• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grading Trump Depends on Who You Ask

eohrnberger said:
Did these things happen, or not? Well, they did happen. Trump campaigned on a platform and now stands on that platform. A rarity in US presidential politics. That in and of itself should be considered an accomplishment.

Cutting funding for sanctuary cities in response to flaunting federal immigration laws, yes. An appropriate response if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Trump changes more and more positions as his staff tries to explain why


WASHINGTON —*Three months in office, President Trump is giving the world policy whiplash.
A week after ordering*a missile strike on Syria —*in stark contrast to the position he took as a private citizen in 2013*—*the still-new president is now reversing himself on a host of issues, from Russia to NATO, from Chinese currency valuation*to the worthiness of the Export-Import Bank.
Click to expand...

Time for claims of "fake news," of attacks by the "liberal media," and justifications for every change of direction while maintaining that he's fulfilling all of his campaign promises.
 
katzgar said:
no, funds to sanctuary cities have not been cut but then a pretend world is all about what trump is after and you fall for it. Donald Trump: Judge Blocks Sanctuary City Funding Cuts | Time.com
Click to expand...

Yes, I heard about the politically motivated ruling. I don't believe it will stand.

18194857_1423032421106315_5740995109178577989_n.jpg


There have been a number of DC edicts which if the states didn't obey would have cost them federal funding. One that comes to mind is the above as well as the 55 MPH express way speed limit, but I'm sure there are others, as this sort of political power play has been going on ever since states started taking money from the Feds.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I heard about the politically motivated ruling. I don't believe it will stand.

18194857_1423032421106315_5740995109178577989_n.jpg


There have been a number of DC edicts which if the states didn't obey would have cost them federal funding. One that comes to mind is the above as well as the 55 MPH express way speed limit, but I'm sure there are others, as this sort of political power play has been going on ever since states started taking money from the Feds.
Click to expand...


You can weasel around all you want but money to Sanctuary cities have not been cut and your list says it has you are posting dishonesty
 
katzgar said:
You can weasel around all you want but money to Sanctuary cities have not been cut and your list says it has you are posting dishonesty
Click to expand...

OK. Guess we'll have to see how this sorts itself out. But I think eventually it will be put into place, and frankly, it should be put into place.
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I heard about the politically motivated ruling. I don't believe it will stand.

18194857_1423032421106315_5740995109178577989_n.jpg


There have been a number of DC edicts which if the states didn't obey would have cost them federal funding. One that comes to mind is the above as well as the 55 MPH express way speed limit, but I'm sure there are others, as this sort of political power play has been going on ever since states started taking money from the Feds.
Click to expand...

Federal money is a way that the power brokers in Washington have of getting around the Tenth Amendment. They are trying to force California, among others, to kowtow to the all powerful federal bureaucracy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Federal money is a way that the power brokers in Washington have of getting around the Tenth Amendment. They are trying to force California, among others, to kowtow to the all powerful federal bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

So in other words, complying with existing federal laws is optional now?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Federal money is a way that the power brokers in Washington have of getting around the Tenth Amendment. They are trying to force California, among others, to kowtow to the all powerful federal bureaucracy.
Click to expand...


He who has the money makes the rules pretty much true time immemorial
 
eohrnberger said:
OK. Guess we'll have to see how this sorts itself out. But I think eventually it will be put into place, and frankly, it should be put into place.
Click to expand...


That part is true but you really should apologize for posting a fake list
 
katzgar said:
That part is true but you really should apologize for posting a fake list
Click to expand...

One wrong item out of a long list doesn't make it fake, it makes it inaccurate on that one item. Clearly, the article author missed the judge making his ruling on the matter. Oh well. The rest of the list does appear to be pretty accurate.
 
eohrnberger said:
One wrong item out of a long list doesn't make it fake, it makes it inaccurate on that one item. Clearly, the article author missed the judge making his ruling on the matter. Oh well. The rest of the list does appear to be pretty accurate.
Click to expand...


Obviously you're in no position to know if the list is accurate or not
 
eohrnberger said:
Yes, I heard about the politically motivated ruling. I don't believe it will stand.

18194857_1423032421106315_5740995109178577989_n.jpg


There have been a number of DC edicts which if the states didn't obey would have cost them federal funding. One that comes to mind is the above as well as the 55 MPH express way speed limit, but I'm sure there are others, as this sort of political power play has been going on ever since states started taking money from the Feds.
Click to expand...

Here is what you are missing from your two examples given. The with holding fund from schools was actually good case law. The EEOC already classifies sexual oreintation and transgender as protected classes under Title VII. So if Obama want to make the case in court, this was the perfect test case.

The AG made the rule according to what she believed was constitutional. If anyone wanted to challenge that ruling, that would have given the court a perfect test case to rule on the protect status on the basis of Sexual orientation and trangendered rights and protections.



On your highway funding example, the rules were clear for everyone before hand. The federal government did not choose the rule to punish one community over others. The rules were clear from the beginning.

Trump is using funding as a punishment.
 
eohrnberger said:
Trump campaigned on a platform and now stands on that platform. A rarity in US presidential politics. That in and of itself should be considered an accomplishment.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating these words as if this statement was anything other than empty and meaningless. That's silly.
 
1750Texan said:
Here is what you are missing from your two examples given. The with holding fund from schools was actually good case law. The EEOC already classifies sexual oreintation and transgender as protected classes under Title VII. So if Obama want to make the case in court, this was the perfect test case.

The AG made the rule according to what she believed was constitutional. If anyone wanted to challenge that ruling, that would have given the court a perfect test case to rule on the protect status on the basis of Sexual orientation and trangendered rights and protections.



On your highway funding example, the rules were clear for everyone before hand. The federal government did not choose the rule to punish one community over others. The rules were clear from the beginning.

Trump is using funding as a punishment.
Click to expand...

So in other words, the federal government should fund those who chose to ignore federal laws. Because . . . . ?
 
eohrnberger said:
So in other words, the federal government should fund those who chose to ignore federal laws. Because . . . . ?
Click to expand...

No. In the words I used.

You keep conflating Donald Trump with the federal government. Donald Trump is chief of the executive branch and has limited powers at that.

That may be your problem, you think of Donald Trump as the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches all wrapped up into one person with unlimited powers.
 
eohrnberger said:
So in other words, complying with existing federal laws is optional now?
Click to expand...

In other words, a true conservative believes in states' rights, the Tenth Amendment, and limited government in Washington.
 
calamity said:
If he truly cared about America, he would not have given such a divisive, hate-filled speech in PA today.
Click to expand...

he should be doing what to win over the hysterics with TURDS (Trump Unacceptance and Resistance Disorders)?
 
Dittohead not! said:
In other words, a true conservative believes in states' rights, the Tenth Amendment, and limited government in Washington.
Click to expand...

that's a bit dishonest isn't it? BTW states don't have rights but powers. the Federal government's powers have spilled way over the boundaries that the founders-through the actual words of the constitution provided for. that was almost entirely due to "progressives" and Democrats. why should Trump be limited in what he does when the Democrats created the mess?
 
TurtleDude said:
he should be doing what to win over the hysterics with TURDS (Trump Unacceptance and Resistance Disorders)?
Click to expand...

Seriously? He should have had the gnads to show up at the Correspondence Dinner, dished out some smack and taken a few hits in good fun.
 
calamity said:
Seriously? He should have had the gnads to show up at the Correspondence Dinner, dished out some smack and taken a few hits in good fun.
Click to expand...

why does he have a duty to do that? the fact is the main stream media fluffs the left these days and is hateful towards Trump. It has been for at least two years
 
1750Texan said:
No. In the words I used.

You keep conflating Donald Trump with the federal government. Donald Trump is chief of the executive branch and has limited powers at that.
Click to expand...
No argument. I don't believe in this case that the executive branch is exceeding it's authority or their rightly limited powers.
That may be your problem, you think of Donald Trump as the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches all wrapped up into one person with unlimited powers.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

My point is that there are federal laws on immigration, and localities which adopt a 'don't ask don't tell' policy WRT arrested criminals and their immigration status have done so to skirt federal law for political motivations, and are not complying with federal law, which, I believe, states that such questions should, and need to be asked, if there's reasonable suspicion that the detainee is not legally in this country.

Dittohead not! said:
In other words, a true conservative believes in states' rights, the Tenth Amendment, and limited government in Washington.
Click to expand...

How do states rights supersede federal law?
 
TurtleDude said:
why does he have a duty to do that? the fact is the main stream media fluffs the left these days and is hateful towards Trump. It has been for at least two years
Click to expand...

Same reason we go into the cellar when some idiot calls us out: because we know we have game and they don't.

Trump knows he sucks. Proof is seen by his chickening out last night. You want to see balls, look back at what Bush and Rove did back in the early Y2k's. They owned their critics at the WHCD. Trump doesn't have that gift.
 
Captain Adverse said:
And this is different from any other political leader because?
Click to expand...

THAT is the biggest accomplishment Trump has in his first 100 days. he has turned his supporters from seeing him as the anti-doing things the same way leader to just another political leader... :doh

No longer drainer of the DC swamp he is now just another swamp crawler... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
THAT is the biggest accomplishment Trump has in his first 100 days. he has turned his supporters from seeing him as the anti-doing things the same way leader to just another political leader... :doh

No longer drainer of the DC swamp he is now just another swamp crawler... :peace
Click to expand...

(Sigh) Again people who keep denigrating those who voted for Trump as all somehow expecting him to be a new Kennedy or Reagan guiding political light always forget this basic fact: many just voted for him because we didn't want Hilary Clinton in office.

Nor were we all blind to Trump's weaknesses as I have pointed out in posts all during the campaign period.

We simply recognized that unlike Hillary, Trump did not truly have the support of his Party and would not get much done that the population as a whole would not agree with.

He's done no better nor worse than I expected. He got a good SCOTUS appointee selected; he has taken steps against migration and illegal immigration; he seems to be working against those globalist free trade agreements; and he is trying to get the Republicans to put up or shut up about repeal and replacement of the ACA.

That he is not HUUUUUGELY successful being all things to all men is no big deal. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
(Sigh) Again people who keep denigrating those who voted for Trump as all somehow expecting him to be a new Kennedy or Reagan guiding political light always forget this basic fact: many just voted for him because we didn't want Hilary Clinton in office.Nor were we all blind to Trump's weaknesses as I have pointed out in posts all during the campaign period. We simply recognized that unlike Hillary, Trump did not truly have the support of his Party and would not get much done that the population as a whole would not agree with. He's done no better nor worse than I expected. He got a good SCOTUS appointee selected; he has taken steps against migration and illegal immigration; he seems to be working against those globalist free trade agreements; and he is trying to get the Republicans to put up or shut up about repeal and replacement of the ACA. That he is not HUUUUUGELY successful being all things to all men is no big deal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I must have missed the doing something, as all I see his him proclaiming the replacement heath plan as the best ever and the only option- then gets handed his butt. Immigration??? a dip isn't a trend, we'll see. No wall is a sure bet. 'working against globalists'... how is he? It appears his method is bluff and bluster followed by fold and claim he really didn't want it anyway. That might work in the speculative real estate world but makes him a laughing stock internationally.

But the question i posed was he claimed to be the anti-politician there to drain the swamp. and you seem quite content when he appears to be just another swamp dweller who promised much and can't get much if anything done...

Interesting though... :peace
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a bit dishonest isn't it? BTW states don't have rights but powers. the Federal government's powers have spilled way over the boundaries that the founders-through the actual words of the constitution provided for. that was almost entirely due to "progressives" and Democrats. why should Trump be limited in what he does when the Democrats created the mess?
Click to expand...

What's dishonest is when the self described conservatives go against their own core beliefs when it suits them to support power in Washington. Yes, indeed, the government's powers have spilled way over what the founders intended and what they wrote in the Constitution. The self described conservatives like to say, well, the Democrats (liberals, whatever name they want to give the opposition) have created the "mess" in which the federal government has more power than it should. So, when the conservatives are in power, why don't they try to reverse this trend to centralized power instead of using it to further an agenda? I think it's because they aren't really conservatives at all, but simply use conservatism when it suits their need for power. What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom