Nope... Not sure what your second sentence is saying, because at post #20 you challenged him to name a policy you supported. I haven’t seen him name anything after that...
And...boom goes the dynamite... You support the wall? I read that and then I read your post calling him a liar so I made the assumption you didn't support the wall and the other things he mentioned
Old man i said i dont support Trump policies. You named a general policy. I countered with newroxfan had specific policies in mind and said he named them. You said he didnt name any. I pointed out where he named policies. What is your confusion?
Did he name a policy you supported? EDIT Does it make you feel better about yourself to call me old man?
He didn't name a policy i support because he can't. Thats my point. What is the confusion? No when you're confused and your confusion drags a conversion on and on like it gas in the past i call you old man out of frustration
I like this one, as I wanted something like this to happen back in 2010 with every gang locally, mostly to protect abuelitas and kids from the violence in the barrios. But knowing this administration, they'll associate little 4 yr old juanito as a cartel member or leader.
"Trump's New Budget Uses More Realistic Assumptions Than His Predecessors' Did" . . . BUT, "Trump's budget projects 10 straight years of 3 percent growth. If this forecast fails to materialize, it will make the budget deficits worse than projected": The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that each administration report "the economic and programmatic assumptions" underlying a budget. The result is a database of every administration's growth forecasts released since 1975. Using this data, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) just released a report showing that this administration "is the first on record to have experienced economic growth that meets or exceeds its own forecasts in each of its first two years in office." The report displays two charts that span the Carter administration through the Trump administration. One chart shows the first year in office, the other the second year, and each show what the administration forecasted growth to be versus what was achieved. For both years, the Trump administration's actual growth was equal or slightly higher than the projected growth rates. While it forecasted growth of 2.3 percent during Trump's first year in office, it reached 2.5 percent. In the second year, its projection of 3.1 percent was equal to actual growth. https://reason.com/archives/2019/03/21/trumps-budget-uses-more-realistic-assump
Jonathan Turley argues that Trump's waiving of executive privilege re: the Mueller report is a big deal. Excerpt: . . . The most notable line of Barr’s letter was largely overlooked. Indeed, from a historical perspective, it could prove to be one of the important lines of the entire Justice Department deliberation over the report. Barr stated that “There are no plans to submit the report to the White House for a privilege review.” And that would constitute a total waiver of executive privilege — an act that is both commendable and unprecedented in its degree of transparency. The waiver of executive privilege has gone with nary a mention in coverage, as has the impressive speed and scope of Barr’s disclosure in handling the report. Yet, for critics of executive privilege, this is a decision that is not only historic but good for our democracy. Many of us have criticized Trump for inappropriate comments that undermine the integrity and dignity of his office. That will be a lasting and troubling part of his legacy. However, this will also be part of the record, too. While praise is only begrudgingly given to this president by a media he constantly (and offensively) labels as “the enemy of the people,” the decision to waive privilege is not just worthy of praise but could well eclipse his predecessors in yielding inherent powers to the public interest. In his letter to Congress, Barr noted that “although the President would have the right to assert privilege over certain parts of the report,” he decided not to do so. It was an extraordinary moment not only for Trump but for Barr. As I explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee at Barr’s confirmation, he has a robust view of executive power and, over the course of his career, has established one of the most unyielding, consistent defenses of executive privilege. That line means Barr will confine his redactions of the report to four well-recognized areas: classified information, privacy-protected information, information related to ongoing investigations, and grand jury information. Mueller reportedly is helping to decide what information to redact. Trump could have claimed sweeping privilege and tied up the report in the courts for much of the remaining two years of his term. Although Democrats have threatened to subpoena the report, such fights over hundreds of pages and thousands of sources can be like invading Russia in winter, as courts try to comb out privileged, protected information. While Trump consented to Mueller interviewing his close aides, the disclosures made to Mueller were not waivers of privilege because Mueller is part of Trump’s Justice Department. Conversely, the Trump team has preserved privilege claims in testimony before Congress. Even before this decision to waive privilege, Trump allowed far greater transparency than his predecessors. President Barack Obama was repeatedly criticized for his sweeping claims of executive privilege and refusal to comply with congressional oversight committee investigations. The “Fast and Furious” investigation was a classic example: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives tried to track guns across the Southwest border, and one of those guns was used to kill a federal officer. The Obama administration stonewalled and slow-walked “Fast and Furious” document demands from Congress. The result was that former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, but the Justice Department refused to submit the case to a grand jury — a decision I heavily criticized at the time. The same congressional Democrats now clamoring for disclosure on Mueller were conspicuously silent when President Obama refused clearly appropriate demands for disclosure in such investigations. District Judge Amy Jackson Berman rejected the executive privilege claims of the Obama Administration in the “Fast and Furious” case, noting that those were unsupported. While Obama pledged to be the most transparent president in history, he immediately sought to prevent disclosures to the public and the media. The Associated Press documented the systemic denial of access to information by the Obama administration, which only became more hostile to press and public inquiries with each passing year. If you separate his rhetoric from his actions, Trump’s record has been more limited in his claims compared presidents like Obama, who readily embraced notions of the “imperial presidency.” While Obama often voiced appealing sentiments of restraint and respect for constitutional authority, his record in the courts and Congress was breathtakingly extreme. Conversely, while Trump’s rhetoric is extreme and autocratic, his record is far more moderate on privileges claims. more at the link: https://jonathanturley.org/2019/04/...ve-privilege-over-the-special-counsel-report/
Given that Barr - a recent Trump appointee who has likely had to pledge loyalty - is going to heavily redact the report there is no need for Trump to exercise executive privilege.
The open question is whether this is another one of Trump's 16,000 Presidential lies or not.. I have zero doubt that Trump will change his mind if that suits his needs.
Excerpt: How bad has Trump derangement syndrome gotten in Washington? Consider this: On Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was set to receive the 2019 Foley American Hostage Freedom Award, in recognition of the Trump administration’s work in releasing Americans held hostage abroad. The award is named for James W. Foley, the American journalist who was kidnapped and beheaded by the Islamic State. But at the last minute, the award was mysteriously rescinded and Pompeo disinvited from the gala that he had agreed to attend. By any objective criteria, Pompeo deserved the award, because the Trump administration has the best record in freeing American hostages of any administration in modern times. In just over two years in office, President Trump has secured the release of 20 people, including 17 Americans, from foreign captivity. The most recent was in February, when Danny Burch, an American engineer at a Yemeni oil company, was freed after being held by unidentified captors since September 2017. Others liberated from captivity include Pastor Andrew Brunson, who was released by Turkey; Otto Warmbier, Kim Dong-chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang-duk, released by North Korea; American aid worker Aya Hijazi and her husband, previously held by Egypt; UCLA basketball players LiAngelo Ball, Jalen Hill and Cody Riley, and Texas business executive Sandy Phan-Gillis, released by China; Caitlan Coleman, her husband and their three children, released by the Taliban; Sabrina de Sousa, a former CIA officer, released by Portugal; and Mormon missionaries Joshua and Thamy Holt, released by Venezuela. That’s more captives freed in two years than President Barack Obama got released in eight. And as Pompeo noted, “This work has been accomplished without the concessions that only encourage more hostage taking by kidnappers and terrorists.” Trump freed our hostages without setting Taliban leaders loose from Guantanamo Bay, or sending wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies to Iran on an unmarked cargo plane — which only creates incentives for criminal regimes to seize Americans. So why was this well-deserved award rescinded? As Pompeo explained in a gracious letter to Diane Foley, mother of James Foley, “I understand that the Foundation decided to rescind the Freedom Award and my invitation … due to pressure from its media partners and your fear, stated in your recent letter, that some guests at the dinner would not show my office proper respect if I attended.” The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported, “Knowledgeable sources said the group’s 'media partners’ promised to boycott the event if Pompeo got the award." more at the link
Kind of misleading to call the UCLA players “hostages.” They were being held because they stole items.
Isn't that a Trojan horse plan? Aren't that paying for the paid family leave by taking out of your social security?
