Trump Administration Predictions (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

How so? Large builders and small ones have the exact same rules, in both cases regulation keep them honest. Chemical both large and small same rules, and yet, we have thousands of small chemical plant in the US. You're being duped by the very people whose pockets will benefit from the extra pollution and unsafe buildings.

Having to follow a regulation can be expensive/cost... I meant just any industry

 

[Pat Hartman]

He was under a legitimate protective stay,

There is no such thing for a member of a terrorist gang. Terrorists cannot claim asylum.

so we need to STOP going for the edge cases and stick to the easy ones.

The administration is going for the gang bangers and known criminals. They want to avoid expelling the "nice" illegals as long as possible. No one not in a gang covers his entire body with gang tattoos and I'm pretty sure once you're in a gang, you don't get to resign and walk away. It is a lifetime commitment. Even his wife was trying to cover up the tattoos on his hand in her video because they were so incriminating in their meaning.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Having to follow a regulation can be expensive/cost... I meant just any industry

In the building industry you should understand the cost of the permitting process in both money and time. In theory this process makes our buildings safer so I won't argue with its intent but small builders don't have the deep pockets that delays in inspections and permit approvals cost in holding costs as a very simple example.

 

[moke123]

No one not in a gang covers his entire body with gang tattoos and I'm pretty sure once you're in a gang, you don't get to resign and walk away.

Oh Oh,

The administration is going for the gang bangers and known criminals. They want to avoid expelling the "nice" illegals as long as possible.

This guys a scary gang banger for sure

 

[Pat Hartman]

Are those gang tattoos?

 

[Thales750]

In the building industry you should understand the cost of the permitting process in both money and time. In theory this process makes our buildings safer so I won't argue with its intent but small builders don't have the deep pockets that delays in inspections and permit approvals cost in holding costs as a very simple example.

Not a significant cost. Most houses are built by big builders because big builders build neighborhoods. Small buildings thrive on the other 20 percent. Building codes are not that big of a deal, they serve to keep out unscrupulous builders, as well as makes builders
Inds safer.
Small bui
Hers actually have many avenues where being smaller makes them more competitive.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Not a significant cost.

To YOU so screw he rest of the world. It's an opinion

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And yet, your defense of the excessive, and extremely political, Trump Co regulations about wind licenses was to go straight for attack about wind energy problems not regulations.

I choose to not waste my time on something that I think is already doomed to the ultimate regulation; one that nobody can ignore, one that cannot be stayed by a judge, one that will eventually decide the question on merit: Will the damned thing finally work or will it tear itself apart with failure after failure? If you are going to "fall on your sword" then at least pick a decent sword.

That is why I'm not jumping up and down in a screaming howler monkey fit over the Dept. of Education. Their results are abysmal. Totally abysmal. I can't support a gravitic singularity (DEI logic says we can't call it a black hole any more) that absorbs money like there is no tomorrow and yet is ignorant of the fact that they have a track record as bad as the Seattle Mariners or the Colorado Rockies or the Chicago White Sox baseball teams.

 

[Thales750]

To YOU so screw he rest of the world. It's an opinion

An opinion based on building my first house in 1987 and designing and getting permits for hundreds more..

 

[Thales750]

I choose to not waste my time on something that I think is already doomed to the ultimate regulation; one that nobody can ignore, one that cannot be stayed by a judge, one that will eventually decide the question on merit: Will the damned thing finally work or will it tear itself apart with failure after failure? If you are going to "fall on your sword" then at least pick a decent sword.

That is why I'm not jumping up and down in a screaming howler monkey fit over the Dept. of Education. Their results are abysmal. Totally abysmal. I can't support a gravitic singularity (DEI logic says we can't call it a black hole any more) that absorbs money like there is no tomorrow and yet is ignorant of the fact that they have a track record as bad as the Seattle Mariners or the Colorado Rockies or the Chicago White Sox baseball teams.

Like I said, it's not over regulation you crybout for, you just want the one's MAGA says need to go. Sharecroppers going to war so their betters can own slaves that compete with them at he cotten exchange.

 

[Thales750]

To YOU so screw he rest of the world. It's an opinion

You paraphrased again, that's because you know you can't actually compete.

 

[Isaac]

There is no such thing for a member of a terrorist gang. Terrorists cannot claim asylum.

The administration is going for the gang bangers and known criminals. They want to avoid expelling the "nice" illegals as long as possible. No one not in a gang covers his entire body with gang tattoos and I'm pretty sure once you're in a gang, you don't get to resign and walk away. It is a lifetime commitment. Even his wife was trying to cover up the tattoos on his hand in her video because they were so incriminating in their meaning.

The idea of going for the worst ones first sounds good on paper, but it turns out there's plenty of room for things to get too messy IMO.
This guy where reasonable people can completely disagree on whether he was a real gangbanger or just a guy off the street with those-people-type-caps and clothes and maybe even a friend or two, but without the criminality, and the revoking of green cards is totally unnacceptable IMO unless the person has done some absolutely dastardly thing --- generally speaking, a crime of some kind.

The truth is, the % of illegals who have criminal records is not going to produce anywhere remotely nearly (I can't emphasize that enough - not remotely near) the numbers that Trump wants to deport. He needs to be more careful and vet the candidates so there is no question of what they have done or at least been credibly accused of. A bit of domestic violence does not count, we all know what accusations get tossed around when people break up, they all claim they are victims of violence.....and for some reason, the questionable nature of 90% of these accusations is something that we conservatives seem to see very clearly when it comes to restoring gun rights..........do we not? We should apply it here too..

 

[Isaac]

@Thales750 maybe it's not such a hamper to small businesses in the construction industry, but where I have worked (among others Banking and Healthcare), the weight of the Regulations is such that entire TEAMS of people - with secretaries, project managers, scrum-masters, directors, programmers, business analysts and laymen - have to be formed just to deal with 1, 2, 3 regulations - and new ones come like a fire hose.

Sometimes it is so unworkable that large companies sort of half-ass address the new regulations and then wait for their spanking from the government (consent decrees, audit findings, etc) so that at least it is the government doing the work and coming back every year saying what should have been and needs to now be changed. They can afford that.

Surely your opinion can't possibly be that a smaller business is equally capable of footing thoses costs as a very large one?

 

[Isaac]

US citizen wrongfully arrested by border patrol in Arizona held for nearly 10 days

Official claimed Jose Hermosillo, who was visiting Arizona, was ‘without the proper immigration documents’

www.theguardian.com

Stuff like this seems to be increasing in frequency

If it gets to the point where they start profiling people just because of the way they look and my wife gets harassed in some way that'll be the last time that I vote for Trump. Not the last time I vote Republican but the last time I vote for Trump.
Not that I'll have another chance unless he changes the rules

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Like I said, it's not over regulation you crybout for, you just want the one's MAGA says need to go. Sharecroppers going to war so their betters can own slaves that compete with them at he cotten exchange.

You named a situation that wasn't worth my time because if it fails on its own, the regulations won't make a difference. I won't fight for something if I doubt that more or fewer regulations would make a difference. Dying a natural death is appropriate. And it is based on something my wife uses now and then... the Serenity Prayer. Let me fight those fights I can win, let me accept the results of fights I cannot win, and let me be smart enough to recognize the difference. I can't make it clearer than that. I don't give a rat's patootie about the wind farm regs.

I don't know all of the regulations I would whack. But I know that for the last decade plus, and probably longer, Executive Branch agencies have taken advantage of the Chevron Deference Policy to make new rules not originally declared by Congress. The Liberal argument was that the Executive Branch people were the experts and therefore should be the ones making the rules. Do you know the Harvard Law of Experts? If you take all of the experts in a particular topic and lay them head to foot, the resulting line of people STILL wouldn't reach a significant conclusion. As to "experts in economics", if I were being generous enough to include you in the list of expert economists, your group wouldn't reach a conclusion either. (Nothing personal in that - it's a statistical probability thing.)

I don't know how many "rules by fiat" were made by the agencies because they were being made faster than I could keep up. Thanks to a good SCOTUS ruling in the Loper-Bright case, those rules can be more easily challenged. We might actually get rid of a few rules.

Another thing I know, from personal observation, is that even for military situations, there are literally HUNDREDS of rules that apply on a day-to-day basis. Working for the Navy Reserve as I did, I had to know the rules over document creation and handling (including the definition of a "government document"), document storage, and document disposition. I had to understand rules about data accumulation, storage, preservation, and retirement. I had to understand the different rules about Personally Identifying Information, HIPAA Information, unclassified data, sensitive but unclassified data (SBU, which differs from simple unclassified data), and the secret, top secret, and TS/compartmented data. We had rules regarding what I could and couldn't do as a system admin for an SBU personnel system and an SBU system for tracking system patch levels. And that was for one military office. I understand regulations and I'll thank you to stop assuming that I don't know anything. The problem is that NO ONE knows how many regulations apply at various levels. But I know that for efficiency's sake, we could do with a few less here and there - and never miss them.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thomas Sowell doesn't seem to vilify the top 1% of wealth. This is from YouTube so sorry about using a reference that includes advertising.

 

[Thales750]

@Thales750 maybe it's not such a hamper to small businesses in the construction industry, but where I have worked (among others Banking and Healthcare), the weight of the Regulations is such that entire TEAMS of people - with secretaries, project managers, scrum-masters, directors, programmers, business analysts and laymen - have to be formed just to deal with 1, 2, 3 regulations - and new ones come like a fire hose.

Sometimes it is so unworkable that large companies sort of half-ass address the new regulations and then wait for their spanking from the government (consent decrees, audit findings, etc) so that at least it is the government doing the work and coming back every year saying what should have been and needs to now be changed. They can afford that.

Surely your opinion can't possibly be that a smaller business is equally capable of footing thoses costs as a very large one?

Not in that scenario.

 

[RogerCooper]

When MS-13 was declared to be a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it voided the protective stay, according to at least some articles. Remember that in my answer to NG, I expressly hedged because that is a nuance that requires knowledge of the intermeshing of various immigration and terrorist laws, which is a bit of specialized knowledge. I can only tell you that White House spokespersons claimed that the FTO claim voided his protection. If they were lying, that's not good - but they made that statement repeatedly in open press events. Someone should be able to confirm that one.

Guilt by association with a known terrorist gang would at least make him an accessory if he did something so innocuous as to stand guard at some facility or house where MS13 was staying. SCOTUS has said deportations are legal as long as they have enough time to file some sort of legal claim. What WASN'T said was that if they are illegals, they KNOW from the moment they cross the border that they have also crossed a line that would lead to deportation. Maybe I'm being harsh, but this administration's lowered tolerance has to be a warning to those who ignore our border laws. It is not enough to cross our borders any more. IMMEDIATELY be prepared to do something through our legal system to facilitate your stay, because if you don't, that is a second count against you.

The question of whether Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 is irrelevant. He was deported under the Alien Enemies Act. That law requires

"That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government"

We are not at war with Venezuela. An "invasion" has to be a literal invasion, not a metaphorical invasion. Note that 1798, it might take months to summon congress and declare war, which is why authority was granted in case of invasion. Also note that "declared war" is specified. At the time of enactment, the US was engaged in naval operations against French privateers, which was not seen as a justification for deporting every French citizen in the US.

Abrego Garcia may deportable under other grounds but not under the Alien Enemies Act which is what was used. Therefore, his deportation is illegal.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Abrego Garcia may deportable under other grounds but not under the Alien Enemies Act which is what was used. Therefore, his deportation is illegal.

Yes, but if President Bukele wants to keep him, the case also becomes moot. He is a citizen of the nation where he is incarcerated and the government leader has said in a public interview that they want to keep him. If there was a mistake, OK, someone screwed up. I'll even give you that much - which is more than many Presidential spokespersons would give. But so what? To get him back AFTER El Salvador says they want to keep him? That barn door has opened and the horses have left the barn.

I believe the President is applying the part ", or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States." In law, the presence of "OR" vs. "AND" becomes a big deal. It CAN be interpreted as "a declared war" OR "an incursion" - not an INCLUSIVE OR but an EXCLUSIVE OR. So neither you nor I have much to say of any importance. At some point this case will have to go through various courts and appeals to decide who wins in this issue. I have said this before in other contexts on the forum. Real law is made when two statutes are in opposition and someone in the court system has to resolve the difference.

 

[RogerCooper]

Yes, but if President Bukele wants to keep him, the case also becomes moot. He is a citizen of the nation where he is incarcerated and the government leader has said in a public interview that they want to keep him. If there was a mistake, OK, someone screwed up. I'll even give you that much - which is more than many Presidential spokespersons would give. But so what? To get him back AFTER El Salvador says they want to keep him? That barn door has opened and the horses have left the barn.

I believe the President is applying the part ", or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States." In law, the presence of "OR" vs. "AND" becomes a big deal. It CAN be interpreted as "a declared war" OR "an incursion" - not an INCLUSIVE OR but an EXCLUSIVE OR. So neither you nor I have much to say of any importance. At some point this case will have to go through various courts and appeals to decide who wins in this issue. I have said this before in other contexts on the forum. Real law is made when two statutes are in opposition and someone in the court system has to resolve the difference.

The VP of El Salvador made it clear that they were keeping him because the US government is paying them to do so. The question of "OR" or "AND" is not relevant, as there is no invasion or incursion. And Trump has already lost in court on this issue.