Trump: Working Day 1 Explained

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Godless said:

According to his personal Twitter feed, he's planning to order an investigation into voter fraud. Interesting move from someone who just won an election. 

It's in response to the media saying "if he really thought that, then he should order an investigation."  Well, he really thought that.  So, he's ordering an investigation.

Now the media is going to complain about wasting tax dollars on such an election when he already won.  Catch 22 anyone?  (remember, this is coming from a guy who doesn't like Trump much).

Edited January 25, 2017 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 It's also odd to me that republicans who complained about Obama using the executive order suddenly have no problem with it. 

It's only okay when they do it. The president with the most EO's in the last 50 years is Reagan. Interestingly, the only presidents in that same time period who signed fewer EOs than Obama are George HW Bush, and Gerald Ford. And yet they accused Obama of ruling like a dictator via EO...

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

It's only okay when they do it. The president with the most EO's in the last 50 years is Reagan. Interestingly, the only presidents in that same time period who signed fewer EOs than Obama are George HW Bush, and Gerald Ford. And yet they accused Obama of ruling like a dictator via EO...

To be fair, hypocrisy like this is called "politics". The blunt truth is that we all love executive orders if it fits our political goals. When the other side does it, it's an abuse of power. When our side does it, "nothing to see folks. Move along." Same with the nuclear option in the senate. If our side filibusters they are standing up for morality! Decency! Justice! Freedom! World peace! LIFE AND DEATH. 

Other side does it: obstructionist! Threat to all that is holy! 

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

To be fair, hypocrisy like this is called "politics". The blunt truth is that we all love executive orders if it fits our political goals. When the other side does it, it's an abuse of power. When our side does it, "nothing to see folks. Move along." Same with the nuclear option in the senate. If our side filibusters they are standing up for morality! Decency! Justice! Freedom! World peace! LIFE AND DEATH. 

Other side does it: obstructionist! Threat to all that is holy! 

In my mind the hypocrisy must be measured against a common standard.  If the EO is used to bring us back to the Constitution, then that's fine.  That's what the office of the President is supposed to do.

The problem is that when we don't even agree on the Constitution (which should be the standard for all Americans) then all we see is the hypocrisy.

What I'd like to see is not only how many EOs were signed by whom, but what they were and why.  The big standard to me is: does it put greater burden on private citizens or less burden on them?

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The problem is that when we don't even agree on the Constitution (which should be the standard for all Americans) then all we see is the hypocrisy.

 

Exactly. We are so divided as a nation and the only thing that will stop it is succession. A state needs to break from the union. All calls for "unity" are incredibly naive and foolish, because "unity" means "unite under my values and ignore yours." 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. We are so divided as a nation and the only thing that will stop it is succession. A state needs to break from the union. All calls for "unity" are incredibly naive and foolish, because "unity" means "unite under my values and ignore yours." 

Interesting.  My idea of unity is "everybody leave everybody else alone".  You don't have to like others' opinions and beliefs.  You may even think everyone else is bat-heffalump crazy.  You may even not like most people.  But if you can just leave each other alone and stop trying to force everyone else to do things your way, then we can be united in simply wanting to stay alive and be free.

But I think the true problem is that too many people don't really want to be free.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Interesting.  My idea of unity is "everybody leave everybody else alone".

That's mine as well. We agree 100%.  You leave me alone, I leave you alone. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But I think the true problem is that too many people don't really want to be free.

Quote

Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit to undertake. It is not easy. It is not a gift given, but a choice made, and the choice may be a hard one.

Ursula K. LeGuin, The Tombs of Atuan

 

[Mike]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Uhm... that is not correct.  They have lots of solutions.  All spoken about in the past year and beginning to be implemented 5 days ago.

Note, the current government is only 3 weeks into the session and the current executive branch is only 5 days into it.  And on top of that, the HHS secretary is still stuck in the senate.

You know what? You're right. And just so you know, as soon as I pressed <submit> I told my self, "Ah, Mike, sit still. Don't start taking one-liner swipes--you wouldn't like it if somebody did it against your man under identical circumstances".  So, I'll try harder to keep my hands away from the keyboard for a minute before I start running off at the fingers.  And I'll be a little more patient to give the new administration it's 100 days.  

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

According to his personal Twitter feed, he's planning to order an investigation into voter fraud. Interesting move from someone who just won an election. 

Yes.  That's because Trump doesn't think 24/7 campaign like every single politician in the past decades.  Rather, he thinks - Media Narrative to shape his Git R Done agenda.

So, what is this voter fraud thing?  Okay, today's agenda is Immigration.  Everything he's doing today revolves around it.  The issue is undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.  Guess what... illegal immigrant voters are... tat-tada... undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.

And on top of that... the voter fraud investigation effectively changed the Media Narrative from - Russia hacked the election, let's investigate Russia!  To there's no voter fraud, investigating is silly!  The Media that Trump has been attacking since June 2015 are getting schizophrenic.  Brilliant, isn't it?

 

 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 It's also odd to me that republicans who complained about Obama using the executive order suddenly have no problem with it. We also knew that we would pay for his border wall and surprise (!) we are. Oh wait-Mexico will "reimburse" us. Okay. 

This is a misinformed statement.  Presidents run their cabinets through 3 methods - Executive Orders, Executive Actions, Executive Proclamations.  Of course Republicans have no problem with Presidents issuing executive orders.

The problem with Obama's Executive Orders is that he uses them to LEGISLATE.  His EO's are, therefore, non-Constitutional because a President cannot bypass Congress through EO's.

Not a single one of Trump's EO's so far does any Legislating. 

As far as Mexico paying for the wall through taxes, levies, etc, that has been stated MANY MANY MANY times in his rallies.  That we will build the wall and Mexico will end up paying for it. He has never said that we will delay building the wall until Mexico hands us the cash to do so.  That's highly silly.   You're surprised because you refused to pay attention.

Edited January 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  That's because Trump doesn't think 24/7 campaign like every single politician in the past decades.  Rather, he thinks - Media Narrative to shape his Git R Done agenda.

So, what is this voter fraud thing?  Okay, today's agenda is Immigration.  Everything he's doing today revolves around it.  The issue is undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.  Guess what... illegal immigrant voters are... tat-tada... undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.

And on top of that... the voter fraud investigation effectively changed the Media Narrative from - Russia hacked the election, let's investigate Russia!  To there's no voter fraud, investigating is silly!  The Media that Trump has been attacking since June 2015 are getting schizophrenic.  Brilliant, isn't it?

That is a pretty good explanation.

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not a single one of Trump's EO's so far does any Legislating. 

Surprisingly enough, I agree with this.  I read completely the EOs he issued today. None of them are legislating.  In each EO, for each actual action that the Executive Branch is taking he lists the corresponding law authority that has already passed.  Then he messages to the Executive Branch, saying each and every time enforce xyz to the maximum extent possible.

Quite frankly, the reality hasn't been that we don't have laws in place to keep illegal immigration in check (oh and I did like it when the EOs called them illegal aliens, very nice no PC crap)-it's just that they haven't been enforced. Hence what I've said earlier, there are so many laws on the books that it is almost impossible not to break a law during the day. There is a book written "3 Felonies a Day" explaining this.  It's just a matter of whether a) you get caught and b) whether the executive authority (local,state,federal) are enforcing that law.

So Trump doesn't need to create new laws-b/c they are already there-we just have to enforce them.

What a huge difference and relief from He Who Shall Not Be Named-one of the worst presidents ever.  This is a huge part of what Trump meant when he said multiple times-we will bring back Law and Order.  This is bringing back Law and Order. 

This is actually quite amazing b/c I'm uber-libertarian, actually an anarco-capitalists, but I am really loving this.  Unlike most politicians, he is actually doing exactly what he said he would do.

So much for all those who said he was a con man!!  They are and will be eating crow soon. 

Hiring 10,000 border agents to enforce immigration, but putting a freeze on the rest of government hiring.  That is putting some teeth into immigration enforcement; hallelujah baby! I tell you I've got nothing against people from xyz country, but I am so blasted sick of walking into the Quickie Mart and being barely able to understand the guy at the counter.  Sometimes I feel like a stranger in my own country.

Edited January 26, 2017 by yjacket

[Vort]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:27 PM, NeuroTypical said:

"ease the economic burden of Obamacare (e.g. penalties to businesses and individuals) to the maximum extent permitted by law."

He's the president. The executive branch belongs to him. He decides how (and whether) to enforce the law in an area.

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Mike said:

Does the current government care enough to have devised a replacement solution, I wonder.

One problem with all things in the service industries (including health care) is that the more levels and people involved the greater will be the cost and the less responsive will be the services.  I have posted this before but just a few years back my little consulting business took me to Phoenix and while there one Sunday; I met a US doctor that had a clinic just across the border in Mexico that specialized in heart surgery.  

This good doctor informed me that he could fly a heart patient from New York to his clinic perform the necessary surgery, keep the patient in his clinic for a week of recovery and observation and then fly the patient back to New York for less than a healthy person in their 50’s would pay just for their health plan insurance cost over a year.  And he would make more money himself doing it than if he has his clinic in the USA collecting insurance payments – that is why he had moved his practice from the US.

I discovered this idea of Mexico clinics are not uncommon for all kinds of health services including vision and dental.  For those concerned about quality it appears to me that the quality of such clinics exceeds the standards expected in the various licensed clinics in the USA.  I will leave the cost differences as an exercise for the readers – because my point is that with a little thinking outside the box (and in this case the political circus box) – there are possibilities that are much better than what is available under current law or any lobiest paly book.

But to answer your question – I do not believe governments care (or should care) about solutions to anything – only people can and should be expected to care.  I personally think it is unreasonable to expect governments to care about anything they are not specifically forced to care about and then only what the law specifically states what can be cared about for anyone.  In fact, we expect justice (government) to be blind and not care but to meter out the exact same for everyone without caring if someone needs exception or not – or even if someone themselves wants to be cared about more.  If governments make even one caring exception they can only do so unjustly.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's mine as well. We agree 100%.  You leave me alone, I leave you alone. 

I know this works politically for us mortals - and I often follow this myself.  But is this what Jesus taught?  Is this how to be united (one) with G-d?

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Mike said:

You know what? You're right. And just so you know, as soon as I pressed <submit> I told my self, "Ah, Mike, sit still. Don't start taking one-liner swipes--you wouldn't like it if somebody did it against your man under identical circumstances".  So, I'll try harder to keep my hands away from the keyboard for a minute before I start running off at the fingers.  And I'll be a little more patient to give the new administration it's 100 days.  

Nah, you can type away - the first impressions usually have important merit.  It's great for back-and-forth discussions.  You type, I respond, you respond back... we get a good discussion out of it.  This new administration is not something Americans today are used to so talking about what is going on is always good.

[Mike]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

But to answer your question – I do not believe governments care (or should care) about solutions to anything – only people can and should be expected to care.  I personally think it is unreasonable to expect governments to care about anything they are not specifically forced to care about and then only what the law specifically states what can be cared about for anyone.  In fact, we expect justice (government) to be blind and not care but to meter out the exact same for everyone without caring if someone needs exception or not – or even if someone themselves wants to be cared about more.  If governments make even one caring exception they can only do so unjustly.

Well, I am familiar with your opinion, and i understand it and it's origins. When I examine it next to your response to @MormonGator when he mentioned people leaving each other alone and you answered with the counter-questions about what Jesus taught and about being united with God should I understand you to be talking about individual behavior vs. group behavior even though all groups (institutions including corporations and governments and so on) are individual people? In other words are those values applicable only to people when they are alone and not when they are in groups?

Edited January 26, 2017 by Mike

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, Mike said:

Well, I am familiar with your opinion, and i understand it and it's origins. When I examine it next to your response to @MormonGator when he mentioned people leaving each other alone and you answered with the counter-questions about what Jesus taught and about being united with God should I understand you to be talking about individual behavior vs. group behavior even though all groups (institutions including corporations and governments and so on) are individual people? In other words are those values applicable only to people when they are alone and not when they are in groups?

 

I am very conflicted with governments and bureaucracies.  I know governments and bureaucracies are needed but I am disappointed whenever I have to deal with one.  I have some rental properties in Provo Utah close to the BYU campus – the worse bureaucracy I have ever dealt with is the BYU student housing.

As I understand “Service” towards people is the key in any relationship.  For example I believe governments should serve the people not the other way.  I am not so sure we have a duty to country but we do have a duty to the people that comprise our country.  We can serve others – but I am not sure it is even possible to serve a country unless you are performing an actual service for someone preferably someone living.  And sometimes it is a service to let or allow someone to resolve their own individual issues.

 

The Traveler

[yjacket]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/26/andrew-napolitano-trump-has-committed-most-revolutionary-act-ive-seen-in-45-years.html

I figure if my thoughts are similar to the Judge then I'm probably pretty good.  Obamacare is dead.

I've been very impressed so far-even from a libertarian perspective.

[Mike]

31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I understand “Service” towards people is the key in any relationship.  For example I believe governments should serve the people not the other way.  I am not so sure we have a duty to country but we do have a duty to the people that comprise our country.  We can serve others – but I am not sure it is even possible to serve a country unless you are performing an actual service for someone preferably someone living.  And sometimes it is a service to let or allow someone to resolve their own individual issues.

Perceiving that reduced to their essential make-up governments are simply groups of people, I agree with you nonetheless that those people ought to see themselves as charged to serve the larger group (of which they themselves are also members). And in many cases I believe they do. But I also observe plainly that the greater the opportunity to act selfishly without accountability the more likely it is that people will do so by nature. I'm sure we agree that this fact is also pointed out to us in scripture with regard to unrighteous dominion. 

I think it is possible to serve a country even if one's service isn't realized or appreciated until well after the service is rendered, or even after one is dead. And I also agree with you that sometimes it's good to leave someone else to fend for himself. But I think it is often better to defend and protect those who are not positioned to fend for themselves against more powerful people. And of course, it requires wisdom to know when to take either course of action (and to discern accurately when someone decides to take one action or another). I suppose this is essentially the crux of many of our discussions related to government--i.e. our varying opinions. I suppose I'm only stating the obvious.

[Guest Godless]

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, what is this voter fraud thing?  Okay, today's agenda is Immigration.  Everything he's doing today revolves around it.  The issue is undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.  Guess what... illegal immigrant voters are... tat-tada... undocumented immigrants who gets documented through crimes committed.

 

Our system is set up to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants from registering to vote, and we're seriously supposed to believe that people who are both illegal immigrants and criminals voted in the 2016 election??? What is Trump basing this nonsense on?

And on top of that... the voter fraud investigation effectively changed the Media Narrative from - Russia hacked the election, let's investigate Russia!  To there's no voter fraud, investigating is silly!  The Media that Trump has been attacking since June 2015 are getting schizophrenic.  Brilliant, isn't it?

There seems to be some evidence for Russian tampering, versus none for illegal voter registration by undocumented immigrants. I don't see any inconsistency or "schizophrenia" from the media on this issue. Trump's ability to change the narrative was brilliant, I'll give you that. I'm curious to see how long the media plays along though, especially when this administration continues to go off-message with bizarre "alternative truths". I see that as a tactic to bait the media into criticizing him, giving Trump an excuse to undermine their credibility. The media is a business. And like any other business, they are competitive. Everyone wants the first scoop, the first interview, the first pictures. How much longer will it be until they put their differences aside and unite in defiance of a schizophrenic administration? 

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

Our system is set up to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants from registering to vote, and we're seriously supposed to believe that people who are both illegal immigrants and criminals voted in the 2016 election??? What is Trump basing this nonsense on?

 

One word: California.

You don't understand how voting is done here.  Each state sets their own rules for what is required for voting and the types of verification needed in order to register to vote.

In California you need (in order to register to vote) a driver's license and last four of your social-that's it.  Well California has recently allowed illegals to obtain a driver's license.

And social security numbers:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

If you are a legal non-citizen you can legally obtain a SSN. In addition, unless California does an active search to match your name with a SSN, then poof. All you really need to register to vote in California is a California Drivers License.  And since California is giving them to illegals-then yes illegals can vote in California in elections.

Couple this with the video of Obama actively encouraging "noncitizens" to vote in our elections. Yes it can happened and I'm positive it did happen.

 

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Godless said:

Our system is set up to prevent criminals and illegal immigrants from registering to vote, and we're seriously supposed to believe that people who are both illegal immigrants and criminals voted in the 2016 election??? What is Trump basing this nonsense on?

You misunderstood me.  It is a crime for non-citizen immigrants - illegal or otherwise - to vote in US elections.  Remember how it was such a big deal that Russian's hacked the election so much so that Obama imposed sanctions?  Well, non-citizen immigrants voting in US elections is the same thing as a foreign entity influencing the election.  They may not have committed any crimes other than illegal immigration but the minute they vote, they become illegal immigrant criminals.

Trrump's peeps did not say definitively where the claim is sourced but from all indications, the 3 million number matched the study made by Greg Phillips.

On a personal note, when I applied for a driver's license, the woman in the DMV gave me my driver's license and a voter's ID.  I told her I didn't apply for a voter's ID because I am not an American citizen.  The woman said, it's okay, you can just throw it away if you don't want it... This was sometime back in 1996 or so.

 

22 minutes ago, Godless said:

There seems to be some evidence for Russian tampering, versus none for illegal voter registration by undocumented immigrants. I don't see any inconsistency or "schizophrenia" from the media on this issue. Trump's ability to change the narrative was brilliant, I'll give you that. I'm curious to see how long the media plays along though, especially when this administration continues to go off-message with bizarre "alternative truths". I see that as a tactic to bait the media into criticizing him, giving Trump an excuse to undermine their credibility. The media is a business. And like any other business, they are competitive. Everyone wants the first scoop, the first interview, the first pictures. How much longer will it be until they put their differences aside and unite in defiance of a schizophrenic administration? 

Of course you don't see schizophrenia.  You're on their side.  Of course there is evidence of Russian tampering.  They, and other countries (China comes to mind) have been doing it for decades!  Guess what, AMERICA DOES IT TOO.  The Philippines was trying to oust Corazon Aquino when the US sent 2 F-14's to buzz the Malacanang.  And they're not even being covert about it!  Trying to defeat Brexit, trying to oust Netanyahu... even killing heads of state is within the bounds of America messing around with foreign nations.

 

[Guest Godless]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Of course you don't see schizophrenia.  You're on their side.  Of course there is evidence of Russian tampering.  They, and other countries (China comes to mind) have been doing it for decades!  Guess what, AMERICA DOES IT TOO.  The Philippines was trying to oust Corazon Aquino when the US sent 2 F-14's to buzz the Malacanang.  And they're not even being covert about it!  Trying to defeat Brexit, trying to oust Netanyahu... even killing heads of state is within the bounds of America messing around with foreign nations.

 

"We do it too" is not a justification for ignoring foreign tampering into US elections.

It seems I may have been wrong about the difficulty of non-citizens voting in US elections, and I have no problem admitting that. That's a system-level failure, not an indication of criminal activity by individual voters. Cheating a broken system is not a crime. If Trump wants to fix the system, I fully support that. I don't support criminalizing those who took advantage of the system's shortcomings.