Credit: to publicly acknowledge someone as a participant in the production of.

That's your generic google definition. To credit Trump with writing a policy to keep families together should be an easy thing to do if your goal was to keep families united. This doesn't mean you honor Trump for something you believe he should have done anyways. It's a recognition that he changed what you feel he should have changed. You, and several other within the political sphere, are choosing to malign him for doing what you requested, when you should be reveling in a victory. The fact that you imply he is weak for changing his policy seems odd to me. It only makes sense if your primary goal is tarnishing him. If that's the case, why bother engaging in a real conversation with you?

Along the same line, before you call me an easy mark, you should learn to read. The EO doesn't change anything without a district judge granting an exemption in this case. If the judge grants an exemption, then Trump can lawfully keep families together (which will just become a different issue altogether). If she doesn't, he is legally bound to carry on separating families. It's weak only if he fails to get that exemption.

My point, since you missed it the first time, was that if you had read what was written in the EO, you might have had a valid complaint with regards to his policy. Instead you say that Trump is weak. Nothing of what I have written so far has taken a political side. I've just laid out the facts.

Please pick one that you think is incorrect if you want to have a discussion in good faith.

---