4 ms·

Honestly curious: why does the timing make it untrue?

masonic 8y ago
Because what they are rolling it back to is just the pre-August 2015 rule. In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  That's a really confused way to look at policy.
  - masonic 8y ago
    It's not a reflection on policy so much as on media coverage of policy changes.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      In the comment I replied to, you plainly try to invalidate a policy goal based on it being rolled out near an election, a thing that is pretty much always true (nationally significant elections occur every 2 years...).
      - masonic 8y ago
        a thing that is pretty much always true How many examples can you give from the Bush 43 administration? Or Bush 41? Or Reagan? The practice of implementing major policy changes as a lame duck was pretty much nonexistent before 2000. It becomes an even bigger problem when rules are implemented that conflict with law, like the 2014 DACA expansion[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_...
        kyralis 8y ago
        "Less than two years after inauguration" is a very bizarre definition of "lame duck".
        masonic 8y ago
        It was 6.5 years after inauguration.
      - gpm 8y ago
        On the other hand the context of this discussion is > back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era The comment you objected to was, in my reading, mainly noting that this was reverting to the policy in place nearly 2 full presidencies after said era.
- rco8786 8y ago
  By this logic everything passed during the last year or two of Obama’s (and I guess any president’s) 2nd term is political chits? Just because they didn’t pass the law for a few years doesn’t mean they didn’t care. There’s only so much any body of people can do at once.
  - shard972 8y ago
    The claim wasn't at it's core about Obama caring, it was about the false media framing this as a return to the bush era (between 10-18 years ago), when really its a change that happened in the Obama era (2-10 years ago).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rco8786 8y ago
      That claim is fine. I was responding to this: > In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.

Because what they are rolling it back to is just the pre-August 2015 rule. In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.

maxerickson 8y ago
That's a really confused way to look at policy.
- masonic 8y ago
  It's not a reflection on policy so much as on media coverage of policy changes.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    In the comment I replied to, you plainly try to invalidate a policy goal based on it being rolled out near an election, a thing that is pretty much always true (nationally significant elections occur every 2 years...).
    - masonic 8y ago
      a thing that is pretty much always true How many examples can you give from the Bush 43 administration? Or Bush 41? Or Reagan? The practice of implementing major policy changes as a lame duck was pretty much nonexistent before 2000. It becomes an even bigger problem when rules are implemented that conflict with law, like the 2014 DACA expansion[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_...
      - kyralis 8y ago
        "Less than two years after inauguration" is a very bizarre definition of "lame duck".
        masonic 8y ago
        It was 6.5 years after inauguration.
    - gpm 8y ago
      On the other hand the context of this discussion is > back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era The comment you objected to was, in my reading, mainly noting that this was reverting to the policy in place nearly 2 full presidencies after said era.
rco8786 8y ago
By this logic everything passed during the last year or two of Obama’s (and I guess any president’s) 2nd term is political chits? Just because they didn’t pass the law for a few years doesn’t mean they didn’t care. There’s only so much any body of people can do at once.
- shard972 8y ago
  The claim wasn't at it's core about Obama caring, it was about the false media framing this as a return to the bush era (between 10-18 years ago), when really its a change that happened in the Obama era (2-10 years ago).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rco8786 8y ago
    That claim is fine. I was responding to this: > In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.