Interesting point.  How would DJT have handled this without opposition at every turn?  Heck it doesn’t even have to be favorable cooperation from the left.  I wonder how different things might be if it were just neutral opposition as opposed to open hostility.

A good leader's actions do not depend on the motives of his enemy, only the actions of his enemy.
And a good president is always looking to reconcile with his political enemies, for the good of the country, especially during a crisis.

Do you mean like the “they cling to there guns and religion” kind of reconciliation? Or the “I have a pen” reconciliation?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs

Interesting point.  How would DJT have handled this without opposition at every turn?  Heck it doesn’t even have to be favorable cooperation from the left.  I wonder how different things might be if it were just neutral opposition as opposed to open hostility.

Did DJT really "close down the country and economy"?l

---

A good leader's actions do not depend on the motives of his enemy, only the actions of his enemy.
And a good president is always looking to reconcile with his political enemies, for the good of the country, especially during a crisis.

Do you mean like the “they cling to there guns and religion” kind of reconciliation? Or the “I have a pen” reconciliation?

It takes two to tango.
Obama didn't start talking about his pen and his phone until his last year of being president. 
He tried to dance for 7 years before that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Interesting point.  How would DJT have handled this without opposition at every turn?  Heck it doesn’t even have to be favorable cooperation from the left.  I wonder how different things might be if it were just neutral opposition as opposed to open hostility.

Did DJT really "close down the country and economy"?l

The buck stops there until free thinkers awake from their slumber

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Do you mean like the “they cling to there guns and religion” kind of reconciliation? Or the “I have a pen” reconciliation?

It takes two to tango.
Obama didn't start talking about his pen and his phone until his last year of being president. 
He tried to dance for 7 years before that.

Speaking of Tango you are dancing now.  Obama started his presidency with an EO and a beer garden.  The man is every bit the narcissist that Trump is with two HUGE exceptions.  He is eloquent and he had the press on his side.  I do not think history will be kind to the Obama administration.  Correct me if I am wrong but what legislation did he get through by reaching across the isle?  Any?  Everything was by EO which is why Trump has been able to undo nearly every single policy with his own EO.  And please bring up Bush’s number of EO’s.  I beg you.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs

The closure and reopening of businesses was and continues to be on a state, county and municipal level, not federal.  How is what has happened in the US so different from closures in Spain, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Iran, Israel, etc.?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

It takes two to tango.
Obama didn't start talking about his pen and his phone until his last year of being president. 
He tried to dance for 7 years before that.

Speaking of Tango you are dancing now.  Obama started his presidency with an EO and a beer garden.  The man is every bit the narcissist that Trump is with two HUGE exceptions.  He is eloquent and he had the press on his side.  I do not think history will be kind to the Obama administration.  Correct me if I am wrong but what legislation did he get through by reaching across the isle?  Any?  Everything was by EO which is why Trump has been able to undo nearly every single policy with his own EO.  And please bring up Bush’s number of EO’s.  I beg you.

All of the important legislation he got through was before January 2011 when Republicans took over.
Everything after that was just a stalemate.  
The Republican leaders in Congress were determined to never compromise, because they believed that, while everyone's reputation would be helped by a compromise, Obama would get helped more than them, and would win in 2012 the way Clinton had won in 1996. As Mitch McConnell said, "our number one goal is to make Obama a one-term president."
Even though the plan didn't work, the thought process set in and remained for the rest of Obama's term. Rubio and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate tried to break the dam in 2013 with their immigration reform bill, but the House was stuck on stupid. There was nothing Obama could have done to bring them to the table in a serious manner.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

He closed down the country and economy , cost millions of jobs

The closure and reopening of businesses was and continues to be on a state, county and municipal level, not federal.  How is what has happened in the US so different from closures in Spain, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Iran, Israel, etc.?

You would have to ask Trump that as he said him deciding to lockdown and give people money for not working saved thousands of lives

---

These EO's put the Dems in a really bad spot politically.

---

Yeah. Unfortunately, someone has to sue, because we don't want this type of EO being used in the future.

---

Number 2 doesn't seem like a big deal to you? That's a lot of taxpayer money.

It's tricky. What I "want" for #2 is complicated. 

For starters, nobody should be making more in unemployment than they were making in employment. If they were unemployed before the pandemic, why do they need more money during the pandemic? I guess after writing that, I really am against it, but the first stimulus was a total failure and probably would have been better off being funneled through business so they could continue to make payroll with no layoffs.

If you can prove you had some earnings in 2019 and even possibly in 2017&18, you can get pandemic unemployment. Its basically for people who can't claim regular unemployment because they were self employed or didn't make minimums. So you have people making <20,000 a year. All of a sudden they are getting $600+$X (state). Depending on the state, they are getting around $800 per week and have to provide little documentation. They also don't have to be looking for work, they just can't turn down a job.

There is a bunch of fraud happening where people weren't working to begin with, signing their teens up for it, etc. It would have been better to give business the money if they didn't decrease payroll like you said. Then if the business decreases payroll the money is repayable.

---

These EO's put the Dems in a really bad spot politically.

He's only made one EO, the rest are memorandums lmao

---

Yeah. Unfortunately, someone has to sue, because we don't want this type of EO being used in the future.

Congress has standing to sue to stop additional money from being spent.  But I don't think anyone else does.  I also don't think any member of Congress wants to file that suit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's the political side that Trump is exploiting. I think citizen groups can challenge constitutional overreach, but don't quote me on that.

---

Yeah. Unfortunately, someone has to sue, because we don't want this type of EO being used in the future.

Congress has standing to sue to stop additional money from being spent.  But I don't think anyone else does.  I also don't think any member of Congress wants to file that suit.

Yes. Thus my comment that this EO puts dems in a terrible spot.

Just make sure the next pandemic doesn't take place during an election year, then we may stand a chance.

---

The closure and reopening of businesses was and continues to be on a state, county and municipal level, not federal.  How is what has happened in the US so different from closures in Spain, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Iran, Israel, etc.?

You would have to ask Trump that as he said him deciding to lockdown and give people money for not working saved thousands of lives

I didn't realize you believe everything he says.  When did he say he "...cost millions of jobs."

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Congress has standing to sue to stop additional money from being spent.  But I don't think anyone else does.  I also don't think any member of Congress wants to file that suit.

Yes. Thus my comment that this EO puts dems in a terrible spot.

Just make sure the next pandemic doesn't take place during an election year, then we may stand a chance.

Actually, according to CNN, each state is being told to pitch in on the enhanced UI benefits.  Each state would have standing to sue, also.  I think it's likely a state sues against being forced to spend money it doesn't have on short notice.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Either way, this is a power I don't want to give to the President. I think it's a savvy political maneuver, but don't think it's constitutional.

---

Yes. Thus my comment that this EO puts dems in a terrible spot.

Just make sure the next pandemic doesn't take place during an election year, then we may stand a chance.

Actually, according to CNN, each state is being told to pitch in on the enhanced UI benefits.  Each state would have standing to sue, also.  I think it's likely a state sues against being forced to spend money it doesn't have on short notice.

There is a difference. They are asked to contribute 25% to cover it. They are not forced or told to. They can say no and people in the state will get less money. Trump left it up to the states to decide if they participate or not.


It was a brilliant move. You have money coming to people unless the Democrats sue to stop it. States also with Democrat leadership can stop it. Then Trump just says see they don't care about you. It's the same stuff Democrats have done for decades. They played right into Trump's hands when they didn't want to make a deal in Congress.

---

Actually, according to CNN, each state is being told to pitch in on the enhanced UI benefits.  Each state would have standing to sue, also.  I think it's likely a state sues against being forced to spend money it doesn't have on short notice.

There is a difference. They are asked to contribute 25% to cover it. They are not forced or told to. They can say no and people in the state will get less money. Trump left it up to the states to decide if they participate or not.


It was a brilliant move. You have money coming to people unless the Democrats sue to stop it. States also with Democrat leadership can stop it. Then Trump just says see they don't care about you. It's the same stuff Democrats have done for decades. They played right into Trump's hands when they didn't want to make a deal in Congress.

If we had the world that our founders promised us, all members of Congress would resist the president expanding his prerogatives, regardless of party affiliation.
James Madison did not think we were very virtuous, and we have turned out to be less virtuous than he estimated.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.