2017 Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Just to be accurate, Obama did not stop enforcement of immigration laws - the most recent number I can find shows 2.5M deportions between 2009-2015. The executive order provided semi-legal status to people who were brought to the US as children. We can argue about whether the executive order was overreaching, but let's not mischaracterize what it was.

 

To SSK's point, executive orders are tough. When Congress slows down appointments in the executive to the point that departments can't function, Executive Orders are a reasonable mechanism to keep government working. BUT they are obviously a power that can be abused (and have been abused).

 

It was more than that. The 2nd order expanded the initial DREAMERS order.

 

Regardless, even though I was in favor of the move itself (allowing certain illegals that are already here to file for quick status if they passed certain criteria), I still argued against it being done unilaterally by the President. What's the point of having a legislature passing laws if the laws can be ignored per the directives of the President?

[caulfield12]

LOL. You don't speak for me re: Booker and Warren. That type of attitude is why we have Trump.

 

The reason we have Trump is the Clintons soaked up all the air in the room and leadership from the next generation (after the Baby Boomers) is lacking and/or never developed.

 

Martin O'Malley was really the only other option? It would be one thing if Clinton had the same gravitas as 2008, but she already been fatally exposed, it's just that nobody had the cojones to stand up to the Clintons other than Sanders. Certainly not the DNC.

 

By the way, that Clinton intimidation factor never got in the way of Obama. Maybe Michelle will say enough's enough and decide to run. And Biden could have won but his moment is past. He had the ability to speak directly to those middle class laborers Hillary never seemed to be able to connect with.

 

Mattis/Sanders 2020, haha

Edited January 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Obama was in the wrong.

 

But, Congress also had a responsibility to work together with the president and reach a compromise. They never even tried, not really. They just punted the problem down the line.

 

And you're realistically going to gather up 11-12 million people, and evict them all...especially all the kids under 18 who grew up here? Even for the GOP, few have positions that extreme, and yet that would be technically carrying out the law. Well, that makes no sense after the money for education has already been invested in them. Quite a few of the kids don't even speak much more than barely passable Spanish. And a lot of those undocumented workers were already contributing to the economy by paying sales tax, rent or property tax (which was then paid by landlord/owner), etc.

 

Obama, fwiw, has deported 2.5 million already, and there are 800-900,000 remaining with criminal backgrounds who also should becsent back, with more extreme penalties for trying to come back again if they had committed felonies.

 

Agree, and criticism of Obama's move doesn't excuse GOP members of Congress.

Edited January 25, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[caulfield12]

It was more than that. The 2nd order expanded the initial DREAMERS order.

 

Regardless, even though I was in favor of the move itself (allowing certain illegals that are already here to file for quick status if they passed certain criteria), I still argued against it being done unilaterally by the President. What's the point of having a legislature passing laws if the laws can be ignored per the directives of the President?

 

Yes in an ideal world, you have to go through Congress, the President and get the okay from the SCOTUS about constitutionality.

 

But who or what is the check on Trump now, other than the 2018 mid-terms?

 

If the GOP showed any inclination to work together or compromise just once, Obama wouldn't had to keep circumventing them. And Trump is wiping out most of them anyway. Surely a Dem would do the opposite in 4 years, 25% of his/her campaign would be based on promising that.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump's tweet about Chicago crime is kind of funny. It's sad that the reaction from Chicago politicians has been "we're fine, go away."

 

No, it's clearly not fine. Outside assistance would probably be a beneficial thing.

[illinilaw08]

It was more than that. The 2nd order expanded the initial DREAMERS order.

 

Regardless, even though I was in favor of the move itself (allowing certain illegals that are already here to file for quick status if they passed certain criteria), I still argued against it being done unilaterally by the President. What's the point of having a legislature passing laws if the laws can be ignored per the directives of the President?

 

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure the original post wasn't misinterpreted to say that Obama stopped all deportions.

 

I'm not going to get into this too much since it's the Republican thread, but I do think Executive Orders are an important tool to make government work, but there's a really blurry line between federal administrations doing their work and encroaching on the power of Congress to pass laws. Unfortunately, that power is now in the hands of a guy who is, to quote SSK, "a true lunatic."

[Reddy]

The reason we have Trump is the Clintons soaked up all the air in the room and leadership from the next generation (after the Baby Boomers) is lacking and/or never developed.

 

Martin O'Malley was really the only other option? It would be one thing if Clinton had the same gravitas as 2008, but she already been fatally exposed, it's just that nobody had the cojones to stand up to the Clintons other than Sanders. Certainly not the DNC.

 

By the way, that Clinton intimidation factor never got in the way of Obama. Maybe Michelle will say enough's enough and decide to run. And Biden could have won but his moment is past. He had the ability to speak directly to those middle class laborers Hillary never seemed to be able to connect with.

 

Mattis/Sanders 2020, haha

 

We have Trump because liberals ate their own. The far left attacked Clinton with the same vehemence as the far right, and fought their battles for them. Throwing in the towel on Booker and Warren because they're realistic and pragmatic and need to play politics to fight the battles that need to be fought is asinine.

[southsider2k5]

We have Trump because liberals ate their own. The far left attacked Clinton with the same vehemence as the far right, and fought their battles for them. Throwing in the towel on Booker and Warren because they're realistic and pragmatic and need to play politics to fight the battles that need to be fought is asinine.

 

The entire rest of the GOP field attacked Trump, as did the Dems. All it really did was add to his street cred.

[Reddy]

The entire rest of the GOP field attacked Trump, as did the Dems. All it really did was add to his street cred.

This is true. What's your point?

[southsider2k5]

This is true. What's your point?

 

They didn't do anything for Trump. The people who were voting for him were voting for him anyway.

[Reddy]

They didn't do anything for Trump. The people who were voting for him were voting for him anyway.

The polling data shows that that's actually completely untrue. An awful lot of people made up their minds in the final days of the election, strangely enough.

 

And yes, the polling data was generally accurate across the board. There were only a few outliers that were wrong.

[southsider2k5]

The polling data shows that that's actually completely untrue. An awful lot of people made up their minds in the final days of the election, strangely enough.

 

And yes, the polling data was generally accurate across the board. There were only a few outliers that were wrong.

 

I am not going to buy that people who thought Hillary Clinton was too far left were going to go to Bernie Sanders instead.

[Soxbadger]

Trump's tweet about Chicago crime is kind of funny. It's sad that the reaction from Chicago politicians has been "we're fine, go away."

 

No, it's clearly not fine. Outside assistance would probably be a beneficial thing.

 

It could be, or it could turn a battle into a war.

 

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

 

When you look at the map, youll notice a good majority of the shootings are in a few areas. Some believe that if you were to really police those areas, it would result in the criminals dispersing to the other areas and cause a decline in property values etc. Now I dont know if its true or not.

 

Obviously I am not going to turn away a free handout, but when it comes to my dealings with Trump, I know that nothing is ever "free". Rahm trolled Trump about federal assistance (great wed love to have you enforce gun laws at the federal level) and part of me just believes that this "offer" is nothing more than some sort of political game. Who knows, but I am always very suspicious of "great offers" from people who seemingly disagree with me.

 

If he can solve the problem great, but it could also turn into a quagmire.

[pettie4sox]

We have Trump because liberals ate their own. The far left attacked Clinton with the same vehemence as the far right, and fought their battles for them. Throwing in the towel on Booker and Warren because they're realistic and pragmatic and need to play politics to fight the battles that need to be fought is asinine.

 

 

46% people stayed home.

[southsider2k5]

46% people stayed home.

 

Throw out any conspiracy theories and myths about the election that you like, but this is the big picture here. 46% of the voters turned over their right to vote to some other unknown people, and this is what they have to show for it.

 

Congrats, hope it was worth it.

[Jenksismyhero]

It could be, or it could turn a battle into a war.

 

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

 

When you look at the map, youll notice a good majority of the shootings are in a few areas. Some believe that if you were to really police those areas, it would result in the criminals dispersing to the other areas and cause a decline in property values etc. Now I dont know if its true or not.

 

Obviously I am not going to turn away a free handout, but when it comes to my dealings with Trump, I know that nothing is ever "free". Rahm trolled Trump about federal assistance (great wed love to have you enforce gun laws at the federal level) and part of me just believes that this "offer" is nothing more than some sort of political game. Who knows, but I am always very suspicious of "great offers" from people who seemingly disagree with me.

 

If he can solve the problem great, but it could also turn into a quagmire.

 

Not sure how it could get worse.

 

But I agree that the crime/criminals could disperse. I believe in the conspiracy theory that the city/county and surrounding municipalities purposefully allow some of that stuff to happen in those pockets so it won't spill out and affect the whole region.

[Soxbadger]

Not sure how it could get worse.

 

But I agree that the crime/criminals could disperse. I believe in the conspiracy theory that the city/county and surrounding municipalities purposefully allow some of that stuff to happen in those pockets so it won't spill out and affect the whole region.

 

Could get worse if you have gangs targeting whatever federal officers Trump sends. The strange (conspiracy) part about all of this is that in the last 6 years, no Chicago police officer has been killed due to the violence. Not one.

 

https://www.odmp.org/agency/657-chicago-pol...rtment-illinois

 

So if you start to believe the conspiracy theories, there is some sort of deal about targeting police. And if all of a sudden Trump disrupts that deal, where does it go? It could easily lead to the gangs targeting the feds, and now you have battles between gangs, turning into a war on the police.

 

This is really why I am not sure what the solution is because there seems to be something more going on here.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Reddy]

I am not going to buy that people who thought Hillary Clinton was too far left were going to go to Bernie Sanders instead.

Why do you keep making arguments - or responding to arguments - that I'm not even making??

[Reddy]

 

46% people stayed home.

Why did they stay home? Because of the false narratives about HRC that were pushed by the GOP and the far left. This isn't a controversial statement if anyone but me were making it haha

[southsider2k5]

Why do you keep making arguments - or responding to arguments - that I'm not even making??

 

Apparently you just need to debate yourself because you aren't saying what you think you are saying.

[Steve9347]

Why did they stay home? Because of the false narratives about HRC that were pushed by the GOP and the far left. This isn't a controversial statement if anyone but me were making it haha

It's not controversial because it's true.

[southsider2k5]

Why did they stay home? Because of the false narratives about HRC that were pushed by the GOP and the far left. This isn't a controversial statement if anyone but me were making it haha

 

If they stayed home because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves, well then they also got the con-artists they deserved a top the respective party tickets.

[Reddy]

If they stayed home because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves, well then they also got the con-artists they deserved a top the respective party tickets.

the vast majority of americans can't think for themselves, come on.

[Reddy]

Apparently you just need to debate yourself because you aren't saying what you think you are saying.

Quote where I mentioned Bernie Sanders.

[LittleHurt05]

Why did they stay home? Because of the false narratives about HRC that were pushed by the GOP and the far left. This isn't a controversial statement if anyone but me were making it haha

 

We can all come up with theories (and I have had many) but the truth is that they stayed home because they always stay home. Voter turnout in presidential elections has been consistently under 60% for the last 100 years. It briefly rose slightly over 60 during the Vietnam War, but that's it.