TexasCHLforum.com

Mxrdad wrote:

Jusme wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:Even at my most optimistic, I did not imagine that President Trump would act so quickly and decisively. I am very much impressed and encouraged.

I didn't expect things to move so quickly, but then I remembered Trump is not like a normal politician, he is a businessman, and they actually come to work to get things accomplished. I know there will be some things on his agenda that will take time, because he will have to go through Congress, but I have no doubt he will be pushing for them to get off their duffs, and get to work.

I agree. He is moving at lightning speed which the rest of the politicians aren't used to. He is gonna keep them on their toes which is wonderful to see.
I often wonder if some of the Liberals will ever give him credit when/where credit is due. Kinda doubt it but hopeful and would be good to see.

No the liberals are going to fight him at every turn. They will do everything they can to prevent approving his SCOTUS selection, and anything else they can do. They know that the Republicans will use the "Reed Rule" even though it hasn't been used for a SCOTUS selection, since it has precedence, they will enact it if necessary.
The MSM is still so filled with their self importance that they are going to do everything to discredit, and criticize his every move, because they can't see that he got elected in spite of their efforts.
He is running circles around everyone, and I think the shock waves are going to be so loud throughout the hallowed halls of power, that they will be overwhelmed. JMHO

Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

First, the democrat leadership has been getting increasingly to the point they will do anything they can get away with. So I don't think Dems would hesitate one second if they really wanted their own SC pick approved, but couldn't get the votes. The proof of this is they already used the nuclear option for cabinet and less judge picks. So I really have no issue with Republicans doing this.

Second, Republicans are more inclined to approve SC picks even if they have opposing political views. Democrats seem to be voting 100% party line. The Senate was not intended to sit on SC nominations indefinitely.

Third, I think the current Senate rules about filibustering are silly. They want to filibuster without actually stepping up and talking. They could still do that if they really wanted to.

President Trump ended his speech at the Republican retreat in Philadelphia by looking into the crowd of elected officials and reminding them of their sacred duty.

"All of us are bound by duty and bound by God to give our full devotion to this country and its people," he said.

Trump Keeping His Promises - Cal Thomas
http://calthomas.com/columns/trump-keeping-his-promises

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

I worried enough about her winning during the whole process, over 1 year of worrying. She is gone and not a concern now as far as the Presidential position is concerned. I'm sure she will stir the fire every chance she gets, as she has also proven by publicly announcing she was "Proud" of the Women's march. Now, in my opinion, if the Womens march had been about real issues, no problem. But the trash that came from folks like Madonna, Ashley Judd and the likes, well, was just that. Trash. It had no substance. Cry baby Liberals whining over not winning. There are plenty more Dems that will carry on the disgusting acts they have proved they are capable of. Would she be praised for her bold leadership? No. Except from the Liberals which are proving every day they don't have a clue about the real world.

My 2 cents.

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the mainstream media wouldn't be anywhere near as critical and dishonest regardless what Hillary did. She was the press' golden girl that could do no wrong. Obama benefited from a much friendlier press than Trump has.

The biased press is doing everything they can to play gotcha.

Trump is busy and he isn't ignoring the carry of guns. Here's an encouraging article.

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-pl ... ingbuttons

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, similar to the way in which state driver’s licenses are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen too often.

mojo84 wrote:Trump is busy and he isn't ignoring the carry of guns. Here's an encouraging article.

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-pl ... ingbuttons

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, similar to the way in which state driver’s licenses are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen too often.

"Leaves Millions Furious". Not the educated other millions.

mojo84 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the mainstream media wouldn't be anywhere near as critical and dishonest regardless what Hillary did. She was the press' golden girl that could do no wrong. Obama benefited from a much friendlier press than Trump has.

The biased press is doing everything they can to play gotcha.

The stories today about all the senior management at the state department resigning is just another example of the biased media lies. 4 people were let go by the Trump administration. They did not resign. The most senior of those ran one of ten departments at state. Yet many, many media outlets jumped on the bandwagon and said the sky is falling.

Lynyrd wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the mainstream media wouldn't be anywhere near as critical and dishonest regardless what Hillary did. She was the press' golden girl that could do no wrong. Obama benefited from a much friendlier press than Trump has.

The biased press is doing everything they can to play gotcha.

The stories today about all the senior management at the state department resigning is just another example of the biased media lies. 4 people were let go by the Trump administration. They did not resign. The most senior of those ran one of ten departments at state. Yet many, many media outlets jumped on the bandwagon and said the sky is falling.

State Department, home of Madeline Halfbright, Hitlery, and John "Swift Boat" Kerry. My concern is that the cuts at State were not broad or deep enough!

mojo84 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the mainstream media wouldn't be anywhere near as critical and dishonest regardless what Hillary did. She was the press' golden girl that could do no wrong. Obama benefited from a much friendlier press than Trump has.

The biased press is doing everything they can to play gotcha.

We can't do anything about the press aside from dropping their revenue. My point was, if a Democrat had won and started issuing executive orders on firearms or their components, immigration, the (U)ACA and the environment, would we be going on and on about Executive Branch overreach or would we be saying "good for them?"

Many people are happy now because their guy is in the WH and things are starting to go their way. Arguably, the actions taken by President Trump have been to scale back 8 years of federal and Executive Branch overreach. My point is, is this the example we want to be setting? "They did it, so we should too!"

I'd honestly rather see the laws created by following the Constitutionally defined process to clarify these issues than to have enforcement of the laws subject to the will of the President.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Now imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary had won and was now doing a lot through executive action, there was talk of the nuclear option on confirming a new member of SCOTUS...

Would we like that? Would she be praised for her bold leadership or would the media still be trying to figure out what hit them?

Just something for thought if we are going to be intellectually honest and internally consistent.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the mainstream media wouldn't be anywhere near as critical and dishonest regardless what Hillary did. She was the press' golden girl that could do no wrong. Obama benefited from a much friendlier press than Trump has.

The biased press is doing everything they can to play gotcha.

We can't do anything about the press aside from dropping their revenue. My point was, if a Democrat had won and started issuing executive orders on firearms or their components, immigration, the (U)ACA and the environment, would we be going on and on about Executive Branch overreach or would we be saying "good for them?"

Many people are happy now because their guy is in the WH and things are starting to go their way. Arguably, the actions taken by President Trump have been to scale back 8 years of federal and Executive Branch overreach. My point is, is this the example we want to be setting? "They did it, so we should too!"

I'd honestly rather see the laws created by following the Constitutionally defined process to clarify these issues than to have enforcement of the laws subject to the will of the President.

Which law has Trump made via executive order?

I agree with the premise of your comment. My comment was regarding gullible people falling for the the slanted reporting that makes the executive orders Trump is signing worse than they are.

Here's the difference between Trump's orders and Obama's so far. Trump's are executive orders giving the executive branch orders and directives to follow the law. They counter/offset/resend the Obama executive orders that erroneously made or changed laws. Trump is leading from the oval office and Obama was legislating from the Oval office. There is a big difference.

mojo84 wrote: Here's the difference between Trump's orders and Obama's so far. Trump's are executive orders giving the executive branch orders and directives to follow the law. They counter/offset/resend the Obama executive orders that erroneously made or changed laws. Trump is leading from the oval office and Obama was legislating from the Oval office. There is a big difference.

Crisp and to the point!