ALL TRUMP!!! ALL THE TIME!!!

As predicted, a non-answer with a veiled insult. You should probably stop accusing others of deflection and being uneducated when you frequently deflect when arguing with people who are more educated than you.

Not sure about any insult, and it certainly was not intended, veiled or otherwise. I just think that you have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with constantly responding to me. That and the waffling of blocking/unblocking me just seems excessive. Look a couple pages back. My initial comment was that there was no deal between the North and South to name Forts after Confederate Generals. The "reconciliation" was actually termed the Reconstruction, and the North set the terms by which the South would be allowed back into the Union.

Trump consults Bush torture lawyer on how to skirt law and rule by decree

John Yoo wrote memo used to justify waterboarding
Trump keen to use executive orders and circumvent Congress
The Guardian

“The supreme court has said President Obama could [choose not to] enforce immigration laws for about 2 million cases. And why can’t the Trump administration do something similar with immigration – create its own … program, but it could do it in areas beyond that, like healthcare, tax policy, criminal justice, inner city policy. I talked to them a fair amount about cities, because of the disorder.”

So he is saying what was good for Obama should be good for Trump. I'm not seeing the problem.

Rest of the article is like every other article, just quotes from people who the author already knows doesn't like Trump taking shots at Trump. /yawn.

Because, say it with me now.

Democrats Good
Republicans Bad
Orange Man VERY BAD


Now to be serious, what the Supreme Court ruled wasn't that Trump couldn't nullify DACA, but that he had to follow the rules regarding administrative policy changes. What it boiled down to was that he couldn't replace DACA without first documenting a plan to address the beneficiaries of DACA. It revolved around the due process clause. All people in the USA have a right to due process, including illegal aliens. Revoking their beneficiary status without first having a plan to address them could violate their due process rights.

It was a pretty brilliant ruling, on one hand it said the President absolutely has authority to change Executive Policy, while also saying the President can't do it on a whim. It also punted the issue down the road as there is no way that it'll be resolved before the election.

Chanti, you really should know better about the obvious bias of the article.

Hell, I don't even have to click on the link to know it's facts I don't like.

I just can't believe you fall for this time and time again.

You are as bad as Vic on this!

Edit: Curse you Rooks!

I decided to have some fun with the text replacer after all.

I'm not even making a value judgment of those sources, that phrase is just a tantrum, and it's only tossed out when there is no defense for what's being reported.

Also, MY edit button still works.

Fine, I'll just call it "sources unsubstantiated by facts."

It's basically the same thing.

Also, no fair on the edit button!

I mean, did you read the article? Yoo wrote memos on waterboarding, it's a matter of public record. He also told people he was consulting with the administration. Not sure what's "unsubstantiated" about any of it. You couldn't have read any of the article!

And that's why that phrase is a such a tell; any specific objections to a piece would be laid out specifically, but if you've got nothing, then that's the fallback.

And the basis of the story is that Trump is trying to break the law by ruling by decree. It failed to point out that presidents have sought legal advice over their terms through all of American History. It is portrayed as Trump trying to obtain "kingship" by ruling by royal decree, it's even in the title for crying out loud!

And, yes, I did read the story, unfortunately.

It's essentially hit piece #5,236,342,213,316 made against Trump and his administration.

And see, a legitimate criticism of the piece. That wasn't so hard!

Didn't Trump claim a few weeks back he was gonna sign an imaginary bill on immigration that was gonna deal with his entire wishlist? Of course the Fox host had to correct him and point out he meant an Executive Order, and that it was doomed to fail because it was going around Congress. You would think by now he would know the difference between the two..

First criticism on the piece was only against Chanti for falling for it. You don't even have to go beyond the title to know it's...."sources unsubstantiated by facts" (don't mess with the text replacer please!)

You asked for a real analysis, so I gave you one.

First I heard of this.

Source please.

You did! We can disagree on the analysis, but actual points instead of tantrum level rhetoric is what I expect from people here.

Wrong is fine. Most people are wrong. Lazy is unforgivable.

Correction, everyone is wrong sometimes.

We just don't admit it.

It was on Telemundo I guess, its a nonsense interview, also why are they standing up ?

I rather see the EO.

Yeah, he did mention it. It was 10 days ago (at least since posting the video on YT). So, let's see the order.

This article does a little deeper analysis, but it's basically the same thing that Vic's video shows.

I got off topic in another thread, sorry about that.

So far responses are either ignore the question or no cuz Trump not doing it correctly, so lets keep up the War.

I hate to rest my case here, but I will give options again.

Keep troops in Afghanistan or Leave under Trumps orders? NO grey areas. Leave under Trump or Keep them there. Here, I'll even help and give you my opinion, I am for keeping Troops there.

I'll answer: I rather we pull out. Too expensive. We should have left years ago.

Kudos for answering.

I have a mixed answer for entering in the first place, but that's not Trump talk!

Yeah, kids and a marriage can be expensive.

You know, I could throw in a dark joke about that, but I like you Kojo.

If you set a rule on no grey areas, your flawing your own question and don't deserve a straight answer.

If we pull out completely, we lose eyes and ears and influence over there and we leave a void in the effort to protect our interests. If we stay full force, we're upsetting the region and not letting life return to a healthy normal, thus irritating people and sowing the seeds of hatred.

Pull SOME out, leave bases, turn power over to a trusted government, military, whatever. It's not our country to rule but there's nothing wrong with keeping a base or two in the region.

Kindof how we did with Germany, Japan, etc.?