Difference between Trump/Boeing and Obama/Coal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

OK (although Obama didn't start out using executive actions, that took years of obstruction). Using executive actions to cancel procurements would be one thing. Tweeting about companies is another. When is Trump going to stop tweeting?

Please Mr. Trump, stop singling particular companies for tax breaks or tweet-attacks. Failing that, please stop tweeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Different PP. Trump should not be canceling procurement programs at all. Actually, it would be illegal to do that since spending decisions are made by Congress. Little thing called Article I of the Constitution. Plus, Nixon tried not to spend appropriated funds, resulting in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds).

If Trump wants to take this approach, he should be promulgate procurement rules that require a certain amount of jobs be in the US or something along those lines. Trump's utter lack of understanding of governance, though, makes this extremely unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trumpp did not tweet about Boeing because of overruns and offshoring.

The Carrier deal may have been ideological, although that's arguable. The Boeing tweet is just awful -- no ideology, bad optics, and bad business.

This is what draining the swamp looks like. Many sacred cows attacked, many 'experts' shocked. All this looks just fine from flyover country.

Very few people in flyover land care. They have lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Dear GOD, such basic ignorance of the Constitution. And yet, if we point it out to him, we're just DC elitists hanging out in Foggy Bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

Really? DACA didn't trump immigration laws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Dear GOD, such basic ignorance of the Constitution. And yet, if we point it out to him, we're just DC elitists hanging out in Foggy Bottom.

We've been walking the path of executive overreach for a while now, and Trump's going to take it to a whole new level. 240 years of mostly functioning checks and balances isn't terrible, I suppose.

It makes me weep, and I can't stand the hypocrisy TBH. But the Constitution has been on the losing side of America ever since the passage of the PATRIOT Act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

Really? DACA didn't trump immigration laws?

No, it really didn't. I could explain it to you, as I've done in the past on this forum, but every previous time, posters have disbelieved me. Feel free to believe what you wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

Really? DACA didn't trump immigration laws?

Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. That includes the right to prosecutorial discretion and the ability to decline to enforce the law, as an inherent part of the enforcement power. Again, this is Constitution 101. Of course there are lines to be drawn but the basic concept is Constitution 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

Really? DACA didn't trump immigration laws?

Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. That includes the right to prosecutorial discretion and the ability to decline to enforce the law, as an inherent part of the enforcement power. Again, this is Constitution 101. Of course there are lines to be drawn but the basic concept is Constitution 101.

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

If Trump uses actual procurement rules, subject to the rule of law and judicial review, motivated by an actual policy concern (as opposed to First Amendment retaliation), then yes, it's the same thing as Obama's actions. I would disagree with the substance, but there would not be a fundamental violation of rights.

He's President-elect right now. All he has is a microphone and a Twitter account. Once he's President, these sentiments will become that old Obama favorite - "Executive Actions". if Obama can through executive action stop enforcing immigration laws, Trump can sure as heck cancel some procurement programs.

Ok so, there are actual laws and regulations governing procurement. They are quite detailed, and the contractors have a boatload of rights. Executive Actions can't trump Congress, existing regulations, or contracts. And an Executive Action that was specifically in retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights would likely be unconstitutional. Here's some reading for you. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf.

Really? DACA didn't trump immigration laws?

Congress makes the laws. The president enforces them. That includes the right to prosecutorial discretion and the ability to decline to enforce the law, as an inherent part of the enforcement power. Again, this is Constitution 101. Of course there are lines to be drawn but the basic concept is Constitution 101.

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

Said loans were predatory and sold a sub par education to people they knew would not graduate. Very. Very different. Also. I believe the courts were involved as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

Because many of the for profit schools are scams to draw Pell grants and student loans and then leave students with no marketable degree and plenty of debt. It should have been done 30 years ago.

Trump has no clue about DoD procurement rules. The current Boeing contract is for R&D to meet the government requirements for security, capabilities, communications, and other systems. Air Force One is not just a corporate jet. There is no $4 billion contract. He is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? You don't see the difference between the Obama administration passing regulations (subject to full due process, transparency, and appealable to the courts) and Trump retaliating against a single company because its executive stated views he didn't agree with? Seriously?

No, I don't. Obama used Education Dept rules on loans to kill as many for profit colleges as possible. If Trump uses DoD procurement rules to save US jobs, I don't see how it's all that different.

Said loans were predatory and sold a sub par education to people they knew would not graduate. Very. Very different. Also. I believe the courts were involved as well.

yes, and not to mention it was government money the for profits were demonstrably wasting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well said. Unfortunately, the current administration was so aggressive in executive actions and discretion that it has set the bar for the Trump admin. I expect to hear a lot of executive actions justified by 'Obama did it before us'. You reap what you sow I guess. Bush II stretched executive authority, and Obama ran with that hard.

I suppose Congressional dysfunction had nothing to do with Obama's use of executive action...

Our government needs to function. If it doesn't function one way, it'll function another way. But as Obama has discovered, courts trump the other two branches. If Trump chooses to go forward with executive actions, he too will discover that.

Different PP. I completely understand why Obama made the choices he did, but it doesn't mean that they would not have had potentially risky consequences. The American system of government is designed to be very slow moving and to place high hurdles in front of doing anything. One can argue that it's actually become outdated with regard to enabling modern governance. There was always the risk that Congress could simply refuse to govern, and back in the 1780s when the Constitution was written that was not seen as the crisis it is today.

The fact that there was some justification for Obama's actions does not change their consequence with respect to Constitutional checks and balances. More and more, I think it's a real question as to whether we need a new Constitutional convention. That seems almost insane, but so does having a reality TV star with no governing experience as President.