Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[mojo84]

As far as priorities, I know quite a few people that are uninsured right now because they make too much to qualify for subsidies and too little to afford the outrageous healthcare premiums. I bet this effects more people than those that want to check their mail while carrying.

We use a PO Box for our business mail and check it every day. Yes, it is inconvenient and I'd like to see the rules changed. However, I can wait until some of the more pressing issues are addressed.

[Liberty]

Liberty,
Do you really want the executive branch picking and choosing which laws they want to enforce and which ones they do not?

As I understand it these are rules, and regulations, made by the the Post Office and Army Corp of Engineers, not by the legislative process. They can be removed by the same process and chain of command that created them.

Even if this were simply a matter of issuing an executive order, the next POTUS could rescind such EOs when he/she took office. By passing legislation, it makes it more difficult to undo.

Agreed, but Congress hasn't done anything about yet, and so far doesn't seem too inclined to do so. An EO would be immediate.

[mojo84]

Liberty,
Do you really want the executive branch picking and choosing which laws they want to enforce and which ones they do not?

As I understand it these are rules, and regulations, made by the the Post Office and Army Corp of Engineers, not by the legislative process. They can be removed by the same process and chain of command that created them.

Even if this were simply a matter of issuing an executive order, the next POTUS could rescind such EOs when he/she took office. By passing legislation, it makes it more difficult to undo.

Agreed, but Congress hasn't done anything about yet, and so far doesn't seem too inclined to do so. An EO would be immediate.

Here's a simple question. Which issue do you think is more pressing, you being able to carry a gun while checking your mail or this http://www.heritage.org/debt/report/201 ... nforcement

[Flightmare]

Liberty,
Do you really want the executive branch picking and choosing which laws they want to enforce and which ones they do not?

As I understand it these are rules, and regulations, made by the the Post Office and Army Corp of Engineers, not by the legislative process. They can be removed by the same process and chain of command that created them.

Even if this were simply a matter of issuing an executive order, the next POTUS could rescind such EOs when he/she took office. By passing legislation, it makes it more difficult to undo.

Agreed, but Congress hasn't done anything about yet, and so far doesn't seem too inclined to do so. An EO would be immediate.

It might be immediate, but it would also be temporary. And since an EO was in place, I'd imagine Congress would have even LESS of a sense of urgency to push for legislation. Sometimes you have to let the wheel remain squeeky in order for someone to fix it right.

[canvasbck]

Him getting elected did a lot for gun owners. Removing the restrictions in those locations would be great and important. However, I believe he is dealing with much more urgent and pressing issues at the moment. He has done a lot in the short time he's been in office.

Added emphasis mine.

I don't see what he's done. It's possible I missed it. He got broad support from the NRA, and made a big deal of it. He owes us, So far Obama did more for us than Trump has yet. I know its still early, nut I'm starting to get impatient. Like I said it would just take a pen and a couple of phone calls.

I am glad he won and Hillary lost and Obama is not in power anymore. Lots of us voted for Trump even though we found a lot about him distasteful, but we had hopes for his support on 2nd amendment issues.

The Texas legislature went into session BEFORE his inauguration. He's pretty much blowing them away on getting things done!

[bblhd672]

Agreed, but Congress hasn't done anything about yet, and so far doesn't seem too inclined to do so. An EO would be immediate.

A great many Americans want a return to Congress passing laws and the Executive branch managing the country.

We just had 8 years of government by executive fiat, you want that trend to continue or a return to how the country was intended to be run?

[Abraham]

So, you prefer to leave all the monstrous eo's in place that O put in place?

Trump is fighting fire with fire, then when that's done, we look forward to Congress possibly getting off their collective butts and doing what's needed to help the country. As it is, if President Trump were avoided using eo's, how quickly would congress do anything to get all the previous/pernicious eo's off the books? Answer, not in time, if ever...

But you've still got the Shelia J Lee's, Schumer's, Pelosi, etal, continuing their blocking anything they can block, so eo's may have to used for awhile.

[Liberty]

As far as priorities, I know quite a few people that are uninsured right now because they make too much to qualify for subsidies and too little to afford the outrageous healthcare premiums. I bet this effects more people than those that want to check their mail while carrying.

We use a PO Box for our business mail and check it every day. Yes, it is inconvenient and I'd like to see the rules changed. However, I can wait until some of the more pressing issues are addressed.

While fixing replacing Obamacare is a priority, its pretty much up to Congress to pass a plan. All he can do now is be a cheer leader for reform.

I think that a lot of people think I don't approve of Trump, I like a lot of what he has done. but I also believe that we need to hold his feet to the fire, and if we the gunrights supporters don't expect our rights to be given a priority, then he won't. We let the two Bushes and Reagan off the hook, and they didn't do anything for us.

[dale blanker]

Remember Watergate in '72? Well, here we go again... what did the president know and when did he know it?

Gee I said that 2 weeks ago and I thought I was kind of kidding... but after Flynn, now there's Sessions with a memory problem, Danafort with an answering problem, Ross with a bank association problem, Kushner with a meeting problem... drip, drip, drip...it looks like maybe we'll be seeing a tax return after all.
And what happened to the revised executive order on immigration/refugees?

Dale,
You are extremely consistent! Always wrong, never in doubt! Congrats!
The Democrats and their media are making a big push to portray Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a Russian agent, or at least catch him in a perjury trap, because they had to talk about something other than President Trump’s address to Congress until the weekend news cycle kicks in.

Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

[bblhd672]

So, you prefer to leave all the monstrous eo's in place that O put in place?

If you were responding to my post, the answer is no. President Trump can and should use Executive Orders to overturn Obama's EO's, especially those which bypassed existing laws or "created" new ones outside Congress as well as the overreaching regulatory web spun in the last 8 or so years.

What Trump should not do is use Executive Orders to create new laws that achieve his political purposes.

[2farnorth]

Remember Watergate in '72? Well, here we go again... what did the president know and when did he know it?

Gee I said that 2 weeks ago and I thought I was kind of kidding... but after Flynn, now there's Sessions with a memory problem, Danafort with an answering problem, Ross with a bank association problem, Kushner with a meeting problem... drip, drip, drip...it looks like maybe we'll be seeing a tax return after all.
And what happened to the revised executive order on immigration/refugees?

Dale,
You are extremely consistent! Always wrong, never in doubt! Congrats!
The Democrats and their media are making a big push to portray Attorney General Jeff Sessions as a Russian agent, or at least catch him in a perjury trap, because they had to talk about something other than President Trump’s address to Congress until the weekend news cycle kicks in.

Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

It might be good if you listened to some alternative media. Rush Limbaugh just went through the Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian ambassador. It was set up by the Obama administration and occurred at the republican convention. The ambassador was there by invitation to observe and meet with people. This same ambassador was at the white house more than 20 times. So what. That's an ambassadors job. He's basically a lobbiest for his country. I also heard some of the same story on another radio program last night.
This stuff is being fed to the NY Times with the purpose of disrupting Pres Trump's ability to govern. Its being orchestrated by Valeri Jarrett and funded by Soros's minions. Obama's new home in DC is the headquarters. Their stated goal is force Pres Trump to resign or be impeached. They will keep throwing stuff to see what sticks and of course there's people out there that believe any thing these morons say.

[dhoobler]

Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

Here is a detail that I have already posted once, but apparently you were not listening. I will try again.

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.

http://beltwaytimes.com/sessions-comments-context/

You are right about one thing. The dems are overreacting.

BTW, what exactly is there for the president to resolve about the "Russian Connection"? In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

[dale blanker]

Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

Here is a detail that I have already posted once, but apparently you were not listening. I will try again.

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.

http://beltwaytimes.com/sessions-comments-context/

You are right about one thing. The dems are overreacting.

BTW, what exactly is there for the president to resolve about the "Russian Connection"? In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

Yes, I'm aware of Sessions' answer being "in context" but, given all the focus on Russian influence to the election, one could reasonably expect that ALL Russian meetings should have been noted. Also, he was the only member of the Armed Services Committee to meet with the Russian... being a member of the Foreign Relations Committee seems more applicable.

Actually, he should have just answered the question that was asked and would have avoided concern about the accuracy of the answer he gave. And then his staff had to advise him about whether or not to recuse himself... really?

I think the President could encourage the assignment of a special prosecutor, encourage all staff (and family) to fully divulge any Russian communications, and release his tax returns. I expect Russian collusion is non-existent so why not take the lead in getting it cleared?

[bblhd672]

I think the President could encourage the assignment of a special prosecutor, encourage all staff (and family) to fully divulge any Russian communications, and release his tax returns. I expect Russian collusion is non-existent so why not take the lead in getting it cleared?

Sure why not, but lets investigate every Senator and Congressman who has had any contact with the Russians over the past year.

You do realize the Russian Ambassador was sitting with the DEMOCRATS at the President's speech? Let's dig into what that's all about.

[dhoobler]

Please be specific so I might learn and do better. The items that I mentioned are not my invention; they are in the news because of leaks. The Dems may be overreacting but it sure would be nice if the President was pro-active in resolving the "Russian Connection".

Here is a detail that I have already posted once, but apparently you were not listening. I will try again.

During questioning by Al Franken regarding a fake dossier, Franken asked Sessions if anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government. Sessions said that he had been called a surrogate, but he had not communicated with the Russians. This statement has been taken out of context to smear him because Franken was referring to the campaign’s communication with the Russians. Sessions had contact with a Russian ambassador twice, but it was when he was working in his capacity as a senator, not with the campaign. He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, so this is not unusual. His answer was truthful in the context of the question.

http://beltwaytimes.com/sessions-comments-context/

You are right about one thing. The dems are overreacting.

BTW, what exactly is there for the president to resolve about the "Russian Connection"? In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

Yes, I'm aware of Sessions' answer being "in context" but, given all the focus on Russian influence to the election, one could reasonably expect that ALL Russian meetings should have been noted. Also, he was the only member of the Armed Services Committee to meet with the Russian... being a member of the Foreign Relations Committee seems more applicable.

Actually, he should have just answered the question that was asked and would have avoided concern about the accuracy of the answer he gave. And then his staff had to advise him about whether or not to recuse himself... really?

I think the President could encourage the assignment of a special prosecutor, encourage all staff (and family) to fully divulge any Russian communications, and release his tax returns. I expect Russian collusion is non-existent so why not take the lead in getting it cleared?

The Russian influence on the election is purely speculative. There is not one scintila of evidence that the Russians influenced the outcome of the election. The premise upon which your claim is based is flawed.

There is no need for a special prosecutor. There is no credible evidence of any wrong doing by Sessions. You once again ignore the point that:

In our system of jurisprudence, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accusee. Trump is the accusee. The real question is not what Trump will do, but rather, when will the democrats come up with real evidence of wrongdoiing and not some contrived accusation based on an out of context quote.

In case you missed it, this article was published today in the LA Times, hardly a friend of repubicans.

...
This is the Holy Grail — or smoking gun, to switch clichés — of some Democrats’ imaginings. Trump has been criticized for mocking concerns about Russian interference in last year’s election as an attempt by Democrats to delegitimize his presidency. But let’s face it. If it were established that his campaign colluded with efforts by Russian intelligence to hack into Democratic email accounts and feed the contents to WikiLeaks for dissemination, that would delegitimize his victory big-league — and it might implicate campaign aides who were involved in criminal conduct. Watergate comparisons would be in order.

Of course, as the New York Times conceded in its most recent story, such collusion “has not been confirmed.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... story.html