• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT: Trump plans to take executive action on a nearly daily basis for a month...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone who enforces long-standing immigration laws?

Not to mention this is only a suggestion of what he could do from the article's author.

You're gonna get tired of carrying water for him eventually, trust me.

Obviously not over this, but he's going to do a lot stupid stuff over the years.
 
Orders that help people and ones that hurt people are equal. Both sides are the same!
If you're now concerned about the power of the executive, then it's an argument against the increase in executive authority, not horror at what the other side will do with it. I'm looking forward to the left rediscovering the dangers of unfettered executive power.
 

disco

Member
I honestly feel bad for Obama helping this moron out over the next few months. Some people really are users and demented on crushing you for their own survival even if you hope your help will give them some empathy... Obama dropping the mic on that comedy show (when he said "well at least Hillary will be president") are the things Trump is thinking about with these actions.
 

Steel

Banned
If you're now concerned about the power of the executive, then it's an argument against the increase in executive authority, not horror at what the other side will do with it. I'm looking forward to the left rediscovering the dangers of unfettered executive power.

The argument is about the absurdity of conservatives foaming at the mouth about executive actions and suddenly being OK with it now.

And the precedent was not set by Obama.
 

sonicmj1

Member
But in a reflection of the improvisational style that helped fuel his rise, he has made few, if any, firm decisions about which orders he wants to make, or in which order. That is a striking break from past presidents, who have entered office with detailed plans for rolling out a series of executive actions that set a tone for their presidencies and send a clear message about their agendas.

It was clear that Mr. Trump had devised no such strategy by his first day in office, as advisers expressed doubt until the last moments about whether he would issue any directives on Friday. “It’s going to be a game-day decision,” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters that afternoon.

With this kind of competence in the White House, maybe we have nothing to worry about.
 

Nokterian

Member
As you can see a madman in the white house,just doing what he likes to do not knowing on why or how. In other words he is destroying the country,destroying not just the legacy of obama but everything we as developed democratic country's in the last 70 years.

He will make the poorer even more poor..and him and his friends? Rich will get richer,dividing the america to the ground.

Be a civilian and protest that is democracy let your voice be heard. Remember people should not be afraid of there governments, the governments should be afraid of there people.
 
The argument is about the absurdity of conservatives foaming at the mouth about executive actions and suddenly being OK with it now.

And the precedent was not set by Obama.
The precedent has grown for decades now from both parties. Obama is just recency bias, along with him being "in your face" with his I won I have a phone and a pen stuff. And yes, those conservatives will be now just as drooling hypocrites as the left was after freaking out about 8 years of bush. Meanwhile lots of principled people have been consistent for decades about the topic.
 

jfkgoblue

Member
And this is inaccurate, as has been pointed out.
The number of high profile EO is what I'm talking about, most EO are small non-important things.
Good lord at FDR. He accounts for almost a quarter of them.
FDR was the closest thing we came to fascism, but the war has whitewashed his legacy. Trump may give him a run for his money though.

FDR was an authoritarian through and through. He was even very close to stuffing the SCOTUS with loyalists because he didn't want to deal with the constitutionality of his actions.
 

Steel

Banned
The precedent has grown for decades now from both parties. Obama is just recency bias, along with him being "in your face" with his I won I have a phone and a pen stuff. And yes, those conservatives will be now just as drooling hypocrites as the left was after freaking out about 8 years of bush. Meanwhile lots of principled people have been consistent for decades about the topic.

People weren't really upset about Bush's executive actions, though. Personally, I'm pretty consistent in believing that you shouldn't put idiots in power. Executive actions have scope limited by laws and can be challenged in courts if they're not based in law. Also, at this point it really doesn't make much difference that Trump has executive actions available to him; he has a Congress that'll pass pretty much whatever he wants.
 

Jobbs

Banned
The ironic part is that undoing Trump's mess is probably gonna be the focus of many campaigners during the next election phase

and if they win, the burning dumpster fire trump left will be attributed to them within the first year

same shit all over again
 
Wasn't Obama called an anti constitutional evildoer for making the ocassional executive action?

What a bunch of spineless assholes.
 
People weren't really upset about Bush's executive actions, though. Personally, I'm pretty consistent in believing that you shouldn't put idiots in power. Executive actions have scope limited by laws and can be challenged in courts if they're not based in law. Also, at this point it really doesn't make much difference that Trump has executive actions available to him; he has a Congress that'll pass pretty much whatever he wants.
It was incredibly common. Obama campaigned on his candidacy being a reversal of Bush's expansion of executive power:

“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

I'm sure I could dig up Republican criticism of Clinton leading up to bush taking power. And on and on we go.
 

Steel

Banned
It was incredibly common. Obama campaigned on his candidacy being a reversal of Bush's expansion of executive power:

”I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the United States of America."

I'm sure I could dig up Republican criticism of Clinton leading up to bush taking power. And on and on we go.

If I remember correctly, he was talking about the Iraq War. You can go ahead and check the reponse on GAF to Obama going into Libya without congressional approval to check for hypocrisy. Most people ragged on it, Obama had a little more cover with France going in first, though.

To be honest though, I don't really feel much about that personally. Congress approved the Iraq war immediately after the fact, so it really wouldn't have made a difference.

It's also worth noting, that Obama did have a particularly low amount of executive actions compared to past presidents.
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
The number of high profile EO is what I'm talking about, most EO are small non-important

Don't think that's really true either. The only thing that was really unique about President Obama's behavior on executive actions was the media coverage. Media has changed a lot sense the start of Bush's first term.
 

Future

Member
Hey Republicans, THIS is what ergregious use of executive orders looks like you dumb fucks.

All that rhetoric is just talk. Every president does this and will do it while the other side spins it as some kind of negative. All of this is in line with expectations
 
The number of high profile EO is what I'm talking about, most EO are small non-important things.

FDR was the closest thing we came to fascism, but the war has whitewashed his legacy. Trump may give him a run for his money though.

FDR was an authoritarian through and through. He was even very close to stuffing the SCOTUS with loyalists because he didn't want to deal with the constitutionality of his actions.

Oh so like Trump and the GOP? Awesome.

All that rhetoric is just talk. Every president does this and will do it while the other side spins it as some kind of negative. All of this is expected and on line with expectations

Aside from the numbers showing Obama had one of the lowest counts, you cave say that shit when one party spent 8 years bemoaning all of the actions Obama did grand and calling it presidential overreaching AND then be OK when the new president will best Obama's numbers by March if the article is to be believed.

Both parties are not the same and both candidates were not the same. The country voted in the worst of us.
 

Gorillaz

Member
BpfXpk6.gif

Im kinda in the mood to rewatch the whole series
 
This CIA conference.

"I have a running war with the media."

I have just been watching the last 5 minutes. What the hell is he on about??? Did Trump just say that they should have taken the oil while they were in Iraq and maybe they will get another chance or am I taking this out of context by not seeing the entire thing.

He is certainly rambling on though isn't he, what's the actual message here?
 

Mr.Mike

Member
I have just been watching the last 5 minutes. What the hell is he on about??? Did Trump just say that they should have taken the oil while they were in Iraq and maybe they will get another chance or am I taking this out of context by not seeing the entire thing.

He is certainly rambling on though isn't he, what's the actual message here?

Trump calling for war crimes isn't new. It goes all the way back to the Republican debates where he called for the targeted bombing of women and children. And in the debates he has said before that the US should have just taken the oil (in Iraq).
 

Iolo

Member
With this kind of competence in the White House, maybe we have nothing to worry about.

interesting to note... as transition manager, Christie had planned out all this stuff, including executive actions, appointments, etc, for the first 100 days. Then they dumped him and scrapped all the planning
 

Monocle

Member
Hey Republicans, THIS is what ergregious use of executive orders looks like you dumb fucks.
"Nuh-uh, because our side is doing it! We're winners!"

These people have no standards. It's all about selfish opportunism. They'll do or say anything to win, and throw a giant tantrum that includes fancy terms like executive overreach when they don't get their way.
 
The more productive Trump's days are, the harder the fall will be. I wanted to say that means a higher chance of people realizing what a fraud Trump is, but then it dawned on me that Trump voters will probably sing his praises even if they're dying of dysentery.
 

Biske

Member
I have just been watching the last 5 minutes. What the hell is he on about??? Did Trump just say that they should have taken the oil while they were in Iraq and maybe they will get another chance or am I taking this out of context by not seeing the entire thing.

He is certainly rambling on though isn't he, what's the actual message here?

The overall message is:

"I am wildly insecure, love me, please love me. I order you to love me"
 

Mr.Mike

Member
interesting to note... as transition manager, Christie had planned out all this stuff, including executive actions, appointments, etc, for the first 100 days. Then they dumped him and scrapped all the planning

There are still hundreds of positions that need to be appointed, and he's only appointed like 28 people and a number of them are completely incompetent and won't be confirmed if there's so much as a single vertebrae left in the GOP. Also the bureaucracy kind of hates him, especially considering how poorly he did with college educated Republicans. And he's been working hard to turn the IC, probably one of the more right-leaning parts of the government, against him.
 
The number of high profile EO is what I'm talking about, most EO are small non-important things.

FDR was the closest thing we came to fascism, but the war has whitewashed his legacy. Trump may give him a run for his money though.

FDR was an authoritarian through and through. He was even very close to stuffing the SCOTUS with loyalists because he didn't want to deal with the constitutionality of his actions.

FDR was in no way whatsoever a fascist. In fact there was a fascist coup that was almost attempted against him.
 

RinsFury

Member
I mean, we all knew he was going to be an absolute piece of shit, but it's day two and I'm already exhausted reading about the horrible things he is doing. Like daily hits from a hammer, I'm so damn tired already and there are still four more years to go.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Using executive actions is only a problem when Democrats do it. It's called using your resources when you're a Republican.
 
Im not from the US, but can someone confirm if the following are true:

Trump has signed into a law a day of national patriotism ? Like making a new public holiday?

There will be a parade of military forces, I assume on the above day.

Or am I a victim of fake news?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom