DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump’s Campaign Promises. The scoreboard II

If you've been a non-fan of the Biden admin reinterpreting archaic language to re-invent "law", you'll probably be a fan of this. It actually amends the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to future-proof. I know it's slim, but the outside chance another liberal-minded madman takes the helm with an eye on cultivating new voters requires all the advance checks and balances possible.

It also expands "crime of domestic violence" so that we can identify trash as what it is and ship it back where it came from.

If you're a fan of the 10,000 illegal immigrants in Texas alone charged with sexual offenses (more than 6,700 of those charges were for sexual assault), you probably won't like this bill. If you think it's about time we do something about it and quit acting like these are just wash-away statistics -- you'll love it.


On a side note and not really being talked about, what many will call "grandstanding" I call sending a message. Sanctuary cities now have a new set of circumstances to stand up to (and man-up to the pressure applied because of) while they wave their flag of "trying to protect".

If it's possible that they may face increased legal scrutiny by continuing to shield individuals who could be deportable under the expanded criteria, we should all be in favor of that. This pissing match needs to end with someone realizing they're peeing down their own leg so that we can get back to a sense of normality guided by common sense.

So are those 10k in Texas that were charged going to be deported after serving their sentence? I'm thinking the answer is yes. Convicted criminals are already deportable.

But first maybe we should wait until they're convicted?

So you think duplicating a law whose actual wording is something that's already law is "sending a message"?

Let me ask you, exactly what portion of this country do you really believe and wants convicted criminals that are in our country illegally to stay here? That's why this is grandstanding.

All you're doing is supporting one pissing match while claiming pissing matches should end.

I keep forgetting -- Thursday is "ignore responses and create new questions day". Not my favorite day as I have to constantly reword like I'm writing "Reading For Dummies" and my copy/paste fingers get tired.

You've been defending this trash for four years, plus you always have some unique insight to sexual predators, so I'll let you have the last word on this one.

And I have to read how to respond to the posts of dummies. So I guess we both have a problem here.

Show me one example of where I have ever defended people with an illegal status who have either committed a crime in this country or cross the border with a felony record ever be allowed to remain in this country? You won't because you can't.

Actually the only thing I've advocated for is that those who crossed the border illegally over 5 year ago who are working and have have committed no crimes be offered a path to citizenship. I don't see how removing productive, tax paying people who have proven they are not a criminal should be expelled from our country.

And once again that is too mean for far left liberals and not tough enough for trumpians.

This trash? You mean like a man who cheated on all three of his wives? Cheated on his current wife with a porn star? Claimed being rich and famous allowed him to grab women by the pu$$y and was convicted on 34 felony counts? Constantly threatens and calls people names who oppose him or won't go along with everything he says? Let me guess. You mean a different kind of trash?

Oh, crap, forgot to scream "Truuuummmp!!!"

So predictable.

Calling one side trash while you promote trash is just as predictable.

I wanted to make sure I circled back to this. Couldn't just do a quick post because it required some thought and it was a fair ask.

To answer your initial question, I would say the biggest was everything to do with the 2020 election. It certainly culminated in J6, but Mike Pence certifying the election was perhaps the most glaring example of "checking" Trump. I think that also serves as a double-down of my point as well. During that time, he had quite a combination of manipulators (Thomas, Stone, et al) who were beyond destructive, combined with enabled sycophants (Giuliani, Cruz) who I think exacerbated his impulses. I do think he is very easily manipulated and/or spun up by those who stroke his ego.

Some of the other times when he was held in check:

When Trump fired James Comey. We all remember it, but just from the Wikipedia page:

"Trump dismissed Comey by way of a termination letter in which he stated that he was acting on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.[4][5][6] In the following days, he gave numerous explanations of the dismissal that contradicted his staff and also belied the initial impression that Sessions and Rosenstein had influenced his decision.[7][8] Trump publicly stated that he had already decided to fire Comey;[9] it later emerged that he had written his own early draft of the termination letter,[10] and had solicited the Rosenstein memo the day before citing it.[11] "

Another example is when Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, and then he, too, was "asked to resign."

The House Foreign Affairs Committee (both Republicans and Democrats) also had to pressure Trump to incorporate sanctions against Russia in 2019, which were legally mandated (this pertained to the nerve agent assassination in England). The same thing happened previously with sanctions pertaining to election interference.

Another example along that same theme has to do with Trump's appointment of Michael Flynn, which, to this day, absolutely terrifies me. FBI investigated and held it in check:

"On December 29, 2016, the day President Obama announced sanctions against Russia, Flynn discussed the sanctions with Kislyak, urging that Russia not retaliate.[439] Flynn initially denied speaking to Kislyak, then acknowledged the conversation but denied discussing the sanctions.[440][441] When it was revealed in February 2017 that U.S. intelligence agencies had evidence, through monitoring of the ambassador's communications, that he actually had discussed the sanctions, Flynn said he couldn't remember if he did or not.[440]

Upon Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, he appointed Flynn his National Security Advisor. On January 24, Flynn was interviewed by the FBI. Two days later, acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed the White House that Flynn was "compromised" by the Russians and possibly open to blackmail.[442] Flynn was forced to resign as national security advisor on February 13, 2017.[441]"

Keep in mind, there was also photographs of Flynn sitting next to Putin I believe at a dinner.

As you can tell, by nature of what I do, I am no fan of Russia. To be perfectly frank with you, I thought Obama botched relations with Russia horribly for the first six years of his administration. Awful. He seemed to turn it around after the Ukraine invasion and called Putin out for what he was. I was hoping Trump would continue that line of thought because of how strong his personality was. Needless to say, it was a letdown. The worst of which was when he gave into his impulses and AGREED WITH PUTIN OVER THE NSA on live television. I remember seeing that clip when I was on a treadmill at the gym after work. That had me abondoning all hope on his relationship with Russia. I stopped the treadmill and put my hands over my head just staring in disbelief. That was the moment when my disappointment with him on Russian stuff really started turning to anger.

Anyhow, other areas:

I suppose he wasn't really held in check on this one, but there were attempts to raise alarm: COVID-19 Outbreak, and I'm not talking about vaccines, but the initial response. He even had Republican Senators (Lamar Alexander IIRC) speaking out against how he downplayed the initial outbreak and kept undermining the whistle blowers.

Mattis resigning when Trump decided to abandon our allies in Syria. Mattis was my "boss" at the time and he was well decorated and respected. Former four star in that post. Now we have a talk show host.

David Shulkin getting fired and then talking about resisting efforts from the WH to privatize VA healthcare.

There is also all the fallout scenarios with John Kelly. He went into the administration as CoS who I think agreed vehemently with Trump on a lot of policy decisions, but I think was ready to hit the road, citing the chaos and impulsiveness of the WH.

There are probably other scenarios too, that I am forgetting, but I need to wrap this up for now.

Good discussion.

Something I thought at least you might be interested in if you didn't already know about it................

Federal Staff Erasing DEI Buzzwords to Escape Musk’s DOGE Axe

Workers are worried that using woke language could make them targets for job cuts.

Federal employees are editing out any mention of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in government documents to avoid being axed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s budget purge.

They fear the new Department of Government Efficiency will target any woke language or policy speak as it launches the Trump administration’s avowed federal jobs cull.

Five sources from different government agencies told CNN that workers are changing the wording in performance reviews and job descriptions in an attempt to go under the radar.

Since Trump’s election victory, any mention of DEI has been dropped to avoid unwanted scrutiny. According to the insiders, even words that could be associated with DEI policies—such as “equity” or “diversification”—are being stripped from government documents.

The word “policy” is also being removed from written job descriptions and reviews.

Staff are said to be concerned that artificial intelligence will be used to scout out buzzwords to alert the administration cost-cutters even if the context has nothing to do with progressive policies.

“People are definitely reimagining how to communicate what they’ve done and do to try and escape scrutiny,” admitted one federal employee.

There was concern that DOGE would use a “hatchet not a scalpel” in finding roles to lose.

“It’s in line with what lots of organizations and the private sector are doing, changing the words they use,” Jason Briefel, head of policy and legislative affairs at the Senior Executive Association, which represents senior federal staff, told CNN.

Musk and Ramaswamy are leading the outside initiative and say they plan to implement the incoming president’s plan to slash the federal workforce and cut the federal budget by at least $1 trillion.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/federal-staff-erasing-dei-buzzwords-to-escape-musks-doge-axe/

Trump Threatens to Bypass GOP Congress to Unleash MAGA Plans
Janna Brancolini
Fri, January 17, 2025 at 8:33 AM EST·4 min read
51

Donald Trump is threatening to bypass Congress to unleash his MAGA agenda, according to a report.
Jeenah Moon / REUTERS
If anyone was expecting moderate Republicans in Congress to temper Donald Trump’s more extreme plans on immigration and tariffs, the president-elect doesn’t plan to give them the chance, Trump told lawmakers this week.

During a two-hour meeting with Senate Republicans, Trump said he plans to immediately enact his MAGA vision instead of waiting for Congress to act, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal. He has already prepared about 100 executive orders, and he has no qualms testing the legal limits of presidential authority, he said.

For months, Trump’s aides have been looking at obscure laws passed about 50 years ago that he can invoke to unilaterally carry out his plans and bypass congressional funding limits. Instead of feeling preemptively constrained by constitutional checks and balances, he plans to do what he wants and take his chances with the courts, the Journal reported.

“The American people can bank on President Trump using his executive power on day one to deliver on the promises he made to them on the campaign trail.” Trump transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Beast in a statement.


For example, to help pay for his mass deportations, he plans to use the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which he also used to fund parts of his border wall during his first term. Previous presidents used the act to fund things like the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks—not to fund something Congress had explicitly declined to pay for, the Journal noted.

Trump is also eyeing a provision in the 1944 Public Health Service Act called Title 42 that lets the government expel migrants coming from countries with communicable diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used it to lock border entry during the COVID-19 pandemic, and now, Trump is disease-shopping to find a new excuse to invoke it.


He also reportedly plans to issue an executive order limiting birthright citizenship, even though the 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Instead of taking on the near-impossible task of changing the Constitution, he apparently wants to issue an executive order and then argue to the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually guarantee birthright citizenship.


Meanwhile, on the tariff front, Trump is reportedly intrigued by the idea of using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act—which lets the president impose tariffs and economic sanctions during times of war or another national emergency—or the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs to be used to address national security concerns.

In theory, those laws don’t just give the president unchecked power, though. The Supreme Court has held that any time a federal agency tries to enact a policy with “vast economic and political significance,” the courts have to scrutinize the law in question to determine whether Congress actually intended to give the agency that power.

The Supreme Court used this so-called “major questions doctrine,” to strike down two of President Joe Biden’s key policies in 2022 and 2023. It remains to be seen whether the justices will hold Trump—who appointed three of them to the bench—to the same standard.

This week, Trump announced he planned to create an “external revenue service” to collect “tariffs, duties and all revenue that come from foreign sources,” which in theory would need to be approved by Congress.

The announcement obscures the fact that “tariff” is just a fancy word for an American tax paid by American businesses on imported goods, with the added costs typically passed on to American consumers.


In November, Trump proposed a 25 percent tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada and a 10 percent tariff on products from China. That would amount to about $272 billion in taxes, economists told CNN at the time, which would in turn drive up prices.

Business groups are already lobbying the president for tariff exceptions and carve-outs, the Journal reported. That might explain in part why so many of America’s billionaires—whose companies rely on Chinese manufacturing—are flocking to Washington, D.C., for Trump’s inauguration on Monday.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-bypass-gop-congress-133310646.html

the find out phase begins;

'I don't think anyone voted for that': Trump's own fans bracing for 'catastrophic' cuts
Travis Gettys
January 16, 2025 11:58AM ET

'I don't think anyone voted for that': Trump's own fans bracing for 'catastrophic' cuts


Educators and families in areas where Donald Trump's "America First" seemed to resonate the most could be hit with "catastrophic" cuts.


Tom Gambrel, the superintendent of Bell County, Kentucky, schools, joined most of his neighbors and cast his vote for Trump with his students in mind, but he told CNN that he hopes the president-elect doesn't carry through with his plan to cut federal education funding.

“I don’t think that anyone in our county wants to cut our school funding," Gambrel said, "and I don’t think that anyone voted for that."

ALSO READ: Fox News has blood on its hands as Trump twists the knife

Gambrel said the proposed cuts would be “catastrophic," forcing teacher layoffs, packing more students into classrooms and getting less attention for vulnerable students.

A CNN analysis found that all 15 of the states that rely most heavily on federal support for public schools in 2022 backed Trump in November, while all but two of the 15 that receive the fewest federal dollars as a percentage of their overall revenue supported Kamala Harris.

“This is one of these cases where (Republican) policies are stabbing their base right in the heart and will directly impact their kids,” said Will Ragland, vice president of the Center for American Progress.

Trump hasn't shared many details of his proposal, although he has spoken in support of shutting down the Department of Education, and Republicans proposed an 80-percent cut in 2023 to Title I, which pays teacher salaries in low-income communities, and a 25 percent cut last year.

“You notice a trend here: A lot of these proposals are impacting the most vulnerable students,” said Weadé James, senior director of education policy at the Center for American Progress. “This is really just a pattern of making things worse for those who are already at the margins, and that’s concerning."

The Project 2025 blueprint for Republican governance calls for expanding school choice and turning federal school funding, such as Title I and programs that support students with disabilities into no-strings-attached block grants to states, which experts say would redirect funding away from marginalized communities.

“If we start putting public money in private schools, they become public schools," Gambrel said. "I just don’t think that taxpayer money should be distributed to private schools."

It seems that trump is following the advice of J.D. Vance where the rule of law as well as the separation and autonomy in regards to the three branches of government no longer matter. Of course it's not as if most of us hadn't seen signs of that before and expected more of it coming.


For anyone that isn't clear as to what that said, please read it again.