Social Question

stanleybmanly's avatar

Should Trump be trusted with determining the trade policies of the United States?

Asked by stanleybmanly (24153points) July 26th, 2018 from iPhone

or anything else as far as that goes

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

108 Answers

Yellowdog's avatar

What was it you all were saying yesterday?

Yet the EU negotiated in our favor (to the favor of all, really) and even China is coming to the table. You really can’t handle a successful presidency that’s not your own, can you?

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Roll Call – July 11, 2018 – “Senators delivered a bipartisan, if nonbinding, rebuke to President Donald Trump’s trade policies on the floor Wednesday, voting 88–11 to express support for congressional authority over presidential decisions to impose tariffs for national security reasons.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog So that’s a yes?

rebbel's avatar

@Yellowdog

Funny…, here, in the EU, this is how we analyse it:
“Juncker has sold existing policies in a new gift box, Trump has gracefully received it, and will sell it to his base.”

Dutchess_III's avatar

He is an utterly incompetent moron who is too stupid to know how stupid he is. Fuck everybody up with tariffs, then throw money at them to dig them out. He had no CLUE that is what would happen. He just thought he was being the big kid on the block. He has never had to deal with consequences in his life.
God. Is this nightmare over?

rojo's avatar

@rebbel that was pretty much my take from it. The EU agreed to talk with the US. Great, not like those talks aren’t ongoing.

They agreed to discuss tariffs but no agreement to change.

EU says it will buy more soybeans and gas – More? ok, way to fill in the details and by the time this is hashed out they will change little and be little noted in the press.

Then they both agree not to slap any more tariffs on each other unless one of them does it first.

I feel safer and richer already. Slap some o’ that cash this way. my soybeans are saggin’.

rojo's avatar

Here is a short (relatively) take on the EU trade “deal”:

By Hans Parisis
Thursday, 26 July 2018 08:48 AM

Trump – Juncker meeting

”...Tariffs (taxes) on autos are not mentioned in the formal statement, however markets are assuming that President Trump has completely surrendered on this point and the US consumer will not be subject to additional tariffs (taxes) on European autos.
We will have to wait and see if markets have it right this time around.
President Trump also tweeted: “European Union representatives told me that they would start buying soybeans from our great farmers immediately. Also, they will be buying vast amounts of LNG! 8:07 PM – 25 Jul 2018”
Maybe, President Trump is getting muddled again. European Union officials cannot do that.
The United States is the largest exporter of soybeans to the European Union already. The European Union does not subsidize, impose trade taxes on or have quotas on soybeans. The EU has nothing to do with the purchase of soybeans. Private EU businesses may choose to buy more US soybeans according to market forces. If they do, it will not be because of anything that happened in the White House yesterday.
Private EU businesses may also buy fewer U.S. soybeans of course.
The White House statement also reads: “The European Union wants to import more liquefied natural gas — LNG — from the United States, and they’re going to be a very, very big buyer. We’re going to make it much easier for them, but they’re going to be a massive buyer of LNG, so they’ll be able to diversify their energy supply, which they want very much to do. And we have plenty of it.”
It is a fact that various EU states have had the desire to diversify energy supplies for quite some time. The European Union has little or nothing to do with that.
The statement had the desire to go to zero tariffs and zero non-tariff barriers for trade, except, ‘weirdly,’ for autos, which was explicitly excluded from this.
The White House statement reads: “This is why we agreed today, first of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods.”
In fact, this is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trading position that the European Union was negotiating with President Obama.
So, where we will go from here, only time can tell.
Economists have always said that no one wins a trade war. The fact that the US is not raising tariffs (taxes) on autos is to be applauded and the US consumer wins as a result of that.
What’s really weird is that the US auto tariff (tax) was reversed in exchange for nothing that means anything. Perhaps EU President Juncker should write a book on the art of deal making.
Besides all that and as President Trump seems to be in the mood to concede over trade, it is worth noting that NAFTA talks resume today again.”

Here is the original article

flutherother's avatar

No, nor any other US policies. He doesn’t have the temperament, the character, the experience or the ability to run a country. It is truly horrible to watch him try. How he became president beats me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Has anyone investigated the electoral college? It seems to me that if there was going to be meddling, the electoral college would be the thing to meddle with.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

??

The electoral college followed the states’ rules on voting.There’s nothing to investigate.

For all but two states, the electoral votes in a state go to that state’s popular vote winner. Maine and Nebraska go by congressional district, so they can split. Maine went 3:1 Clinton:Trump. Nebraska was all Trump.

Electoral college members can vote against their state rules, but it has never changed an election.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I will take your word for it because I really don’t understand how it works. It’s the fact that it was the electoral college that got him in is what bothers me.

Yellowdog's avatar

Meddling with the electoral college, actually, is impossible. It doesn’t make sense because it takes the poplar vote of individual states into account.

The only way to meddle with American voting would be to hack individual votes in individual precincts. Someone who won by meddling would by necessity HAVE to win the popular vote before winning the electoral college – or else be in TOTAL control of ALL precincts

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Someone who won by meddling would by necessity HAVE to win the popular vote before winning the electoral college

Trump and George W Bush both lost the popular vote and won the electoral college.

You could hack the electoral college by persuading or forcing the members to vote against their state’s popular results. It can’t be done secretly, it would be blatantly obvious.
1) Some states would invalidate that vote and bring in a new elector
2) Some states would penalize the elector, but afterwards, too late to make a difference
3) And some would let the vote stand.

State by state details here

rojo's avatar

That, @Call_Me_Jay is called a failure of the system, or the system working as it was supposed to, depending on your proclivity at this point in time.

Yellowdog's avatar

I think they TRIED that against Trump but determined that they couldn’t get enough to change the results.

There were days of recounts in Gore/Bush but they didn’t change a thing. When Russians meddle, they try to convince the loser that they were swindled or the other side cheated.

josie's avatar

Better him than me I suppose. Or you either. Was there somebody else you had in mind.

LadyMarissa's avatar

NO…The man has lied to & cheated on ALL 3 wives & he was supposed to LOVE them; so, I wouldn’t even trust him to walk my dogs!!!

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Apparently they had to communicate like you would with Coco the gorilla.

Wall Street Journal: EU official used colorful, simplified cue cards in trade meeting with Trump
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly used colorful cards with simple explanations to discuss trade policies during his Wednesday meeting with President Trump.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Juncker relied on more than a dozen of the cards while explaining trade topics to Trump, including automotive trade, ahead of their Rose Garden announcement to hold formal trade talks.

“We knew this wasn’t an academic seminar. It had to be very simple,” a senior European Union official told The Journal.

Yellowdog's avatar

Then, how did it work, if no one, especially the main dealmaker, understood what was going one?

LadyMarissa's avatar

It didn’t work!!!

Yellowdog's avatar

I think it was quite successful Dropping tariffs—everyone wins—the only loser is Russia

LadyMarissa's avatar

Which flavor of Kool-ade do you drink most often???

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@yellowdog on a scale one to ten are you a 50 fanboy for Trump?

Oh your a sixty !

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

Who said nobody knew what was going on? The Europeans knew.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Edit: You ARE

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Yellowdog Apparently the Europeans figured out that if you can manage to seriously dumb down a topic, you might have a shot at engaging Trump’s flickering attention span.

seawulf575's avatar

I trust a businessman to deal with trade negotiations far more than I trusted a community organizer with national security.

flutherother's avatar

It is true that Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago in the early 1980’s. Do you hold that against him? Don’t you think this would have given him insight into the hardships and the aspirations of the ordinary Americans he would later serve and defend as president?

Trump on the other hand was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. Despite his self-proclaimed genius at working “deals” he went on to bankrupt four companies. His employment history includes the infamous Trump University scam which defrauded thousands of Americans and it took court action before he returned some of the millions of dollars he had fraudulently acquired.

Not a background to inspire confidence in someone’s ability to negotiate complex international trade arrangements.

rojo's avatar

I was not overly impressed with the deals that the Obama administration worked out but I have no faith in Trumps ability to do any better. It did not upset me in the least that Trump pulled out of the TPP but I have to say, I have not seen anything better placed on the table. Same with NAFTA and TTIP (although that might have been part of what Juncker was trying to explain to Trump with all the simple graphics during his meeting.

It doesn’t seem to matter who does the negotiating, it is the worker and the environment that pay the price for the pursuit of ever higher profits for the few power brokers.

Yellowdog's avatar

@flutherother Obama didn’t really do anything positive for Chicago. You wouldn’t want to live there. It got that bad under Obama, as did the nation’s decline.

Within the past eighteen months, African American and Hispanic unemployment have reached an all-time low. We’ll see tomorrow how the U.S. economy is doing.

seawulf575's avatar

@flutherother I didn’t say I was holding his community organizer work against him. But I was questioning that as a resume booster for our national security leader, leader of our militaries, his ability to negotiate trade deals, his ability to lead the free world. Seems a bit light. I was in the Navy, on a submarine, have worked in chemistry and environmental for decades. Does that qualify me to be a pilot? How about an IT specialist? No.

flutherother's avatar

@seawulf575 Obama also worked as an attorney and as a professor teaching constitutional law before becoming an Illinois Senator and then being elected to the US Senate. Obama was far better qualified to be president than Trump.

seawulf575's avatar

And as an attorney and supposedly going to school for Constitutional law, you’d think he would know more about the Constitution and have been able to actually follow it better than he did. Oh, and by the way…he never was a professor…except in his mind and on his campaign trail. But that’s just another lie….

rojo's avatar

Still with the “Obama is worse” argument and still spreading lies:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the University of Chicago Law School. A fact verified by the school. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

seawulf575's avatar

@Rojo your own citation shows he did not hold the title of professor. He was a lecturer. Big difference to professors. Chicago Law School tried giving him some credit since he was running for president and they didn’t want one of their lecturers to be called a liar right out. But in the end, their own statement bears this out. If he was truly a professor, they could easily have shown the paperwork that showed he was a professor. He would have actually held the title of professor. He didn’t. Thanks for playing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Obama was a professor. He was also a senator but he doesn’t walk around with the title of “senator” any more. That was in a past life, as was his professorship.
He graduated from Columbia University with a Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations. Then he graduated from Harvard where he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating, he became a civil rights attorney and a professor, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
Not sure what you think a “professor” is. It’s just someone who knows their stuff and can teach. He knows his stuff.

Trump barely made it through elementary school and he was a shitty, spoiled child.

rojo's avatar

@seawulf575“Chicago Law School tried giving him some credit since he was running for president and they didn’t want one of their lecturers to be called a liar right out.” And you have proof of this that you are willing to share right?

The school said he was a “professor” and, sorry, I am gonna believe them and their interpretation over yours. Nothing personal.

seawulf575's avatar

No the school said he was a lecturer and then a senior lecturer. They said a senior lecturer is are considered members of the law school faculty and are regarded as professors without being full time or tenured. In other words, he wasn’t a professor since a professor is full time and tenured. They were trying everything they could to make it look like he wasn’t lying…but he never held the title of professor. I know that, for liberals, facing facts that make your heroes look like the liars they are is never possible. I don’t expect to convince any of you since you have this deficiency in perspective. But don’t expect me to buy into the lie along with you.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course he doesn’t have any evidence @rojo. He just makes shit up and expects everyone will believe him. Kinda like Trump.

rojo's avatar

@seawulf575 And you are willing to believe everything Trump says until he says the opposite, is shown to be lying or claims he never said it in the first place, in which case whatever he said in the first place didn’t happen or doesn’t matter and besides….. Benghazi….. and emails.

Gotcha. I understand. Different worlds dude, different worlds.

rojo's avatar

Actually @Dutchess_III, he isn’t lying, technically. He is interpreting the facts to suit his purposes.

And I cannot believe I am defending him, but no biggie, I can deny later down the line it regardless of the evidence

seawulf575's avatar

Thank you all for making my point for me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I shared a meme on facebook that read: “There are 2 ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true, the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
That pretty much sums up Trump supporters.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Pretty accurate, except I see all liberals that way. Look at the last few posts. Fact: Obama never held the position of Professor. (Even proven by the link provided by @rojo) Fact: He claimed to have done so. Fact: I pointed out that lie Fact: Not one of the liberals on here can accept it. So who refused to believe what is true?

Dutchess_III's avatar

See here.

Here is the University of Chicago’s official comment on it: “UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Don’t show that @Dutchess_III; it’ll get @seawulf575‘s panties in a twist.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Cuz he’s never wrong.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Exactly. Senior lecturers hold the same status as adjunct professors, and it doesn’t matter one bit whether Obama had the title of professor. He is without question one of the preeminent legal scholars of our age, and everybody knows it.

seawulf575's avatar

And since you cannot possibly recognize that there is a reason they have a title of “lecturer” and can’t possibly consider that isn’t a professor, let me help. This shows the announcement with the unions on the dealings with lecturers AND professors. They are dealt with differently. Here is another link that shows that Research Associates (Professors) are different from Lecturers. Another shows that lecturers are student teachers. That does not qualify them as professors…they are grad students. More that shows lecturers are glorified student teachers. Please note that all of these citations come directly from the descriptions and other documents from the University of Chicago. I can’t make this stuff up. But given this overwhelming proof that a lecturer is NOT a professor, you will all, as @Dutchess_III says, refuse to believe what is true.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly He is without question one of the preeminent legal scholars of our age, and everybody knows it. Yet he managed to violate the Constitution regularly as POTUS. So he knows the law but purposefully breaks it? And just one more question…would the preeminent legal scholar of our age ever be able to get to visiting all 57 states?

rebbel's avatar

Sincere question, @seawulf575: what did he do, or didn’t do, that violated the constitution?

Dutchess_III's avatar

He became a senior lecturer. The only difference between a senior lecturer and a professor is that professors are full time (Obama was not) and they are tenured (Obama was not.) He was invited SEVERAL TIMES to become a member of the staff, therefore a professor, but declined.

@rebbel I look forward to his answers to your question.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He’s done this before.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

D E F L E C T I O N coming from our favor Wuff

stanleybmanly's avatar

He continues to embarrass himself through buying into dummy blogosphere insistence that the Constitutional expert routinely and flagrantly violated the Constitution.

seawulf575's avatar

Sincere answer, @rebbel :
1) Ignoring Federal law requiring that each state be notified when/where refuges are being placed in their state. Article II Section 3
2) In direct violation of ACA Law ( Section 36B ) ordered subsidies be paid under Federal Exchange. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
3) Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined. – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
4) Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2
5) Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.
6) Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4
7) Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3
8) Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
9) Using EPA to “legislate” over States, Congress, and Federal Court; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8; Direct violation of Presidential Oath.
10) Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2
11) Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
12) 23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment
Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3
13) 2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.
14) Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
15) Unilaterally issued new exemptions to immigration restrictions law that bars certain asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists. – Article 1 Section 1; Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the Power..to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
16) Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
17) Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3
18) Expanded executive action for amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
19) Executive action directing DHS that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
20) Ignoring Law (2006 Secure Fence Act) “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
21) Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
22) Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment
23) Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.
24) Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.
25) NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
26) Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything
27) Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
28) Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress
29) Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment
30) DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
31) Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1
32) Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated
33) Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
34) Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment
35) Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
36) Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.
37) ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.
38) Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment
39) Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers
40) Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare
41) Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.
42) Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)
43) The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.
44) Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3.
45) Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
46) Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
47) Bribery of Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Mary Landrey. (Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase) Article II, Section 4.
48) With the approvalof Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.
49) Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
50) The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
51) Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powersherein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
52) Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
53) Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
54) Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
55) Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
56) Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3
57) Waived Federal provision that prevents U.S. From arming terrorist groups – Article I. Section 1; Impeachable under Article III, Section 3.
58) Directed State Department HS to ignore law barring entry to U.S. those giving political or charitable aid to known terrorist groups. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
59) Obama shelves part of the ACA Law for Insurers, extending the life of non-qualifying (according to ACA) plans until Jan. 1, 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
60) Obama waved ACA individual mandate for those that lost their insurance. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.
61) Obama alters ACA law and exempts companies employing between 50–100 full-time workers from business mandate until 2016. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
In total, Obama has unilaterally altered ACA 24 times. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3. Violation of the Take Care Clause, Separation of Powers.

Now some of these seem more opinion or viewpoint, but many are not. They are blatant violations of the Constitution. Refusing to enforce the laws is a violation. Rewriting laws is a violation. Recess appointments are violations. Putting foreign agencies over US agencies is a violation. These are all straightforward violations.
Now…here’s what you can expect to see: A tirade of liberals telling me I need to stop going to conservative websites, selecting one or two items off the list-arguing them-then trying to denounce the entire list, personal attacks on me…everything except acknowledgement of the illegal acts committed by their liberal darling.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III did you look at all at the links I provided from the U of Chicago? Lecturers are NOT professors. Get over it. Here is a case of a liberal refusing to believe what is true.

Dutchess_III's avatar

He was a Senior Lecturer. He was a professor in all but name. The U of Chicago described him as a professor, although technically he wasn’t. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. They asked him several times to join the staff.

Somehow this just isn’t quite the same as Trump bragging ”“I’m, like, a really smart person….Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure, it’s not your fault.””

All Trump did was barely graduate from the Wharton School of Business with an undergraduate degree. He graduated with NO honors.

Source

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You can pick all the nits you want, but you only sound foolish (once again). Obama was elected President of Harvard’s Law Review. Ordinarily, anyone with the sense God gives a donut would read that and know better than to contend that such a man would waste time TRUMPING up a phony run of the mill professorship to enhance his status. The Univeristy of Chicago is in the top 5 law schools in the country-right behind Harvard, and there isn’t a single one of those schools that wouldn’t roll over backwards to have him on their faculty BEFORE you & I ever heard of him. Everyone Knows just who it is with the reputation for making shit up. You do yourself no favors in comparing the fool to a man of true achievement.

Yellowdog's avatar

Obama IS a man of true achievement. He received the Nobel Prize for being the first African American president, and he was able to accomplish that with only being ⅓ African American.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No, he’s half. His father was 100% African.
That Nobel Prize at the beginning of his presidency was bullshit, but it didn’t have anything to do with him be black. Not sure what it had anything to do with, but it was dumb. I think it embarrassed him too.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III So you admit he wasn’t a professor. Thank you. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you can try bending facts anyway you like, but you just can’t actually attach “professor” to his title. He was a lecturer. The University didn’t regard lecturers as professors. They were student teachers. And yes, everyone one does know who is making shit up…it would be you, by clinging to this ridiculous idea that Obama was a professor.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Sigh. Do you just not bother reading what other people post @seawulf575? Or do you have a comprehension problem? I didn’t say anything different in my last post about it than I’ve said 5 other times. The only difference was it was quite a bit shorter than the others. I’ll remember that.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And as for that poppycok list of fatuous blog crimes—-good luck to you and your fellow buffoons in seeking out a credible knuckle-dragging free audience.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have a blog too. Do you suppose he’d cite as PROOF, anything I wrote in my blog about Obama?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess…He was a Senior Lecturer. He was a professor in all but name. What is there about that statement that I didn’t understand. He was a lecturer, not a professor. You said it yourself. I suspect it isn’t my reading comprehension that is in question…It is you refusing to believe what is true…even when you state it. That is a bit scary, actually.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you absolutely proved me 100% right. I said I would get someone slamming conservative websites (check) and that there would be a personal attack on me (check). And last, but not least…that no one would actually acknowledge the crimes committed (check mate). I guess I wasn’t 100% accurate…you didn’t hand pick one or two crimes on the list to debate so you could just negate the whole list….you just went right to negating the whole list. In my mind that says you can’t in any way, shape, or form, prove me wrong when I state that Obama violated the Constitution, but you refuse to believe what is true. I have to thank @Dutchess_III again for airing that phrase out…it is extremely accurate, though it was projection when she used it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. I understand @seawulf575.

What you posted about Obama violating the constitution was from a personal blog. Do you know what a blog is? It’s a thing ANYONE can easily make, and then post whatever crap they want to.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You would try to dignify that screwball nonsense as “conservative websites”, which is why credible conservatives shriek with denial when the left brings up what Goldwater called “the lunatic fringe”. Of course you’re right in predicting someone would slam conservative websites, and then proceed to quote those sites ad nauseum. I might as well predict that water is wet.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Anyone can post anything they like on their blog…that is true. They can make stuff up and they can cite the truth…it is all up to them. But here’s the question…is the list wrong? That is what you are avoiding. I can tell you for a fact that there are many examples that are 100% correct. Changing the ACA was changing a law. That exceeds the Constitutional power of the POTUS. Recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate wasn’t in recess is a violation of the Constitution. Approving the Iran deal without giving the 60 day review period to Congress was a violation. The list goes on and on. All acts committed by Obama, all in violation of the law or the Constitution or both. Arguing against the source but not the substance shows you are avoiding facing the truth.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly the part that was so predictable is that you (and yes, I was thinking of you especially when I made the prediction) would attack conservative websites and make personal attacks against me, but would avoid at all costs having to actually discuss the facts that were presented. You are predictable and pathetic.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You need to prove that it is accurate. YOU are the one who presented it as your proof. You have no idea if it is accurate or not. None. You just presented it because it’s what you want to hear.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I have done the research. It is true. If you don’t believe the truth, I suggest it is up to you to prove me wrong. I’m not going to do the research for everyone on here. Let me turn it around on you…You are all making grand claims that I’m making it all up…yet not one of you has shown ANY proof. Just your word. It should, by your logic, be incumbent on you to show I am wrong.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No, you haven’t. No, it’s not true.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III You made the statement about Conservatives refusing to believe the Truth. But here’s a real deciding factor…conservatives deal with facts and will do the research and present the finding. Liberals don’t. They make statements like you just did….“no, it’s not true”...and that’s all you have. If you have truth on your side, you should be able to easily poke holes in my statements. Instead, you are reduced to denial like that covers it all. I’m asking you to go through the list I provided and show me how Obama didn’t violate the laws. We all know he changed the ACA several times. The laws specified time frames for portions to go live. Obama unilaterally ignored what was written into the law and changed it. The Senate was in a pro forma session (something the Dems did during the Bush II era) and Obama ignored that to make NLRB appointments. He was taken to court and the court ruled against him. He took it to the appeals and the Appellate court ruled against him. He appealed again and…you guessed it…he struck out again. He violated the Constitution. These are easy facts to prove or disprove…I’m being pretty specific here. The ONLY reason he wasn’t impeached is because the Repubs knew there was no way they could get the ⅔ votes to convict. The Dems didn’t care that he was violating the Constitution…they were going to defend him to the end. So rather than being brainwashed, I’m asking you to do the research and prove me wrong with facts. OR…finally admit that Obama violated the Constitution.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You’re just making stuff up again.

seawulf575's avatar

hopeless….

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 You may regard my assessment of that blog pap as an attack if you want. And I only “attack” your foolishness in succumbing to such blather. Did you even pause to read some of those alleged crimes before posting that trash here as legitimate offenses?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly No, I regard your calling me a buffoon as an attack on me. Pretty easy there. You, of course, will deny it since you can’t possibly be that rude…no liberal could. As for the rest, you have yet to disprove the list. Most of them are pretty self explanatory and easy enough to disprove if I am making it up. But remember…to disprove it, you need to have actual facts, not opinions. That always seems to be a hard thing for you. You are full of opinion, but shy on facts.

stanleybmanly's avatar

They’re moronic. Pure tripe: “44 Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. First illegal war U.S. has engaged in.” THAT one is just plain stupid and unworthy of comment. But now I understand what you’re getting at, and by your definition every President we’ve ever had routinely violates the Constitution, if the only determinant is an adverse ruling from the courts. And let me tell you, no President in the history of this country has ever suffered the judicial ass whuppin the current ignoramus is in for. That clown can’t roll out of bed without stomping on the constitution.

seawulf575's avatar

Hhmm….Every president has violated the Constitution? How has Trump violated it? How did Reagan violate it? Bush Sr.? Even Clinton? He perjured himself and abused power, but didn’t blatantly violate the Constitution. Bush II might be a stretch invading Iraq and Afghanistan, though Congress did give him carte blanche. Want to go back further? How about Carter? Ford? You have to go all the way back to Nixon before you get to someone that might have violated it. Please…enlighten us. Here’s the key…they haven’t. You rant on about Trump violating the Constitution but really….you can’t be that stupid. Do you believe for one moment that if he had even come close the Dems wouldn’t be pouncing and would probably get support from the establishment RINOs? They can’t even prove collusion which isn’t even a crime. Please. don’t belittle yourself. AND…you just completed the trifecta of my predictions…you tried picking one item off the list to discredit the whole list. Congrats…you are the most predictable liberal on these pages.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Predictable is not necessarily a vice. And to set the record straight, I will tell you for the fifth time that I am perhaps a liberal. Obama is not. You don’t know enough to understand why. But never mind. I picked the one item from your list of bloopers simply because it jumped out as so stupid that no explanation is required. It just saves time in illustrating why you should be embarrassed to show off the nitwit list as worthy of discussion. As for all of those other Presidents trampling on the Constitution? I merely extrapolated your explanation that the Supreme Court ruling against Obama proves that he violated the document. Go over those previous Presidents and try to find one not suffering an adverse decision from the Supreme Court. Go ahead, and let us know what you find. And while we’re discussing Presidents and the courts, let me add that the current President is so obtuse that a traffic court is beyond his understanding. His record of sweeping breathtakingly stupid
nakedly unconstitutional edicts since taking office set a spectacular record. Most of them are so superficially illegal that they never reach the court of appeals. It’s almost too painful to watch as the fool stumbles from boondoggle to bumpbungle banning Muslims, tossing gays from the armed services, kidnapping Children, openly profiteering from his office. He’s a crude tasteless joke, and you’re a
fool to include his name on the same page as Obama or anyone else who ever read a book.

stanleybmanly's avatar

By the way the Congress hasn’t declared a war since 1941. Every war since is technically illegal, and Reagan’s wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua were so blatantly illegal that between those conflicts and the arms for hostages episode, the only thing that probably saved his ass was the bipartisan agreement that it was not in the best interests of the country to have a President with full blown Alzheimers exposed to the world. And while we’re about it, I find it interesting that you take my argument for the futility in ranting over Hillary—that if any of that bloggy bullshit held water, the Republicans would prosecute —you now argue the same defense for the fool, even though the Democrats control neither chamber of Congress.

seawulf575's avatar

And still you don’t address the list. I’ve given you tons of examples of Obama violating the Constitution and still you try to dodge and deflect. You’re even deflecting off your deflectons now. Sad. Oh! and you liberals view Obama as a moderate left or not a left because you have gone so far radically left that even moderates look radical right to you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Dodge and deflect? What are you talking about? When I point out an example from the list that is obviously asinine, you accuse me of somehow cheating. And no, it isn’t the left which has moved anywhere. The shift has been with the wing nut conspiracy absurdists which have come to dominate the conservative view of existence. And your shit for brains list is just one example of the intellectually shallow nonsense as well as the outright dishonesty of the poor simpletons behind it. Get it through your head that the reason such foolishness as your list will never gain traction with any but the feeble minded is because it is a pile of simplistic nonsense so cravenly stupid that those positing such stupidity come off as absurd as the list they claim to be gospel.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I pointed out, when I posted the list, that some jackass would try to pick one off it and use that as a way to discredit the entire list. That is exactly what you did. Then you went into how other presidents have violated the Constitution and how the courts have ruled against them all. Deflection. At least that is what it is called when I do it. By you. You even tried saying Trump has violated the Constitution. I have now challenged you with how. And you have dodged that one altogether. Yes, you are dodging and deflecting. Are all the items on my list false? If not, then Obama violated the Constitution. You can try going point by point, but I can tell you that you no hope on many of them. He violated it. If you are going to call me a liar or continue to support the idea that Obama was an angel that never broke the law, you need to disprove every one of my points. Any other answer is a tacit agreement that Obama violated the Constitution.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III That link is the biggest load of manure I’ve ever seen. It takes liberal talking points, assumes they are true (which facts are proving they aren’t) and bases the entire diatribe on those bogus facts. He claims Trump fired Comey…that is true. But he ties it to a Conspiracy, which it isn’t. He acts like the idea of spygate was bogus, but we have seen already that the FBI did, in fact, have operatives working in and around the Trump campaign. Kinda hard to say its false when there are facts proving it’s true. It goes on and on. But you don’t want to look at articles like that and put them through the filter to try determining if they are true. You don’t WANT to believe what is true.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you LISTEN to him? Or do you have hearing comprehension issues too.

seawulf575's avatar

Actually dear, I believe it is you that has the hearing comprehension issue. Think about it. He says we are in a Constitutional Crisis. The first thing he states is that Trump fired Comey and then rolls right into Trump creating a conspiracy about Spygate and the FBI spying on the Trump campaign. The two items really don’t have anything to do with each other. The speaker doesn’t actually say anything that ties them together. But the say he says it makes it sound like they go together. Then he talks about Spygate like it is a conspiracy theory concocted by some nut. But the facts are proving that the FBI DID spy on the Trump campaign. So this speaker has stated one thing and made it sound like it was related to the next (which he never actually said), and the other he makes sound ridiculous, even though there is proof of it. But you refuse to see that he is lying to you. I don’t believe you have reading or hearing comprehension issues, but I do truly believe you have a hard time accepting truth when it conflicts with your own beliefs.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 So instead of submitting a list of what you consider strong arguments, you post a list that you recognize as defective then fault ME for pointing out the fact that the list is defective. You then have the cheek to stipulate that it is MY job to pick out the strong arguments on the list favoring YOUR point of view. If I refuse
to cull the list for you, I’m dodging and deflecting. How about this? Instead of presenting the entire pile of garbage, and being distressed with me for pointing at the visible undeniable garbage, why don’t YOU sort through the pile, THEN present us with the imaginary treasures.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I know, right???

stanleybmanly's avatar

The speaker? Look up Robert Reich. He’s virtually a household name. And the items DO all tie in together because Reichs’ little dissertation is about the tactics of a demagogue.

seawulf575's avatar

So @stanleybmanly You refuse to debate the list so you are admitting Obama violated the constitution. I know…it’s a long list…so here…I’ll challenge you with just a couple. How about:
1) Ignoring Federal law requiring that each state be notified when/where refuges are being placed in their state. Article II Section 3
8) Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3
14) Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8
35) Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)
51) Obama altered law – (A president has no authority to alter law) Delayed upholding the Employer Mandate Law (ACA) until 2015 – Individual Mandate will be enforced. A President does not have that authority – Article. I. Section. 1. All legislative Powersherein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States; The president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” -Article II, Section 3; Equal Protection Clause -14th Amendment.
52) Obama altered law – ACA Medicare cuts delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
53) Obama altered law – Enforcement of eligibility requirements for ACA delayed until 2015. Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
54) Obama wavered ACA Income Verification Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.
55) Obama altered law – Delayed ACA caps on out of pocket expenses until 2015. (when implemented premiums will skyrocket) Article. I. Section. 1; Article II, Section 3.

Now I have trimmed down the list. Let me guess….more deflection,dodging and denial. Not actually going to back anything with a logical thought or with an actual fact. More name calling and more weird refusals to actually address the challenge. I would put a shiny new dollar bet on the fact you will not address these 9 claims. Because you cannot admit the truth when it causes you to actually admit your hero is a criminal.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Quoting BS again, with no source or proof because there IS none..

stanleybmanly's avatar

This is just plain exasperating. Obama violated the Constitution—FINE. What are we gonna do about it?

seawulf575's avatar

Thank you…that’s a start. Now you can at least admit Obama was a criminal. Now let’s see how open your mind is. What has Trump ACTUALLY done that is a crime? Not things that are hinted at, not things that are speculated…what crime has he ACTUALLY committed? Not what they are investigating since I view the investigation as a hoax. What Crime has he committed?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III there is all sorts of proof. I have asked you to prove me wrong and you and @stanleybmanly have avoided even attempting to do so since you CAN’T. You can’t come up with proof I am wrong because there IS none.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

~~~~~~
@seawulf575 Just start following a better right wing blog, maybe that would help you.

J.K.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We aren’t going to do your work for you @seawulf575. We provide back up for what we claim, but it’s not up to us to prove or disprove your claims.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

He following “the Conversation” on Breitbart,

High detail news like Disneyland.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Breibart? OMG!

seawulf575's avatar

And if I disagree with something you state, I debate it…I look for the logic flaws and I dig for the facts. I don’t tell you it’s wrong without backing it up some way. On the flip side, that’s all you do…deny without anything other than “because I believe it to be so” as the back up. Now I am challenging @stanleybmanly to produce the crime that President Trump has actually committed…not just the innuendo and speculation. The actual crime. I state there isn’t one. I can’t prove something that didn’t occur. That would be up to you to prove…that it did occur.
Imagine for a moment how silly the world would be if everyone stuck to their side of debate the way you all do. We would all avoid facts and logic and would call each other names. We would create some oddity and attribute it to the other person so that we could use that as a basis to find fault in their thinking. Imagine just how screwed up the world would be.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther