Lib media still in meltdown over no collusion report

[Cubs79]

It's funny how you call him a dictator, but when Congressional Democrats say the same thing, they are about 'accountability.'

Thank our founders for the Libertarians at Judicial Watch. They are going after both parties (yes, they have stuff on Trump too).

To date, only Barr has recommended they be investigated. It's about time. I'm still shocked every time this comes up, Progressives and Democrats think it's wrong.

I want all parties investigated.

I don't think people realize that Mueller's full, unredacted report is ugly for both parties. But he was only allowed to investigate and charge attempting to get people to 'turn over' on Trump. That was the same thing with Starr and the Clintons prior in the '90s.

Clinton hasn't had a special, independent investigator assigned since the '90s, and her lawyers were able to get the DoJ to agree to limitations on the FBI in the '10s.

Then you mean Clinton, W. and Obama too?

I think you forget Clinton using FBI and OPM files against his political enemies -- the whole reason the Trump administration didn't know a staffer was a wife-beater (they didn't have access to FBI and OPM files -- especially since both ex's said he wasn't a national security risk) -- and everyone got an IRS audit.

Clinton takes the cake, sorry.

Although Obama made a lot of statements, and even more Executive Orders and Emergency Declarations that certainly sounded dictatorish. But the Trump administration is young. He may still exceed Obama.

Executive orders are not dictatorish. They can be over ridden by congress or the courts if they are declared unconstitutional . I am not sure why executive orders became a talking point under Obama. Obama ranks 16th among all presidents in amount of EO's he signed, and he has signed less than Bush, Clinton, Reagn, Carter, etc. And Trump has signed 110 at this point, which puts him at about the same pace as Obama. In fact, EOs didnt even become a major thing until Teddy Roosevelt, who signed over a thousand. Since that point Obama signed fewer executive orders than every president with the exceptions of Ford and Bush Sr, who were both 1 term presidents, and JFK who didnt even get to complete a full term.

 

[UCFBS]

Executive orders are not dictatorish. They can be over ridden by congress or the courts if they are declared unconstitutional . I am not sure why executive orders became a talking point under Obama.

Because Democrats and Progressives are being hypocrites on Trump in this regards.

Obama ranks 16th among all presidents in amount of EO's he signed, and he has signed less than Bush, Clinton, Reagn, Carter, etc. And Trump has signed 110 at this point, which puts him at about the same pace as Obama.

Exactly my point ... on Executive Orders. It's the type people are complaining about, and Obama had some doozers!

Now look at Emergency Declarations. Now Progressives-Democrats look like total hypocrites.

Dictator, dictator, dictator in my book. So, we agree, Obama is as much of a dictator as Trump. Thank you!

BTW, I personally loved the leaked Memo and draft Executive Order on Drone Warfare. The Obama administration didn't want a Romney administration to 'have the same power,' as it was -- admittedly -- dictatorish. Talk about boom!

I.e., if Obama was worried about a President Romney with the same power ... why not a President Obama as well? And did you forget the whole 2009 spying on Fox News ... only it wasn't just Fox News, as was exposed in 2013!

In fact, EOs didnt even become a major thing until Teddy Roosevelt, who signed over a thousand. Since that point Obama signed fewer executive orders than every president with the exceptions of Ford and Bush Sr, who were both 1 term presidents, and JFK who didnt even get to complete a full term.

Again, the type of Executive Order matters. Same with Emergency declarations.

Progressives-Democrats look like hypocrites. Sorry, but you just proved my point.

 

[UCFBS]

@UCFBS you clearly dont know that orange man is bad! racist!*

I still won't vote for him. But man, Progressives-Democrats are totally off-their-rockers.

 

[Cubs79]

Because Democrats and Progressives are being hypocrites on Trump in this regards.

Exactly my point ... on Executive Orders. It's the type people are complaining about, and Obama had some doozers!

Now look at Emergency Declarations. Now Progressives-Democrats look like total hypocrites.

Dictator, dictator, dictator in my book. So, we agree, Obama is as much of a dictator as Trump. Thank you!

BTW, I personally loved the leaked Memo and draft Executive Order on Drone Warfare. The Obama administration didn't want a Romney administration to 'have the same power,' as it was -- admittedly -- dictatorish. Talk about boom!

I.e., if Obama was worried about a President Romney with the same power ... why not a President Obama as well? And did you forget the whole 2009 spying on Fox News ... only it wasn't just Fox News, as was exposed in 2013!

Again, the type of Executive Order matters. Same with Emergency declarations.

Progressives-Democrats look like hypocrites. Sorry, but you just proved my point.

Then you have to type out the specific ones you are referring to. You cant just argue about EO's in a vague sense and not expect vague answers in response.

And how is that Democrats look like hypocrites? Again, it was REpublicans who had a problem with the # of EO's Obama signed and made it a major talking point, even though their guy right before Obama signed more than he did.

 

[UCFBS]

Then you have to type out the specific ones you are referring to. You cant just argue about EO's in a vague sense and not expect vague answers in response.

You mean like on Drone Warfare?

BTW, here is a full list of national emergencies by the last 7 Presidents ...

• https://www.ajc.com/news/national/h...last-seven-presidents/Fb5dM2Fy17mKyuo8jgMW9K/

And how is that Democrats look like hypocrites? Again, it was REpublicans who had a problem with the # of EO's Obama signed and made it a major talking point, even though their guy right before Obama signed more than he did.

They're both hypocrites! You're not argument with a Conservative or Republican! Remember that.

The big difference is that the Republicans aren't the ones banning media and destroying careers. That changed by 2006, as Progressivism killed off Liberalism in the Democratic party.

Although if you knew your history, the "Tea Party" started as anti-W. It just swelled after the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, and even more in 2009, after President Obama entered the White House.

Heck, 2016 was looking to be the 'rise of the Libertarians' in the Republican Party, remembering how the establishment pushed McCain in 2008, and the GOP 'froze out' Paul in 2012, until the US media demonized Trump in ways that shot him from 4% to the White House. Talk about a Republican establishment that wanted anyone but Trump ... and were overridden by the silent majority of Republican voters.

Nothing works better than the demonize the average Conservative and make statements that are just jokes, like the US media said of Hillary Clinton, which were laughable. Trump was a shoe-in at that point, defying everyone.

Keep it up and Trump will get re-elected in 2020.

 

[sk8knight]

Executive orders are not dictatorish. They can be over ridden by congress or the courts if they are declared unconstitutional . I am not sure why executive orders became a talking point under Obama. Obama ranks 16th among all presidents in amount of EO's he signed, and he has signed less than Bush, Clinton, Reagn, Carter, etc. And Trump has signed 110 at this point, which puts him at about the same pace as Obama. In fact, EOs didnt even become a major thing until Teddy Roosevelt, who signed over a thousand. Since that point Obama signed fewer executive orders than every president with the exceptions of Ford and Bush Sr, who were both 1 term presidents, and JFK who didnt even get to complete a full term.

It’s not how many EOs issued, it’s the scope of the EOs. They became a thing with Obama because he used them to set policies after he said he didn’t have the power to set those policies. He basically just did what he wanted and dared Congress to stop him. This was after packing the courts with left-leaning judges. So, yeah, it became a thing.

 

[Cubs79]

It’s not how many EOs issued, it’s the scope of the EOs. They became a thing with Obama because he used them to set policies after he said he didn’t have the power to set those policies. He basically just did what he wanted and dared Congress to stop him. This was after packing the courts with left-leaning judges. So, yeah, it became a thing.

Arent all EO's by nature the president just doing what he wanted? And it is fine if you have a problem with some, or all his EO's, but your overall statement is extremely vague and hard to discuss if you dont point out specific EO's.

How did Obama pack the courts with left leaning judges? Republicans controlled the House and Senate for 6 of his 8 years and of course would have to confirm his judges. He appointed 329 judges total, 2 on the Supreme court. For reference, GWB appointed 327, and 2 on the SC, Clinton 310, Reagan 383. THe # of judges he appointed was right on par with every other recent president, and again, he did it with Republicans having to confirm them for 6 of his 8 years. I am not sure how you can consider that court packing or why you think Republicans would confirm that many left leaning judges.

 

[Cubs79]

You mean like on Drone Warfare?

BTW, here is a full list of national emergencies by the last 7 Presidents ...

• https://www.ajc.com/news/national/h...last-seven-presidents/Fb5dM2Fy17mKyuo8jgMW9K/

They're both hypocrites! You're not argument with a Conservative or Republican! Remember that.

The big difference is that the Republicans aren't the ones banning media and destroying careers. That changed by 2006, as Progressivism killed off Liberalism in the Democratic party.

Although if you knew your history, the "Tea Party" started as anti-W. It just swelled after the Democrats took over Congress in 2007, and even more in 2009, after President Obama entered the White House.

Heck, 2016 was looking to be the 'rise of the Libertarians' in the Republican Party, remembering how the establishment pushed McCain in 2008, and the GOP 'froze out' Paul in 2012, until the US media demonized Trump in ways that shot him from 4% to the White House. Talk about a Republican establishment that wanted anyone but Trump ... and were overridden by the silent majority of Republican voters.

Nothing works better than the demonize the average Conservative and make statements that are just jokes, like the US media said of Hillary Clinton, which were laughable. Trump was a shoe-in at that point, defying everyone.

Keep it up and Trump will get re-elected in 2020.

I dont like drone warfare either. It is fine if you disagree with some or most of his EO's, that isnt my point. My point is Republicans tried to act like EO's were something only Obama used, when in fact, as I have noted, he used them less than most presidents in the last 100 years.

 

[sk8knight]

Arent all EO's by nature the president just doing what he wanted? And it is fine if you have a problem with some, or all his EO's, but your overall statement is extremely vague and hard to discuss if you dont point out specific EO's.

How did Obama pack the courts with left leaning judges? Republicans controlled the House and Senate for 6 of his 8 years and of course would have to confirm his judges. He appointed 329 judges total, 2 on the Supreme court. For reference, GWB appointed 327, and 2 on the SC, Clinton 310, Reagan 383. THe # of judges he appointed was right on par with every other recent president, and again, he did it with Republicans having to confirm them for 6 of his 8 years. I am not sure how you can consider that court packing or why you think Republicans would confirm that many left leaning judges.

Because Republicans were still operating under the concept that judges should be confirmed as long as they were qualified. Well, except for Merrick Garland, that was a different thing.

As for EOs and Presidential memoranda, I’ll point out DACA and drop the mic. There were more but why bother.

 

[Cubs79]

Because Republicans were still operating under the concept that judges should be confirmed as long as they were qualified. Well, except for Merrick Garland, that was a different thing.

As for EOs and Presidential memoranda, I’ll point out DACA and drop the mic. There were more but why bother.

Oh good grief. So basically you are saying Republicans werent doing their jobs, and somehow blaming that on Obama.

You might not agree with DACA, but their is absolutely nothing dictatorish about it.

 

[sk8knight]

Oh good grief. So basically you are saying Republicans werent doing their jobs, and somehow blaming that on Obama.

You might not agree with DACA, but their is absolutely nothing dictatorish about it.

No, they were doing their jobs. Their jobs weren’t to shill for the party, it was to ensure that proposed candidates were qualified for the job regardless of politics. That’s the way it was supposed to work all along.

 

[sk8knight]

Oh good grief. So basically you are saying Republicans werent doing their jobs, and somehow blaming that on Obama.

You might not agree with DACA, but their is absolutely nothing dictatorish about it.

As far as DACA, you have zero credibility if you can make that statement.

 

[Cubs79]

As far as DACA, you have zero credibility if you can make that statement.

I did make that statement, so I suppose I can make that statement. So if you think I have "zero credibility" (whatever that really even means) that's fine. But you should be able to explain why DACA was dictatorish, but GWB, Trump, or anyone else's EO's aren't.

 

[Cubs79]

No, they were doing their jobs. Their jobs weren’t to shill for the party, it was to ensure that proposed candidates were qualified for the job regardless of politics. That’s the way it was supposed to work all along.

This makes no sense. So the judges Obama nominated were qualified, the Republicans approved them, but somehow Obama was acting like a dictator by doing what the president is supposed to do?

 

[UCFKnight85]

I did make that statement, so I suppose I can make that statement. So if you think I have "zero credibility" (whatever that really even means) that's fine. But you should be able to explain why DACA was dictatorish, but GWB, Trump, or anyone else's EO's aren't.

Obama literally created powers for the Executive that are not remotely proscribed to it. The power to establish who is and isn't a legal US citizen or resident sits ONLY with Congress and ONLY Congress can determine that by legislature.

Jeez man, don't you even know that? Do you not understand what a constitutional crisis it was that Obama said "Meh, Congress isn't doing what I want, so I'm going just grant myself new powers and dare them to stop me"? This was FAR worse than any Executive ORder issued by GWB or Trump, or Clinton for that matter. A President was knowingly creating new powers for the Executive and knew it was unconstitutional.

 

[Cubs79]

Obama literally created powers for the Executive that are not remotely proscribed to it. The power to establish who is and isn't a legal US citizen or resident sits ONLY with Congress and ONLY Congress can determine that by legislature.

Jeez man, don't you even know that? Do you not understand what a constitutional crisis it was that Obama said "Meh, Congress isn't doing what I want, so I'm going just grant myself new powers and dare them to stop me"? This was FAR worse than any Executive ORder issued by GWB or Trump, or Clinton for that matter. A President was knowingly creating new powers for the Executive and knew it was unconstitutional.

What powers? You guys speak in this hyperbolic fashion, and you now just completely made up a quote to prescribe to Obama, but are pretty lax on providing any actual details.

 

[UCFKnight85]

What powers? You guys speak in this hyperbolic fashion, and you now just completely made up a quote to prescribe to Obama, but are pretty lax on providing any actual details.

If you can't figure out why DACA was a creation of new Executive powers then please take a 2 second Google search and look for yourself.

 

[Cubs79]

If you can't figure out why DACA was a creation of new Executive powers then please take a 2 second Google search and look for yourself.

Or you could just answer a pretty straight forward question. Again, if you disagree with DACA that is fine. But if you think DACA was dictatorish or different then other EO's, then it is up to you to explain why.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Or you could just answer a pretty straight forward question. Again, if you disagree with DACA that is fine. But if you think DACA was dictatorish or different then other EO's, then it is up to you to explain why.

I already told you why, you simply don't want to listen.

 

[Crazyhole]

Or you could just answer a pretty straight forward question. Again, if you disagree with DACA that is fine. But if you think DACA was dictatorish or different then other EO's, then it is up to you to explain why.

Obama basically just said that he wasnt going to follow the laws that congress passed in regards to immigration and created a new "law" that changed how the executive branch would perform their jobs.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Obama basically just said that he wasnt going to follow the laws that congress passed in regards to immigration and created a new "law" that changed how the executive branch would perform their jobs.

And by doing this, implied that they had created new powers in order to create that new law, for which they had no constitutional authority to do so.

 

[Cubs79]

Obama basically just said that he wasnt going to follow the laws that congress passed in regards to immigration and created a new "law" that changed how the executive branch would perform their jobs.

How is that different than any other EO? Every EO is essentially creating something new without the approval of congress. DACA was also challenged in the courts and was declared constitutional. It could eventually lead up to the SC for sure, but at this point it has not been struck down by the courts.

 

[sk8knight]

Or you could just answer a pretty straight forward question. Again, if you disagree with DACA that is fine. But if you think DACA was dictatorish or different then other EO's, then it is up to you to explain why.

Good lord, he answered your question. The DACA memo usurped Congress’s Constitutionally-given powers over Naturalization. Obama even said he didn’t have the power to do that a few years earlier. Then he went and did it anyways. Other EOs dealt with things that were within the executive’s power.

And also, he swore an oath to uphold the laws of the country. Then he instructed the DoJ to simply not enforce the laws he didn’t like enforced. The legislature wrote laws. His job was to find ways to enforce those laws, not singlehandedly negate Congress by not enforcing them.

 

[Cubs79]

And by doing this, implied that they had created new powers in order to create that new law, for which they had no constitutional authority to do so.

It was challenged in court and won, so your "constitutional authority" argument holds no weight.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It was challenged in court and won, so your "constitutional authority" argument holds no weight.

Wrong, it was basically punted on by lower courts and was headed to a clear defeat at Federal Court and SCOTUS when Trump went ahead and ended it.

 

[Cubs79]

Good lord, he answered your question. The DACA memo usurped Congress’s Constitutionally-given powers over Naturalization. Obama even said he didn’t have the power to do that a few years earlier. Then he went and did it anyways. Other EOs dealt with things that were within the executive’s power.

And also, he swore an oath to uphold the laws of the country. Then he instructed the DoJ to simply not enforce the laws he didn’t like enforced. The legislature wrote laws. His job was to find ways to enforce those laws, not singlehandedly negate Congress by not enforcing them.

He answered my question with a made up quote and hyperbole. That isn't answering the question.

The EO he signed with regards to DACA did not have a path to citizenship involved with it, so there was no naturalization component.

The president cannot instruct the DOJ to do anything. He can ask, but the DOJ doesn't operate under the commands of the president.

 

[UCFKnight85]

How is that different than any other EO? Every EO is essentially creating something new without the approval of congress. DACA was also challenged in the courts and was declared constitutional. It could eventually lead up to the SC for sure, but at this point it has not been struck down by the courts.

Holy crap- no. You don't seem to know what an EO is. It's merely an order for the Executive to exercise within their existing grant of powers and it's typically regulatory or enforcement minded in nature. There's rarely anything new within an EO aside from clarifying something or issuing new guidance on regulation that exists within the framework of already passed Laws by Congress.

 

[Cubs79]

Holy crap- no. You don't seem to know what an EO is. It's merely an order for the Executive to exercise within their existing grant of powers and it's typically regulatory or enforcement minded in nature. There's rarely anything new within an EO aside from clarifying something or issuing new guidance on regulation that exists within the framework of already passed Laws by Congress.

It is still something new, or at least a change. If it already existed there would be no need for an EO.

 

[sk8knight]

He answered my question with a made up quote and hyperbole. That isn't answering the question.

The EO he signed with regards to DACA did not have a path to citizenship involved with it, so there was no naturalization component.

The president cannot instruct the DOJ to do anything. He can ask, but the DOJ doesn't operate under the commands of the president.

So let’s see, DACA set forth a policy that federal law enforcement and courts were not going to enforce existing immigration law on a certain group of people. Then federal law enforcement and courts stopped enforcing laws on that group of people. Seems to me like they very well did do what he required.

 

[Cubs79]

So let’s see, DACA set forth a policy that federal law enforcement and courts were not going to enforce existing immigration law on a certain group of people. Then federal law enforcement and courts stopped enforcing laws on that group of people. Seems to me like they very well did do what he required.

Except with DACA they are considered to be here legally. There are non citizens in our country who are here legally. DACA, for all intensive purposes, had a similar function as a Visa with regards to non citizens being in the country. There more deportations under Obama than any other president. I don't think one specific group who met a specific criteria, signed up for the program, and paid a fee, means that immigrations enforcement wasn't allowed to do their job.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

 

[sk8knight]

Except with DACA they are considered to be here legally. There are non citizens in our country who are here legally. DACA, for all intensive purposes, had a similar function as a Visa with regards to non citizens being in the country. There more deportations under Obama than any other president. I don't think one specific group who met a specific criteria, signed up for the program, and paid a fee, means that immigrations enforcement wasn't allowed to do their job.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

How are they considered to be here legally? Who made the judgement that granted them legal status?

 

[Cubs79]

How are they considered to be here legally? Who made the judgement that granted them legal status?

DACA granted them legal status. I get you disagree with DACA, but that doesn't change the fact it gave certain people legal status to be in our country, at least at that time. Obviously Trump has already changed that, which to be honest, if it was changed so easily it doesn't appear it was really that dictatorial.

 

[UCFWayne]

lol at the communist who doesnt understand the powers granted to the various forums of gov granted by the constitution.

 

[sk8knight]

DACA granted them legal status. I get you disagree with DACA, but that doesn't change the fact it gave certain people legal status to be in our country, at least at that time. Obviously Trump has already changed that, which to be honest, if it was changed so easily it doesn't appear it was really that dictatorial.

I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand how dictatorships actually come about in democratic societies.

 

[sk8knight]

DACA granted them legal status. I get you disagree with DACA, but that doesn't change the fact it gave certain people legal status to be in our country, at least at that time. Obviously Trump has already changed that, which to be honest, if it was changed so easily it doesn't appear it was really that dictatorial.

So you’re saying that DACA isn’t overreach because they’re legal because DACA made them legal and therefore isn’t overreach? And you see no problems with that logic?

 

[UCFKnight85]

I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand how dictatorships actually come about in democratic societies.

LOL. This guy claims they're here legally as a reason to justify the DACA EO, you ask who said they were here legally and how, and he responds by saying the DACA EO said they're here legally.



The worst part is that he doesn't seem to understand the web of circular rationalization that he's spun himself into.

 

[Cubs79]

I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand how dictatorships actually come about in democratic societies.

You can begin to think whatever you wish, I am not seeking your approval for anything. SO, you can insult me all you want, I couldn't possibly care less. But, insulting me isn't doing anything to actually make a valid point of discussion. And I realize this is the modern day state of political rhetoric in our country, but it's boring and pointless, so I will leave you and the other geniuses on the board to it for a while, because I have things to do anyway.

 

[YourWifesBoyfriend]

You can begin to think whatever you wish, I am not seeking your approval for anything. SO, you can insult me all you want, I couldn't possibly care less. But, insulting me isn't doing anything to actually make a valid point of discussion. And I realize this is the modern day state of political rhetoric in our country, but it's boring and pointless, so I will leave you and the other geniuses on the board to it for a while, because I have things to do anyway.

How is telling someone "I don't think you understand X" an insult? That's an observation at most.

LOL at "I couldn't possibly care less" then proceeding to deliver an impassioned paragraph on how intensely you don't care.

 

[Cubs79]

How is telling someone "I don't think you understand X" an insult? That's an observation at most.

LOL at "I couldn't possibly care less" then proceeding to deliver an impassioned paragraph on how intensely you don't care.

There was absolutely nothing impassioned about that paragraph. This is a rivals board. It can be entertaining, but I am most certainly not passionate about it.

It is an observation without support. If he thinks DACA is a sign of dictatorial behavior, then simply saying that I don't understand that, doesn't remotely support his case. Especially when the rise of dictators has often times occurred due to demonizing certain groups and taking away rights, which DACA would essentially be the exact opposite of.

 

[Cubs79]

LOL. This guy claims they're here legally as a reason to justify the DACA EO, you ask who said they were here legally and how, and he responds by saying the DACA EO said they're here legally.



The worst part is that he doesn't seem to understand the web of circular rationalization that he's spun himself into.

It isn't a circular rationalization. Laws, policies, etc change all the time and have throughout the history of our country. That is precisely what happened when DACA was implemented. It was simply a policy change that changed some people's legal status. That is hardly dictatorial. HIs point was that Obama told law enforcement not to do their jobs. What he wasn't acknowledging, is that part of their job had changed, which again, has happened throughout history. If that is circular rationalization, then by that logic I suppose that law enforcement still needs to enforce any law or policy that has changed or been struck down over time, or else we are preventing them from doing their jobs.