Trump sued over '1-in-2-out' regulations order

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you complain about Obama and I have a pen and a Phone?

This door got opened over the last 8 years...

I am not thrilled now with rule by executive order, and I was not thrilled then, but the democrats lined up cheering an attempt for rule by executive order when it was their guy in office... did he consider himself king?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a lot of assumptions and projections you are making onto Trump. Where is your evidence that he has considered this? Just because YOU realize the complexities doesn't mean that he has. You guys always doubt anything we say about Trump, yet you are speaking for him like you guys are best buddies. Go prove know what he is thinking.

You realize you just called him out for making assumptions while assuming Trump is not smart enough to think anything through?

Look I know your a smart guy, but sometimes your hatred of the guy seems to skew your thinking on anything related to the guy.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
You realize you just called him out for making assumptions while assuming Trump is not smart enough to think anything through?

Apparently you DIDN'T realize that I was doing that to make a point (which clearly flew over your head).

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you complain about Obama and I have a pen and a Phone?

This door got opened over the last 8 years...

I am not thrilled now with rule by executive order, and I was not thrilled then, but the democrats lined up cheering an attempt for rule by executive order when it was their guy in office... did he consider himself king?

No it didn't. EO's have always been a thing Presidents can do and Obama didn't start trying to rule by EO until he got fed up with Congress hanging him out to dry on every thing he stood for. Hell Obama didn't even write the most EO's of any President. That honor goes to Franklin Roosevelt. Learn your history.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for proving my point, passive aggressive attacks dude... that should be beneath you..

But you have become completely irrational on any subject that revolves around politics... So lesson learned for me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, my point was just the same as it has in several threads lately.

If someone screams "RACIST!" there's a good chance they're the real racist.

Someone accusing Trump of being Hitler usually turns out to have much in common with Hitler.

Here, Trump acted as duly elected Chief Executive. You called him a 'king,' but Robart, making a decision to stay without all the facts (national security interests), listening to only one side (a petition for a stay), ignoring precedent (states don't have standing in immigration matters per multiple Supreme Court rulings), and having never had a single vote cast for him (judges are not elected), acted more like a 'king' than anyone else involved.

It's becoming easy to spot who's who lately. Listen to what they call others, and it's applicable to them. A bit dog hollers first.

So I suppose, since this claim is that the new Executive Order is unconstitutional, those filing it are violating the Constitution... or at least trying to. Very predictable.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for proving my point, passive aggressive attacks dude... that should be beneath you..

But you have become completely irrational on any subject that revolves around politics... So lesson learned for me.

If you think that is passive aggressiveness then you need thicker skin. Though way to ignore the fact that I proved you wrong and focused on whining about my attitude instead.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Here, Trump acted as duly elected Chief Executive. You called him a 'king,' but Robart, making a decision to stay without all the facts (national security interests), listening to only one side (a petition for a stay), ignoring precedent (states don't have standing in immigration matters per multiple Supreme Court rulings), and having never had a single vote cast for him (judges are not elected), acted more like a 'king' than anyone else involved.

This is all wrong and is just conservative bias. Courts have been determining constitutionality forever, and now that Trump is being questioned on his constitutionality you guys are crying because Trump can't rule by edict and has to be brought in line with the checks and balances. Lol at your reasoning. You are talking like you know nothing about being a judge.

For instance, part of the reason for the halt on the order is so that all the facts can be compiled.

It's becoming easy to spot who's who lately. Listen to what they call others, and it's applicable to them. A bit dog hollers first.

So I suppose, since this claim is that the new Executive Order is unconstitutional, those filing it are violating the Constitution... or at least trying to. Very predictable.

This is pure partisan idiocy. I thought you were above that. Guess not.

a reply to: Phage

Honestly I don't know any more than what was in that thread...I'm sure it is easily findable it was on the live page all day for like a full day so I'm sure someone can point you to it...I don't have it subscribed so I don't have a link. I shrunk the story a lot and it was explained in detail in that thread...Still though do you think it's the government's place to put such regulations on us? That was really the point of what I said...I have no interest in arguing what the contractor's intentions were... Couldn't absolutely care less.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To call out someone for bias...When you obviously swing just as hard as any conservative on here the other way...Is laughable at best...

ETA: your argument basically goes...You're bias isn't my bias...I am right because my bias is best...See look at these articles that support my bias (cherry picked for that very reason from the many many articles on Google). Therefore I am right and you are wrong.

This is the problem with basically 90% of people posting on ATS lately.

How would the FAA be able to issue new ADs to correct problems if they had to remove 2 others?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

More passive aggressive...

Yep you proved me wrong.. blame congress... Apparently President Obama was unable to do anything in 8 years because of reasons...

Every wonder how Bush when the Democrats had control still got everything he wanted accomplished... Yet when Democrats had control (for 2 years under obama), and then still had the senate for 2 years... Obama got nothing accomplished... or somehow the Republicans destroyed everything he wanted to do.

Could it be a complete and total failure at leadership?

The fact Obama wanted to delegate everything to Reid and Pelosi... where Bush was involved in everything he wanted to push. (you know leading)

1000+ seats at state and federal level went from Democrat to Republican in the last 8 years due to failures of the democrats leadership to you know lead.

I am sick to death of excuses for failures to lead, a failure to lead is worse than someone trying to lead and failing.

The democrats need to dig deep and find a set of balls, so they can start some personal responsibility and begin to figure out what is wrong with them or soon they will be the dead party, and that is not good for the nation, I do not like 1 party control in DC.

We need to stop the my team is better than your team School yard BS, and hold both parties accountable or get a third party up and running to challenge them or this country is toast.

Most of my adult life they have only looked out for themselves, they have shown minimal interest in helping the american people... and the people were to passive to stop them because things were very good, now we are reaping the fruit that was planted 20-30 years ago.

a reply to: RickyD

Got anything to say about the topic at hand? I'm not a topic in the OP, so I don't care about your opinion here.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Every wonder how Bush when the Democrats had control still got everything he wanted accomplished... Yet when Democrats had control (for 2 years under obama), and then still had the senate for 2 years... Obama got nothing accomplished... or somehow the Republicans destroyed everything he wanted to do.

No I don't, because the Democrats were willing to compromise with Bush. It is often pointed out how the Democrats also voted for the war in Iraq. The Democrats understood the merits of compromise (even if they were mislead by an idiotic leader being duped by his VP). It is the Republicans who introduced the idea that compromise is a dirty word in the realm of modern politics (with their talk of RINO's).

Could it be a complete and total failure at leadership?

No. It's petty partisan politics.

The fact Obama wanted to delegate everything to Reid and Pelosi... where Bush was involved in everything he wanted to push. (you know leading)

FYI there are different ways you can be a leader.

1000+ seats at state and federal level went from Democrat to Republican in the last 8 years due to failures of the democrats leadership to you know lead.

I am sick to death of excuses for failures to lead, a failure to lead is worse than someone trying to lead and failing.

The democrats need to dig deep and find a set of balls, so they can start some personal responsibility and begin to figure out what is wrong with them or soon they will be the dead party, and that is not good for the nation, I do not like 1 party control in DC.

So you are just going to ignore all the blatant gerrymandering the Republicans undertook in 2010 for the 2012 elections?

But in any case, there are more liberals than conservatives in this country. That is a fact that has been true for a LONG time. One of the reasons for the lost seats and governorships is because the Democratic base didn't have much to fight for. They were happy with the way things were going for the most part. Trump has pissed them off now. The Democrats are about to pull a liberal Tea Party looking at how riled up the base is. I'd be careful about how you guys proceed politically going forward. If you TRULY think it was solely the Democrats' fault they lost all that power so quickly that is. Because we may be looking at a political repeat in the near future if Trump doesn't attempt to recognize that the Democrats aren't pure evil. And he doesn't have NEAR the political buffer that Obama had starting out in 09.

We need to stop the my team is better than your team School yard BS, and hold both parties accountable or get a third party up and running to challenge them or this country is toast.

Look to your own side first, buddy. Trump started this era of massive division.

Most of my adult life they have only looked out for themselves, they have shown minimal interest in helping the american people... and the people were to passive to stop them because things were very good, now we are reaping the fruit that was planted 20-30 years ago.

Duh. They are politicians, but that doesn't mean that the public is NEVER considered in their votes. You guys act like you've NEVER had a bill passed that you supported and liked, and I find that unbelievable. I LIKE the progress we've had in our country. Nothing is perfect though and there is always room for improvement, but Trump's scorched earth EVERYTHING in politics is awful approach is not something I will ever agree with. That is because I have studied history and I know the significance of the precedents Trump pisses all over.

One more thing, just because things work slowly doesn't mean they aren't working at all.

originally posted by: jtma508
"Hey Doctor, for every new medication you want me to take you need to stop 2".

That actually is a reality for many people on medications. Side effects from contraindications are a mofo.

Because clearly every regulation is 100% needed.

That must be why Obama signed an EO to get rid of many of them, but instead created lots of new ones.

www.gpo.gov...

originally posted by: jtma508
"Hey Doctor, for every new medication you want me to take you need to stop 2".

That's actually close to how it works. Any time medication changes are made (adding new regulations) all the old medicine has to first be looked at to prevent side effects. Piling more medications on without looking to d/c as many old medications as possible would likely lead to severe side effects and even death.

That's what we have, years of medications being added without taking a hard look at what can be stopped. Thank you for highlighting just how serious the problem is and why what Trump is doing is so necessary.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Are you listening pharmaceutical propaganda or something? The only people who want us to remove medications from circulation are pharmaceutical companies unhappy about their patents dropping and the medicine goes to generics.

a reply to: RickyD

Personally, I don't care how long it would take--of the many things that the federal government spends time and money on, this would have the best ROI of anything in a long time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Trump can't rule by edict and has to be brought in line with the checks and balances.

One judge just overrode 8 USC 1182, multiple Supreme Court precedents on immigration policy and immigration standing, and an Executive Order. Does the "check and balances" principle only work one way?

I thought you were above that.

I have never been above calling out facts as I see them.

Again, the people who are screaming partisanship are the most partisan. Thanks for helping prove my point.

TheRedneck