https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-turns-on-trump_us_5a5580d4e4b03417e8733006
Fox News host slams the president over immigration.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been a staunch defender of President Donald Trump, but that may have changed on Tuesday.
Carlson called it a “weird scene” when Trump met with lawmakers of both parties and indicated he’d sign just about any deal they make on immigration.
“I’m not going to say, ‘Oh, gee, I want this or I want that,’” Trump said. “I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that you’re going to come up with something really good.”
Carlson said:
“Congress is full of people from both parties who believe that the point of our immigration policy is to provide cheap labor to their donors and to atone for America’s imaginary sins against the world.
They couldn’t care less about immigration’s effect on you or your family. Yet these are the same people the president now says he trusts to write the immigration bill, the one he will sign no matter what it says. So what was the point of running for president?”
Why is it rubbish?
How is Trump's mental state in this article?
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-daca-dreamers-announcement-2017-9
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he has "a great love" for the roughly 800,000 young immigrants who rely on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the administration announced just hours earlier it would phase out over six months.
"I have a great heart for these folks we're talking about. A great love for them and people think in terms of children, but they're really young adults," Trump told media at the White House. "I have a love for these people and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly."
In a statement earlier Tuesday, Trump argued that DACA, implemented in 2012 by President Barack Obama, was "unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court." The program offered young undocumented immigrants temporary, renewable protection from deportation and work authorization.
Trump had faced a lawsuit filed by by officials from 10 Republican states if he did not announce he would end DACA by September 5. On Tuesday, the Trump administration said the program would be phased out over a six-month period, allowing Congress time to enact a legislative solution instead.
Trump told media he had been speaking to members of Congress, and "they want to be able to do something and do it right."
"Really we have no choice. We have to be able to do something, and I think it's going to work out very well. And long-term, it's going to be the right solution," Trump said.
Originally posted by @shavixmirDon't tell me you oppose the Trump position.
So dissapointed in this thread!
I thought it was going to be a new Disney park attraction. Sort of Alice in wonderland crossed with Forest Gump in an Ender’s game-esque funny mirror arcade.
Then again, are you crazy enough to agree with him?
Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Originally posted by @whodeyI have no idea what Trump’s position is today.
Don't tell me you oppose the Trump position.
Then again, are you crazy enough to agree with him?
Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Going by his regular performance, though, I’m pretty sure it’s the exact opposite of rational.
Originally posted by @shavixmirTrump says he wants DACA and will sign ANYTHING Congress passes. No need to read it.. Additionally, he also says there is no need for a complete border wall.
I have no idea what Trump’s position is today.
Going by his regular performance, though, I’m pretty sure it’s the exact opposite of rational.
So much for draining the swamp, Trump says he thinks more earmarks would be a good thing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/trump-praises-spending-earmarks-and-capitol-hill-again-erupts-in-debate/2018/01/09/f6e950ba-f57b-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.22faf37d58b1
You simply can't get anything done without bribery in Washington it seems.
President Trump delivered an unexpected and passionate case for congressional earmarks Tuesday, injecting new momentum into a quiet effort to restore that legislative practice after seven years of dormancy.
Speaking before television cameras during a White House meeting with more than a dozen lawmakers, Trump diverged from the stated topic of immigration to air a lament all too frequently heard on Capitol Hill: Without earmarks — the custom of individual lawmakers directing taxpayer funds to specific projects — Congress just doesn’t seem to work as well.
“You know, our system lends itself to not getting things done,” Trump said. “And I hear so much about earmarks, the old earmark system, how there was a great friendliness when you had earmarks.”
“In the old days of earmarks,” he continued, “you can say what you want about certain presidents and others . . . they went out to dinner at night, and they all got along, and they passed bills. That was an earmark system. And maybe we should think about it.”
Trump only briefly acknowledged the flip side of the earmark debate.
Rampant abuse of the process, including scandals where earmarks were traded for bribes, political favors and campaign donations, led then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to impose a one-year moratorium in 2007 and then instituted new House rules scaling back their use. Her successor, John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), abolished them entirely under GOP rules in 2011 and current Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has moved to beat back attempts to revive them since.
But Trump’s two-minute tribute to earmarks gave a boost to a group of Republicans, mainly appropriators who are charged with writing spending bills, who have been lobbying Ryan and other GOP leaders for their restoration — albeit in limited form — for more than a year.
“Where do I sign?” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation and housing and attended Tuesday’s White House meeting.
After the appropriators pushed for a change to party rules in late 2016, Ryan prevailed on them to withdraw the effort, arguing it would be unwise for Republicans to bring back earmarks immediately after a “drain the swamp” election. Instead, he promised the issue would be studied and considered at a later date.
That date may have come: The House Rules Committee said Tuesday it would hold two hearings next week on whether to restore earmarks in what GOP aides characterized as a long-delayed fulfillment of Ryan’s promises.
But years after their abolishment, the subject of earmarks generates a fierce split that does not fall along party lines. Appropriators from both parties bristle, arguing that Congress has essentially ceded authority to the executive branch and lost the grease that kept their bills moving across the Hill.
“It worked,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who sat next to Trump and found himself in rare agreement with the president.
But plenty of lawmakers feel little need to restore a practice that a significant portion of the public came to see as legalized graft — especially after multiple elections in which voters revolted against the Washington establishment.
“Huh? The President just embraced earmarks? Talk about the swampiest of swamp creatures. You gotta be kidding me,” tweeted Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) after Trump made his remarks.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, shared that dismay: “I don’t remember us campaigning on bringing back earmarks.”
That sentiment was also expressed by the leaders of several conservative groups who have been critical of the GOP establishment. Club for Growth President David M. McIntosh said that restoring earmarks “virtually guarantees that they will lose the House.”
House Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) said Tuesday that he supported revisiting earmarks and said there could be a process that could allow lawmakers to fund projects in a “transparent and meritorious” manner. Some proposals would limit earmarks only to state or local governments or to certain agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers.
“We are not moving backwards,” Sessions said. “It would not be a recommendation for us to move back to almost any part of a system that I saw that existed before 2011.”
Originally posted by @whodeyHow is immigration affecting you and your family?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tucker-carlson-turns-on-trump_us_5a5580d4e4b03417e8733006
Fox News host slams the president over immigration.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson has been a staunch defender of President Donald Trump, but that may have changed on Tuesday.
Carlson called it a “weird scene” when Trump met with lawmakers of both parties ...[text shortened]... l, the one he will sign no matter what it says. So what was the point of running for president?”
