use executive orders rather than negotiate with Congress. In fact, you can't name a single time wherein he actually negotiated and kept a deal he made with Congress once the GOP took over the House. He lacked a little something called "leadership."

And no I don't want to get into an argument with DF as to whether it was Obama who refused to compromise. We just disagree, though I have better of that argument.

No, I think your position is that the GOP was so intransigent Obama had no choice. That's rubbish. Every President facing opposition has to find a way to overcome them or compromise with them. Acting as a benevolent dictator is not an option no matter how much Democrats liked it.

But what is clear is that Obama only used executive orders in questionable gray areas of power overlap between executive and legislative power after he and Congress were unable to reach an agreement. Then, needing to get things done and assured that he did in fact have the power to act unilaterally --he did.

That is not our system. Per Jonathan Turley and other Constitutional scholars, Obama did not obey the Constitution and he exceeded his authority.

Now you got a guy signing executive orders left and right in area of questionable constitutional authority without any attempt to reach agreement with Congress.

Um, what?

So, Obama had the authority to order something but a successor can't undo what Obama did? Come on! That is folly of the highest order.

That is acting like an autocrat, with no sense of how our system of government, of checks and balances, works. This is a sea change and the only thing that can stop him is a judge.

This would be funny if you weren't serious. What has Trump done, specifically, that Obama didn't do first? What has he done that isn't simply reversing the garbage Obama did?

Obama waited several years to issue the Dream Act executive order when the Republicans and he could not agree on immigration reform. Of course there are differing opinions on the constitutionality of it but at least he waited several years before doing it after many attempts to resolve things with Congress. Now, of course that would not justify him in acting unconstitutionally, but the reality is that executive power has been increasing in recent decades and courts are typically deferential if there is reasonable justification. The justification there would be prosecutorial discretion not to deport a certain group of people that would not further the underlying purpose of our immigration laws and also we could use scarce resources better to deport illegal aliens who pose more of a threat.

As Danivon pointed out Obama did not issue that many executive orders. That kind of undercuts the argument that he was issuing executive orders willly-nillly. Do you have that confidence in Trump?

Getting back to immigration, Trump issued an order regarding the wall a week into his administration, before he had time to work things out with Congress, a Congress his party controls by the way. When we get into areas of power where it is not clear whether the president can issue an executive order or not, then the least a president can do is try to work with Congress to see if a deal can be done so that we avoid the uncertainty regarding the legality of these executive orders. The president should do two thing in such a situation: (1) should try to work with Congress to get something done, and (2) have his legal advisors give an opinion whether he can act with executive power. Trump, on the other hand, gave the issue no such consideration but just signed the order building the wall. That's acting like an autocrat. He does not even have his Attorney General yet to confirmed yet who could give advice on the issue.

funny thing about these executive actions. Maybe the other presidents used them as often as Obama or even more? But I do not recall very many at all before Obama and now see Trump using them even more frequently. Most such orders are mundane but Obama used them to create laws bypassing Congress and used many in areas that affected vast numbers of people (not mundane).

I did say it then when Obama was subverting Congress that this would come back to bite liberals, they laughed with glee at that time because they were getting their way and they had short sighted vision. Here we are and I was right, suddenly liberals are up ion arms over Trump doing exactly what Obama did.

tom

But I do not recall very many at all before Obama

Your ability to remember isn't relevant. The actual recorded uses of executive action and their effects, are...


Here's an interesting revelation about Trumps recent executive action on immigration from Muslim countries.

President Trump’s executive order on banning immigrants from certain Middle Eastern countries conveniently excludes countries where he has business deals, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. Citing a draft proposal, the report says the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all Muslim-majority countries, have been left off of Trump’s blacklist. Coincidentally, these are all also places where the Trump Organization has concluded business deals or has business links. In Turkey, where Trump has admitted that he has a “major, major building in Istanbul,” he has a licensing deal for the use of two luxury towers, the report said. Similar deals are in place in Dubai, and in recent FEC filings he has reportedly listed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia thought to be linked to development deals.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 ... -interest/

Swamp draining much?

Fate

Question: Can you point to a major overture by former President Obama to the Republicans?

Obama reaches out to three key Republicans on immigration reform

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-i ... AP20130220

rickyp wrote:Fate

Question: Can you point to a major overture by former President Obama to the Republicans?

Obama reaches out to three key Republicans on immigration reform

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-i ... AP20130220

You read your link, right? A phone call and a press leak is hardly "a major overture."

Where did he give the GOP something major during a negotiation?

freeman3 wrote:Obama waited several years to issue the Dream Act executive order when the Republicans and he could not agree on immigration reform. Of course there are differing opinions on the constitutionality of it but at least he waited several years before doing it after many attempts to resolve things with Congress.

An overreach is an overreach, even if you wait a bit.

He could have easily resolved things with Congress by securing the border. If he had given the GOP what they wanted, they would have given him what he wanted. However, given the history of resolving immigration, there was no way to do a "comprehensive" bill. Why not? Because voters are not all idiots. We know that when a comprehensive bill is signed the one thing that will NOT be implemented is security.

Question: are you really saying that Trump does not have the authority to revoke a previous President's executive orders? If not, then what does that mean? Is that like a divine decree?

As Danivon pointed out Obama did not issue that many executive orders. That kind of undercuts the argument that he was issuing executive orders willly-nillly. Do you have that confidence in Trump?

Please. If you include, as is reasonable, the new regulations and orders promulgated by the EPA and other agencies, there's never been the likes of the Obama Administration.

Getting back to immigration, Trump issued an order regarding the wall a week into his administration, before he had time to work things out with Congress, a Congress his party controls by the way. When we get into areas of power where it is not clear whether the president can issue an executive order or not, then the least a president can do is try to work with Congress to see if a deal can be done so that we avoid the uncertainty regarding the legality of these executive orders.

The authorization for a wall already exists. It was passed under Bush, fought against by Democrats, and ignored by Obama.

The president should do two thing in such a situation: (1) should try to work with Congress to get something done, and (2) have his legal advisors give an opinion whether he can act with executive power. Trump, on the other hand, gave the issue no such consideration but just signed the order building the wall. That's acting like an autocrat. He does not even have his Attorney General yet to confirmed yet who could give advice on the issue.

He has the authority to act on existing law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

I guess I am having a hard time figuring how a law that called for the building of a fence could be used to justify the building of a wall. Seems like two quite different things to me.

freeman3 wrote:I guess I am having a hard time figuring how a law that called for the building of a fence could be used to justify the building of a wall. Seems like two quite different things to me.

From my link:

The Secure Fence Act of 2006’s goal is to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce infrastructure at the border.[1] Congress approved $1.2 billion in a separate homeland security spending bill to bankroll the fence, though critics say this is $4.8 billion less than what’s likely needed to get it built.

I see a lot of words like "physical barriers." I see nothing that would preclude a wall. Furthermore, he's going to have to go back to Congress for more funding, so I expect further clarification at that point.

I was kind of hoping you would address why it is *wrong* for Trump to use executive orders to undo Obama's executive orders.



There needs to be a popcorn emoji.