Trump brilliant on 60 minutes. Why i will vote for him

[JimBowie1958]

But apparently not if the POTUS has a pen and a phone.

Presidents can issue executive orders that are not covered by congressional action. Whether those orders stick is determined by the courts. A number of Obama's executive order were blocked by the courts. Most of the proposals that Trump has made will fail without congressional actions. Lasting changes to the function of government can only be made by congress. All executive orders can be changed or dropped by the next president.

Yes, I understand how it is supposed to work, but Obama has not let that stop him. He has ordered that some criminals are to not be arrested and others shall be hassled without any legal foundation for the action by simply expanding the regulatory over reach of an agency like the EPA.

That the Republicans have let Obama get away with this is bad precedent and fuel for a future constitutional crisis.

Obama has issued less executive orders than either Bush or Clinton. When congress can not act for whatever reason, then the president is the only one that can. His orders are temporary and can be overturned by congress or courts and expire at the end of his term. Some of his most controversial executive orders on healthcare and immigration are the result of lac of action by congress. If congress believes he is overstepping his bounds they can step in just as the courts can.

It's not the number of executive orders that count, it's the quality. And Obama has no authority to do shit if Congress declines to act. You don't understand the slightest thing about the Constitution or the separation of powers. The courts have demonstrated no inclination to get involved in disputes between Congress and the Administration. Going down that course resolves nothing.

If Obama does not have the authority, then it's up to either congress or the courts to act. Apparently neither feels he has overstepped his authority because they have not acted. At the end of his term, next year, all the executive orders go away. What do you bet the next president will extend almost all of them that are still applicable.

Of course he will as Obama has set the evil precedent.

 

[Roudy]

Trump if elected is going to turn this country around. He is exactly what America and the world needs. Someone that will bitchslap theocrats like Iran's ayatollahs and brutal dictator thugs like Assad and Putin.

 

[Flopper]

Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare and Republicans shut the government down over funding Obamacare and they voted to repeal it 54 times..

Congress stopped many of the bills Obama wanted passed, Immigration Reform, infrastructure spending, job training bills, environmental protection bills, gun control, climate and energy proposals, minimum wage, etc, etc...

OK, the GOP has some value as a door stop, but as far as getting laws passed their constituents wanted...no dice.

And the TPA? For Fucks Sake what they hell were they thinking about other than more pork for them when they get a guy in the White House next time?

There isn't a lot Republicans can do except be a door stop with a Democratic president and not enough votes in congress to turn their bills into law. Thus you have a congress that does practically nothing. Democrats will do exactly the same thing with same control of government.

With the degree of polarization in congress, coalitions across party lines are very difficult so major legislation gets pasted when one party has a firm control on government which occurs less than 25% of the time. So congress does little or nothing but jawbone 75% of time. No wonder Americans have such poor opinion of Congress.

Oh, I disagree.

People's Evidence, exhibit 1: Tip O'Neil accomplished quite a bit while the Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House. He proved what guts, cunning and determination can accomplish even if the numbers are against you.

2. The Republicans have the power of the purse according to the Constitution. They have every right to defund select programs and have not done it well nor have they led the public to understand their position. IF the GOP would break the bills into smaller pieces, they could put forward all the noncontested programs and wait to the end to push forward the conflicting budgets. This could keep the majority of the government functioning while they engage the White House in a public debate about the defunded/reduced budgets for the selected programs.

IF the WH shuts down the federal government in its entirety, the GOP could then make the case to the American people that they are not shutting down the government but Obama is.

They have failed to do this and it isn't rocket science.

The GOP is giving Obama the strategic ground politically then play fighting a losing battle to mollify their rank and file.

The INTEND to lose most of these battles because they want the programs but don't want to share the blame for them.

Tip O'Neil served in Congress 30 to 40 years ago. Those were the days when coalitions between republicans and democrats were common. Those were also the days when their were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Today there is little room for negotiations.

Yes, congress can certainly defund programs but the results are often not what you expect. For example, Obamacare is not single program. It is a combination of a number of newly created programs, changes to existing healthcare programs, and expansions of existing healthcare programs. There are eight major components of the Affordable Care Act funded outside of the appropriations process through mandatory spending authority which can only be change by changing the law, not just cut appropriations.

Some of the Obamacare funding is discretionary which can be defuned. However,this funding is scattered among a number a number of programs in number of agencies such as Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of Personnel Management. The funding is not specific for Obamacare and thus intermixed with other funds. Since these agencies have significant other responsibilities beyond implementing the Affordable Care Act defunding would have significant consequences that would have nothing to do with Obamacare.

Planned Parenthood is another good example. Congress could defund planned parenthood. The result would be that the organization would lose 1/3 of it's funds. However, since federal funds can not be used for abortions, cutting the funds would little impact on abortions but would have a major effect on the organization's ability to provide birth control to nearly million women, and the organizations ability to provide 400,000 pap tests, 500,000 breast exams.

The way to do away with legislation is to repeal or replace it but certainly not defunding.

Nah, defunding is an option, why not? Even though the total set of laws are scattered as modifications to a whole bunch of laws, it can still be done by targeting critical pieces of the legislation.

You can not defund legislation. Congress can certainly defund some programs provided the funds are not mandatory. The most critical parts of Obamacare are covered through mandatory funding which can only be removed by new legislation. Congress can certainly cut an agencies discretionary funds. For example, congress might be able to cut discretionary funds to the IRS being used for Obamacare but congress can not tell the agency to stop performing those functions without passing legislation. So if the agency is able find the funds, it can continue performing those functions. This is why defunding programs often does not stop them from operating.

 

[Flopper]

Trump if elected is going to turn this country around. He is exactly what America and the world needs. Someone that will bitchslap theocrats like Iran's ayatollahs and brutal dictator thugs like Assad and Putin.

Oh, you mean he'll fire all the Democrats in Congress and threaten the Republicans. That will really scare them.

 

[Roudy]

Trump if elected is going to turn this country around. He is exactly what America and the world needs. Someone that will bitchslap theocrats like Iran's ayatollahs and brutal dictator thugs like Assad and Putin.

Oh, you mean he'll fire all the Democrats in Congress and threaten the Republicans. That will really scare them.

He isn't afraid to go after career politicians, regardless of the party affiliation.

 

[bripat9643]

But apparently not if the POTUS has a pen and a phone.

Presidents can issue executive orders that are not covered by congressional action. Whether those orders stick is determined by the courts. A number of Obama's executive order were blocked by the courts. Most of the proposals that Trump has made will fail without congressional actions. Lasting changes to the function of government can only be made by congress. All executive orders can be changed or dropped by the next president.

Yes, I understand how it is supposed to work, but Obama has not let that stop him. He has ordered that some criminals are to not be arrested and others shall be hassled without any legal foundation for the action by simply expanding the regulatory over reach of an agency like the EPA.

That the Republicans have let Obama get away with this is bad precedent and fuel for a future constitutional crisis.

Obama has issued less executive orders than either Bush or Clinton. When congress can not act for whatever reason, then the president is the only one that can. His orders are temporary and can be overturned by congress or courts and expire at the end of his term. Some of his most controversial executive orders on healthcare and immigration are the result of lac of action by congress. If congress believes he is overstepping his bounds they can step in just as the courts can.

It's not the number of executive orders that count, it's the quality. And Obama has no authority to do shit if Congress declines to act. You don't understand the slightest thing about the Constitution or the separation of powers. The courts have demonstrated no inclination to get involved in disputes between Congress and the Administration. Going down that course resolves nothing.

If Obama does not have the authority, then it's up to either congress or the courts to act. Apparently neither feels he has overstepped his authority because they have not acted. At the end of his term, next year, all the executive orders go away. What do you bet the next president will extend almost all of them that are still applicable.

Whether Congress or the courts act isn't prove that Obama does or does not have the authority. He has the ability to do what he did, and Congress has demonstrated how toothless they are to stop it.

Whether the next president "extends" them depends on who the next president is.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump if elected is going to turn this country around. He is exactly what America and the world needs. Someone that will bitchslap theocrats like Iran's ayatollahs and brutal dictator thugs like Assad and Putin.

Oh, you mean he'll fire all the Democrats in Congress and threaten the Republicans. That will really scare them.

Congress has already demonstrated how utterly toothless it is, so won't be necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

OK, the GOP has some value as a door stop, but as far as getting laws passed their constituents wanted...no dice.

And the TPA? For Fucks Sake what they hell were they thinking about other than more pork for them when they get a guy in the White House next time?

There isn't a lot Republicans can do except be a door stop with a Democratic president and not enough votes in congress to turn their bills into law. Thus you have a congress that does practically nothing. Democrats will do exactly the same thing with same control of government.

With the degree of polarization in congress, coalitions across party lines are very difficult so major legislation gets pasted when one party has a firm control on government which occurs less than 25% of the time. So congress does little or nothing but jawbone 75% of time. No wonder Americans have such poor opinion of Congress.

Oh, I disagree.

People's Evidence, exhibit 1: Tip O'Neil accomplished quite a bit while the Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House. He proved what guts, cunning and determination can accomplish even if the numbers are against you.

2. The Republicans have the power of the purse according to the Constitution. They have every right to defund select programs and have not done it well nor have they led the public to understand their position. IF the GOP would break the bills into smaller pieces, they could put forward all the noncontested programs and wait to the end to push forward the conflicting budgets. This could keep the majority of the government functioning while they engage the White House in a public debate about the defunded/reduced budgets for the selected programs.

IF the WH shuts down the federal government in its entirety, the GOP could then make the case to the American people that they are not shutting down the government but Obama is.

They have failed to do this and it isn't rocket science.

The GOP is giving Obama the strategic ground politically then play fighting a losing battle to mollify their rank and file.

The INTEND to lose most of these battles because they want the programs but don't want to share the blame for them.

Tip O'Neil served in Congress 30 to 40 years ago. Those were the days when coalitions between republicans and democrats were common. Those were also the days when their were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Today there is little room for negotiations.

Yes, congress can certainly defund programs but the results are often not what you expect. For example, Obamacare is not single program. It is a combination of a number of newly created programs, changes to existing healthcare programs, and expansions of existing healthcare programs. There are eight major components of the Affordable Care Act funded outside of the appropriations process through mandatory spending authority which can only be change by changing the law, not just cut appropriations.

Some of the Obamacare funding is discretionary which can be defuned. However,this funding is scattered among a number a number of programs in number of agencies such as Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of Personnel Management. The funding is not specific for Obamacare and thus intermixed with other funds. Since these agencies have significant other responsibilities beyond implementing the Affordable Care Act defunding would have significant consequences that would have nothing to do with Obamacare.

Planned Parenthood is another good example. Congress could defund planned parenthood. The result would be that the organization would lose 1/3 of it's funds. However, since federal funds can not be used for abortions, cutting the funds would little impact on abortions but would have a major effect on the organization's ability to provide birth control to nearly million women, and the organizations ability to provide 400,000 pap tests, 500,000 breast exams.

The way to do away with legislation is to repeal or replace it but certainly not defunding.

Nah, defunding is an option, why not? Even though the total set of laws are scattered as modifications to a whole bunch of laws, it can still be done by targeting critical pieces of the legislation.

You can not defund legislation. Congress can certainly defund some programs provided the funds are not mandatory. The most critical parts of Obamacare are covered through mandatory funding which can only be removed by new legislation. Congress can certainly cut an agencies discretionary funds. For example, congress might be able to cut discretionary funds to the IRS being used for Obamacare but congress can not tell the agency to stop performing those functions without passing legislation. So if the agency is able find the funds, it can continue performing those functions. This is why defunding programs often does not stop them from operating.

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

 

[Flopper]

There isn't a lot Republicans can do except be a door stop with a Democratic president and not enough votes in congress to turn their bills into law. Thus you have a congress that does practically nothing. Democrats will do exactly the same thing with same control of government.

With the degree of polarization in congress, coalitions across party lines are very difficult so major legislation gets pasted when one party has a firm control on government which occurs less than 25% of the time. So congress does little or nothing but jawbone 75% of time. No wonder Americans have such poor opinion of Congress.

Oh, I disagree.

People's Evidence, exhibit 1: Tip O'Neil accomplished quite a bit while the Republicans controlled the Senate and the White House. He proved what guts, cunning and determination can accomplish even if the numbers are against you.

2. The Republicans have the power of the purse according to the Constitution. They have every right to defund select programs and have not done it well nor have they led the public to understand their position. IF the GOP would break the bills into smaller pieces, they could put forward all the noncontested programs and wait to the end to push forward the conflicting budgets. This could keep the majority of the government functioning while they engage the White House in a public debate about the defunded/reduced budgets for the selected programs.

IF the WH shuts down the federal government in its entirety, the GOP could then make the case to the American people that they are not shutting down the government but Obama is.

They have failed to do this and it isn't rocket science.

The GOP is giving Obama the strategic ground politically then play fighting a losing battle to mollify their rank and file.

The INTEND to lose most of these battles because they want the programs but don't want to share the blame for them.

Tip O'Neil served in Congress 30 to 40 years ago. Those were the days when coalitions between republicans and democrats were common. Those were also the days when their were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. Today there is little room for negotiations.

Yes, congress can certainly defund programs but the results are often not what you expect. For example, Obamacare is not single program. It is a combination of a number of newly created programs, changes to existing healthcare programs, and expansions of existing healthcare programs. There are eight major components of the Affordable Care Act funded outside of the appropriations process through mandatory spending authority which can only be change by changing the law, not just cut appropriations.

Some of the Obamacare funding is discretionary which can be defuned. However,this funding is scattered among a number a number of programs in number of agencies such as Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of Personnel Management. The funding is not specific for Obamacare and thus intermixed with other funds. Since these agencies have significant other responsibilities beyond implementing the Affordable Care Act defunding would have significant consequences that would have nothing to do with Obamacare.

Planned Parenthood is another good example. Congress could defund planned parenthood. The result would be that the organization would lose 1/3 of it's funds. However, since federal funds can not be used for abortions, cutting the funds would little impact on abortions but would have a major effect on the organization's ability to provide birth control to nearly million women, and the organizations ability to provide 400,000 pap tests, 500,000 breast exams.

The way to do away with legislation is to repeal or replace it but certainly not defunding.

Nah, defunding is an option, why not? Even though the total set of laws are scattered as modifications to a whole bunch of laws, it can still be done by targeting critical pieces of the legislation.

You can not defund legislation. Congress can certainly defund some programs provided the funds are not mandatory. The most critical parts of Obamacare are covered through mandatory funding which can only be removed by new legislation. Congress can certainly cut an agencies discretionary funds. For example, congress might be able to cut discretionary funds to the IRS being used for Obamacare but congress can not tell the agency to stop performing those functions without passing legislation. So if the agency is able find the funds, it can continue performing those functions. This is why defunding programs often does not stop them from operating.

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

The constitution gives congress the authority to create laws and many of those laws contain language that makes future spending mandatory and thus is outside the budget appropriation process. A full 60% of the federal budget is mandatory by law.

You are absolutely correct that congress does control all the purse strings but not through the budget process. Most of the spending is determined by past legislation which would have to be amendment to touch mandatory spending.

When congress wants the ability to shutdown some activity through the budget process, they include language in the law requiring that all spending be done withing a program. Then congress can evaluate the program each year and decide whether to continue funding it.

Most of the crap published about defunding in lieu of passing actual legislation is just nonsense. Most of Obamacare is mandatory spending, medicaid expansion, subsidies, and the exchanges. The remainder is spread across a number of agencies and are not line items which means the agencies control how those funds are spend.

Planned Parenthood get's 1/3 of it's funding from the federal government. 90% of those funds is outside the budget appropriation process because they are Medicaid funded.

Trying to use the budget process to cripple legislation instead of repealing it or shutdown the government does not work because it always backfire politically.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

 

[Flopper]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

 

[Indeependent]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

If you're living off your Stock Portfolio, and you don't give a darn about anybody else, it's pretty good

 

[Flopper]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

TPA is nothing more than re-authorization. The expedited legislative procedures have not changed since first codified in the Trade Act of 1974. Under more sane times when political divisions were not so deep, the bill would have passed with little comment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

TPA is nothing more than re-authorization. The expedited legislative procedures have not changed since first codified in the Trade Act of 1974. Under more sane times when political divisions were not so deep, the bill would have passed with little comment.

Fast tracking trade agreements has long been opposed by the left and got more sympathy from the GOP who are normally more inclined to sign free trade agreements. And the transparency of what went on with NAFTA and GATT was more informative for the public to review and debate. The TPA allows for the President to give no transparency at all until the final vote arrives and not even then if he chooses to hide various details under the rubric of 'side agreements'.

An opposition party is supposed to review everything the President does to keep him on his toes and verify what is claimed. This last Iran agreement which was also fast tracked was approved without the entire treaty and its side agreements being revealed. The GOP is not at all a legitimate opposition party to Obamy at all.

The growing discontent with free trade that is coming out of the GOP is also compelling the GOP leadership to be more effective as an opposition party. Without a genuine opposition party the system we have is a duopoly, not an honest two party system.

 

[Flopper]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

TPA is nothing more than re-authorization. The expedited legislative procedures have not changed since first codified in the Trade Act of 1974. Under more sane times when political divisions were not so deep, the bill would have passed with little comment.

Fast tracking trade agreements has long been opposed by the left and got more sympathy from the GOP who are normally more inclined to sign free trade agreements. And the transparency of what went on with NAFTA and GATT was more informative for the public to review and debate. The TPA allows for the President to give no transparency at all until the final vote arrives and not even then if he chooses to hide various details under the rubric of 'side agreements'.

An opposition party is supposed to review everything the President does to keep him on his toes and verify what is claimed. This last Iran agreement which was also fast tracked was approved without the entire treaty and its side agreements being revealed. The GOP is not at all a legitimate opposition party to Obamy at all.

The growing discontent with free trade that is coming out of the GOP is also compelling the GOP leadership to be more effective as an opposition party. Without a genuine opposition party the system we have is a duopoly, not an honest two party system.

Agreements still will be subject to congressional scrutiny, and may be denied fast-track treatment in either or both chambers if they don’t meet the negotiating objectives Congress set. And even those that are given fast-track treatment, which prevents Congress from offering amendments, still have to pass an up-or-down vote.

Without fast track, there will be no major trade agreements and China will continue lining up it's own trade networks in Asia and the Pacific Rim forcing the US into a secondary role.

Fast Track was in effect from 1975 to 1994 and from 2002 to 2007. Since it expired, there have been no major trade treaties. The problem is time. It takes on average 28 months just to negotiate a treaty but when you throw congress into the mix, negotiations just die on vine.

The opposition to the fast track is politically based. Republicans simply don't want another major piece of legislation under Obama.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dude I am really enjoying this conversation. Thank you.

Agreements still will be subject to congressional scrutiny, and may be denied fast-track treatment in either or both chambers if they don’t meet the negotiating objectives Congress set. And even those that are given fast-track treatment, which prevents Congress from offering amendments, still have to pass an up-or-down vote.

But no filibuster in the Senate and if the Congress does not act then the bill passes, meaning that they have to have effectively a super majority to over ride a certain Presidential veto.

Why concede that kind of Constitutional authority to aid the President and not practice the oversight of treaties and agreements that the Constitution places in the hands of the Senate? Especially if the President is from the opposing party to the majority party of Congress?

Without fast track, there will be no major trade agreements and China will continue lining up it's own trade networks in Asia and the Pacific Rim forcing the US into a secondary role.

You mean the President will actually have to disclose to the public what is in the treaty? Oh, my Gawd we cant have that! /sarc

Fast Track was in effect from 1975 to 1994 and from 2002 to 2007. Since it expired, there have been no major trade treaties. The problem is time. It takes on average 28 months just to negotiate a treaty but when you throw congress into the mix, negotiations just die on vine.

These treaties have been consistently BAD for American workers, though they are making the 1% rich as hell.

So far you seem to be appealing to the Oligarchs, which I don't think is a persuasive case to make.

The opposition to the fast track is politically based. Republicans simply don't want another major piece of legislation under Obama.

No, it is REPUBLIC based. We have a separation of powers for a reason, and that is to allow the People of the United States the ability to inform themselves on what treaties are proposed and reflect on whether they are good for the people. The Republic was not designed to give advantage to the Oligarchs; they have enough advantage in life already.

Prior and during WW2, the Oligarchs needed we the People to fill out the ranks and fight in the trenches for them as they ran the country and their kids held all the safe logistical jobs.

With the advent of nuclear weapons the Oligarchs have really no use for a large American population any more and they are busy trying to 'fix' that.

Why should we speed them along in their endeavor?

 

[Flopper]

Dude I am really enjoying this conversation. Thank you.

Agreements still will be subject to congressional scrutiny, and may be denied fast-track treatment in either or both chambers if they don’t meet the negotiating objectives Congress set. And even those that are given fast-track treatment, which prevents Congress from offering amendments, still have to pass an up-or-down vote.

But no filibuster in the Senate and if the Congress does not act then the bill passes, meaning that they have to have effectively a super majority to over ride a certain Presidential veto.

Why concede that kind of Constitutional authority to aid the President and not practice the oversight of treaties and agreements that the Constitution places in the hands of the Senate? Especially if the President is from the opposing party to the majority party of Congress?

Without fast track, there will be no major trade agreements and China will continue lining up it's own trade networks in Asia and the Pacific Rim forcing the US into a secondary role.

You mean the President will actually have to disclose to the public what is in the treaty? Oh, my Gawd we cant have that! /sarc

Fast Track was in effect from 1975 to 1994 and from 2002 to 2007. Since it expired, there have been no major trade treaties. The problem is time. It takes on average 28 months just to negotiate a treaty but when you throw congress into the mix, negotiations just die on vine.

These treaties have been consistently BAD for American workers, though they are making the 1% rich as hell.

So far you seem to be appealing to the Oligarchs, which I don't think is a persuasive case to make.

The opposition to the fast track is politically based. Republicans simply don't want another major piece of legislation under Obama.

No, it is REPUBLIC based. We have a separation of powers for a reason, and that is to allow the People of the United States the ability to inform themselves on what treaties are proposed and reflect on whether they are good for the people. The Republic was not designed to give advantage to the Oligarchs; they have enough advantage in life already.

Prior and during WW2, the Oligarchs needed we the People to fill out the ranks and fight in the trenches for them as they ran the country and their kids held all the safe logistical jobs.

With the advent of nuclear weapons the Oligarchs have really no use for a large American population any more and they are busy trying to 'fix' that.

Why should we speed them along in their endeavor?

The reason we should speed up trade treaties is they get bogged down in congressional inquiries and never get voted on. Meanwhile other countries such as China are making the trade deals while the US is sitting with their thumb stuck up their ass waiting for a change in presidency so the next president can claim the glory of a great new trade treaty. It's just plain stupid.

Once a trade negotiation is ready to go to congress, both the Republican controlled House and the Democrat controlled Senate will vote on the deal. If it fails, it will be thrown back for negotiations.

 

[Faun]

Just about everything Trump says is a knee jerk reaction, simple solutions for complex problem with no consideration of the consequence nor whether it's even possible.

Trump says he will deport all illegal immigrants, do away with birthright citizenship, build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.

Make hiring more than one illegal a felony and then hit the employers with RICO violations and start by seizing the companies profits and property. Employment of illegals will dry up over night and with no jobs and no welfare, which should require ID by then, and the illegals will go back to their home countries on th

Make hiring more than one illegal a felony and then hit the employers with RICO violations and start by seizing the companies profits and property. Employment of illegals will dry up over night and with no jobs and no welfare, which should require ID by then, and the illegals will go back to their home countries on their own cost and effort.

When polled on whether they think illegal aliens should get citizenship via 'anchor babies' most AMericans say no, and most want the immigration laws enforced. With the high unemployment/underemployment and off the working rolls numbers that we see today, there is no justification for allowing continued use of black market labor nor H1-B visa serfs.

Support for anchor babies has never been higher than 41% and the vast majority oppose it.


Americans have opposed birthright citizenship for anchor babies since at least 2006 - Liberty Unyielding


Homeland security is full of Dimbocrat political hacks so what the hell do you expect them to say? 'Yes it makes sense we can do it but our president is too stupid and corrupt to enforce the law?

And Isreal demonstrates with the wall they built that yes indeed, walls can be very effective at keeping out criminals.

Lol, and I have never heard anyone talk like this at a bar after 6 beers, you fucking liar.

eir own cost and effort.

The reality is that 69% to 80% of Americans do not support mass deportations of illegal immigrants. 200 cities and towns within the US are considered sanctuary cities; that is they don't help ICE find and deport illegals. Try to deport all illegal immigrants and the little cooperation ICE gets would drop to zero making mass deportations impossible. Then there are changes in existing immigration laws that would have to be made by by congressmen in his own party that are openly hostile and democrats that think he's a lunatic.

When polled on whether they think illegal aliens should get citizenship via 'anchor babies' most AMericans say no, and most want the immigration laws enforced. With the high unemployment/underemployment and off the working rolls numbers that we see today, there is no justification for allowing continued use of black market labor nor H1-B visa serfs.

His plan to do away with birthright citizenship which the majority of Americans oppose and which would require support from congress which Trump doesn't have, and the blessing of SCOTUS is laughable.

Support for anchor babies has never been higher than 41% and the vast majority oppose it.


Americans have opposed birthright citizenship for anchor babies since at least 2006 - Liberty Unyielding

Build a wall that Homeland Security says is too costly, will not be effective, and try to make Mexico pay for it is nuts. This is talk you expect to hear in a local bar after a half dozen beers.

Homeland security is full of Dimbocrat political hacks so what the hell do you expect them to say? 'Yes it makes sense we can do it but our president is too stupid and corrupt to enforce the law?

And Isreal demonstrates with the wall they built that yes indeed, walls can be very effective at keeping out criminals.

Lol, and I have never heard anyone talk like this at a bar after 6 beers, you fucking liar.

The people that are saying the wall is not needed to control illegal immigration are the people responsible for preventing it.

You mean the people who say the wall isn't necessary are the same ones who failed to stop illegal immigration. Why should we listen to anything they have to say?

First of all, almost half of the illegal immigrants entered this country legally. Secondly, the wall will not stop illegals from entering the country. It will simply slow them down. It will require a large increase in personnel to patrol the wall. And if the wall is successful, it would put more pressure on the Coast Guard to stop illegals coming in by water which has been on rise with increase in boarder security.

it's more like 40% have over-stayed their visas. That means the wall would solve 60% of the problem. Where is it written than the wall has to solve the entire problem? This stupid logic of monumental proportions. It's a meme conceived of by the open-borders assholes.

If we really want stop illegal immigration, then as a boarder patrol official said, stop hiring them.

Dumb solution. That's like solving crimes by telling criminals to stop stealing and robbing.

Essentially everything Trump has promised to do to eliminate illegal immigrants can not be done by the president. Congress would have allocate the funds to build a wall and staff it. The immigration laws would have to be changed to eliminate a number of legal defenses in the law that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the country, expand E-Verity, require all employers to verify citizenship, and expand ICE powers and funding to enforce status violations (Visa Expiration). In order for Trump to force Mexico to pay for the wall, Congress would have to break NAFTA. Then to actually find and deport massive numbers of illegals, local law enforcement would have to be forced to cooperate.

BTW The Israeli wall is only about 10% of the what Trump is proposing.

It's true that he can't do it alone, but as we've already seen, an open-borders asshole like Obama can stop anything from being done and even facilitate more illegals to come here. If there's one thing we don't need, it's some open-borders asshole like you to get elected.

The immigration laws don't have to be changed. They just have to be enforced. Obama could deport every single illegal alien without a single change in the laws. He simply chooses no to do so.

Trump has already said he intends to dump NAFTA into the trash bin. NAFTA isn't part of the Constitution, as all you open-borders assholes like to pretend. The U.S. has violated thousands of treaties in the past. It do so in the future.

Local law enforcement can be forced to cooperate simply by withholding funds from any city that chooses not to cooperate.

If the wall is so important, why doesn't the Republican-controlled Congress fund it? The bill to build the wall is passed -- all that is need at this point is funding it. Yet Republicans refuse to do so. Instead, morons like you blame the left.

Obviously because Obama won't sign it, and even if he did sign it, he would simply decline to build the wall. We already had a bill to build 700 miles of wall. Only a small fraction of it was ever built.

So Obama is out of office and Republicans still refuse to build that wall. Looks like you need to make up new excuses.

 

[DarkFury]

Where does the Constitution say that Congress has to provide funds for anything? . . . . . . . .

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't.

The IRS cannot "find the funds" to operate from any source other than the one authorized by Congress.

That was back when we had a real opposition party. Now that we don't, and have two wings of a single Washington based Political Establishment, a duopoly, there is no real opposition and Obamy can do whatever the fuck it wants to do with the IRS or anything else.

What major legislation has been passed in Obama's second term? I think Republicans have done all they can to block Obama's legislation.

You mean like the TPA? I would call that pretty major; it is a disaster and it would appear that only Trump and Sanders have any intention of reversing it.

How it plays out should be interesting. The Sanders voters could see their ass booted from the party for supporting Trump on that issue. They did just toss the pro life Democrats ya know!