Randall Flagg wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

My query was About procedures and rules as it pertains to  Congress in the constitution. This is something that upset you greatly when Obama engaged in executive orders.

Whether it’s about immigration or trade or the economy, this is still the president acting alone and you have stated in the past when it involves Obama that you did not like that.

Right, I don’t like executive orders that should originate from congress. An EO on how the DoJ will function is fine, an EO that attempts to change the law is bad. I can’t think of any EOs Trump has issued that were at Obama’s level, except to specifically undo an EO Obama issued that any legal scholar will tell you is unconstitutional. But if you can, you can rest assured I oppose them.

But what does this have to do with EOs?  The entire plan is to have Congress vote on it and not enter into a deal like Obama did with Iran.

The point is Trump made this deal on his own. He's not talking about it like it has to go through congress. He's the one who made the terms and he's the one who decided what was good about the deal and what wasn't.

You're opinions about whether or not it's a good deal are just that...your opinions.

Randall Flagg wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

Thanks Tuck...I mean RF...where would we be without out all of this fair and balanced approach to the news?

I’ll ask again, can you tell me where you got your opinion on the current NAFTA proposition?

My query was About procedures and rules as it pertains to  Congress in the constitution. This is something that upset you greatly when Obama engaged in executive orders.

Whether it’s about immigration or trade or the economy, this is still the president acting alone and you have stated in the past when it involves Obama that you did not like that.

Randall Flagg wrote:

Smoking Guns wrote:

Aren’t they going to try to vote on this Friday? Maybe I didn’t hear it correct.

No, they have to announce their intent to propose the deal 90 days out from a vote. I think it’s DOA because unless I’m mistaken, you need 2/3 of the senate to ratify it. No way you get 14 Democrats to put the country ahead of partisanship.

The bill could literally raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and Warren or Harris would state they’re voting “no” because it doesn’t do anything to assist transgender people or some other inane policy position the country loathes but resonates with the far left wackos (see abolish ICE).

Right...that's the only reason the could oppose it?

There were a lot of false promises about this when they implemented the tax cuts. Surprisingly, nothing of any real substance occurred. Sure you had a blerb here and a write up there about positive effects that occurred. But simultanerously things like Harley Davidson packing up some of their factory jobs and moving them across seas when Trump started fucking with tariffs.

If it was really that black and white and wages would raise as much as you say, it would be a no brainer. But ya know what? it ain't that straightforward.

There's a big reason that the tax cuts are no longer a talking point by incumbents.

mitchejw wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trut … 16841.html

Where's all your bitching about congressional approval now RF? I seem only to hear crickets.

Aren’t they going to try to vote on this Friday? Maybe I didn’t hear it correct.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trut … 16841.html

Where's all your bitching about congressional approval now RF? I seem only to hear crickets.