Politics

[John Wasmuth]

If trump was as vindictive as claimed HRC would be in prison, James Comey would be in prison, McAbe would be in prison along with a whole slew of others. What got him F’d over was his lack of pursuing the prosecution of the tyrants that caused this whole mess.

 

[BSO Dave]

Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves was a violation of the Constitution, regardless of its moral correctness. The 13th amendment passed by Congress, and ratified by the States, was the proper remedy to that sad chapter. It’s not a matter of me, or anyone, or everyone liking it. His action was Unconstitutional. We either have the rule of law or we don’t.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinon.. I merely stated Lincoln's own admission of overstepping as one of the most prominent examples of how executive powers have been used and justified. You are commenting from the perspective of a perfect system. Sadly, there is no such thing.. In a perfect system, Rule of Law and the Constitutionality of Presidential actions should ultimately be decided by the other two branches of government through either a Supremem Court ruling or impeachment from Congress. Lincoln was not subject to either of those likely due to the results he ultimately acheived.

The point being that the Rule of Law is open to the interpretation of the people and the times. This is precisicely why, if nothing else, Trump's SCOTUS appointments were so signifigantly important.. Our Constitution, as magnificent of a document as it is compared to all other forms of government, is not perfect and these bounaries will continue to be tested for as long as we exisit as a Republic which is not for much longer if things continue as they are..

I‘m more than willing to see some important stuff not get done than to empower any President to make law on his own. Tyranny is the inescapable end of that particular tunnel. Many people disagree with me on that. Our Constitution was designed to save us from ourselves.

I would advise caution in going down the rabbit hole of assuming what our founding fathers intended as compared to what is actually in the Constitution.. A great many proposed articles and amemendments from some very brillinat men never made into the final draft.. Had Hamilton had his way, the POTUS would have had very extensive and profound powers much more aligned with a Monarchy than a Chief Executive of a small 3-branch central government. Hamilton wanted Washington to run for a 3rd term and beyond to perpetuate the policies and vision he so adimantly advocated for.. He wanted a much bigger and more powerful central government, and he also argued that the right to vote be earned by the ownership of wealth and property. (Actually one of his better ideas).. Point here being that the Constitution was a product of imense compromise of the founders who where often in stark disagreement with their individual intepretations of the document itself and how it would be applied. That is why they created the 3 branches with unique check and balance power. And when all else fails as a check on tryanny, the voters get to decide every 4 years..

@BSO Dave ... I'm thankful for how you debate here. We may not see eye to eye on this, but I appreciate how you present your points.

I deeply repspect your opinons, and I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from.. I think we agree more than you realize on general principle.

My only intention in replying to you was to emphasize that a non-vote is a vote for the other side which cannot happen if we want to keep this country. Regardless of how unappealing Trump's character may be, we must vote for him should he become the nomineee becasue the alternative is unthinkable by any measure of sanity..

 

[spike.t]

Macron has humiliated himself – and the EU

So much for Western unity. The French president’s trip to China shows he learnt nothing from Ukraine

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[CoElkHunter]

I'm not disagreeing with your opinon.. I merely stated Lincoln's own admission of overstepping as one of the most prominent examples of how executive powers have been used and justified. You are commenting from the perspective of a perfect system. Sadly, there is no such thing.. In a perfect system, Rule of Law and the Constitutionality of Presidential actions should ultimately be decided by the other two branches of government through either a Supremem Court ruling or impeachment from Congress. Lincoln was not subject to either of those likely due to the results he ultimately acheived.

The point being that the Rule of Law is open to the interpretation of the people and the times. This is precisicely why, if nothing else, Trump's SCOTUS appointments were so signifigantly important.. Our Constitution, as magnificent of a document as it is compared to all other forms of government, is not perfect and these bounaries will continue to be tested for as long as we exisit as a Republic which is not for much longer if things continue as they are..



I would advise caution in going down the rabbit hole of assuming what our founding fathers intended as compared to what is actually in the Constitution.. A great many proposed articles and amemendments from some very brillinat men never made into the final draft.. Had Hamilton had his way, the POTUS would have had very extensive and profound powers much more aligned with a Monarchy than a Chief Executive of a small 3-branch central government. Hamilton wanted Washington to run for a 3rd term and beyond to perpetuate the policies and vision he so adimantly advocated for.. He wanted a much bigger and more powerful central government, and he also argued that the right to vote be earned by the ownership of wealth and property. (Actually one of his better ideas).. Point here being that the Constitution was a product of imense compromise of the founders who where often in stark disagreement with their individual intepretations of the document itself and how it would be applied. That is why they created the 3 branches with unique check and balance power. And when all else fails as a check on tryanny, the voters get to decide every 4 years..



I deeply repspect your opinons, and I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from.. I think we agree more than you realize on general principle.

My only intention in replying to you was to emphasize that a non-vote is a vote for the other side which cannot happen if we want to keep this country. Regardless of how unappealing Trump's character may be, you we must vote for him should he become the nomineee becasue the alternative is unthinkable by any measure of sanity..

I agree mostly with your post here. Lincoln had/has been described as the "benevolent dictator" of his time. "Lincoln was not subject to either of those due to the results he ultimately achieved". Maybe for THAT period in our history, the "one off" exception to the Constitution and thus expanded "executive powers" was justified? When's the next "exception"? Brandon's radical march towards climate change and gun control using "enhanced" executive powers? Or a future President using his/her enhanced executive power for something even more ominous whom "is not subject to those due to the results they achieve"? SLIPPERY SLOPE!

 

[Doug3006]

I'm not disagreeing with your opinon.. I merely stated Lincoln's own admission of overstepping as one of the most prominent examples of how executive powers have been used and justified. You are commenting from the perspective of a perfect system. Sadly, there is no such thing.. In a perfect system, Rule of Law and the Constitutionality of Presidential actions should ultimately be decided by the other two branches of government through either a Supremem Court ruling or impeachment from Congress. Lincoln was not subject to either of those likely due to the results he ultimately acheived.

The point being that the Rule of Law is open to the interpretation of the people and the times. This is precisicely why, if nothing else, Trump's SCOTUS appointments were so signifigantly important.. Our Constitution, as magnificent of a document as it is compared to all other forms of government, is not perfect and these bounaries will continue to be tested for as long as we exisit as a Republic which is not for much longer if things continue as they are..



I would advise caution in going down the rabbit hole of assuming what our founding fathers intended as compared to what is actually in the Constitution.. A great many proposed articles and amemendments from some very brillinat men never made into the final draft.. Had Hamilton had his way, the POTUS would have had very extensive and profound powers much more aligned with a Monarchy than a Chief Executive of a small 3-branch central government. Hamilton wanted Washington to run for a 3rd term and beyond to perpetuate the policies and vision he so adimantly advocated for.. He wanted a much bigger and more powerful central government, and he also argued that the right to vote be earned by the ownership of wealth and property. (Actually one of his better ideas).. Point here being that the Constitution was a product of imense compromise of the founders who where often in stark disagreement with their individual intepretations of the document itself and how it would be applied. That is why they created the 3 branches with unique check and balance power. And when all else fails as a check on tryanny, the voters get to decide every 4 years..



I deeply repspect your opinons, and I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from.. I think we agree more than you realize on general principle.

My only intention in replying to you was to emphasize that a non-vote is a vote for the other side which cannot happen if we want to keep this country. Regardless of how unappealing Trump's character may be, we must vote for him should he become the nomineee becasue the alternative is unthinkable by any measure of sanity..

You are commenting from the perspective of a perfect system. Sadly, there is no such thing. Our system isn’t perfect. Nothing man designs is. But it is by far the best system man has ever devised. We suffer when we subvert it.

 

[Red Leg]

Presidents do all sorts of draconian things when engaged in an existential conflict. For instance Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, imprisoning for the duration without trial both suspected Southern sympathizers and those we today would call "political prisoners." His actions were given the force of law by the Congress in 1863. He also aggressively strong-armed even imprisoned some opposition journalists for spreading what he considered falsehoods or what we today would call disinformation.

And of course the most Draconian of all was FDR. His imprisonment of families and seizures of businesses of a whole race of people who were American citizens should make a BLM activist blush.

 

[cpr0312]

 

[Tundra Tiger]

The meme above... Wow. His was a losing proposition no matter which road he chose.

 

[Ray B]

He could have made it in the movies----as Harpo Marx' stunt double.

 

[Red Leg]

View attachment 527312

This sick character was married (as a husband) from 1988 until 2011. He has two children. Imagine bringing the grandchildren to see this.

 

[fourfive8]

Brent Spiner as Dr Brackish Okun in the movie Independence Day … double take!

 

[Ray B]

This sick character was married (as a husband) from 1988 until 2011. He has two children. Imagine bringing the grandchildren to see this.

About 30 years ago the firm that I was with had a client. she had 2 children with the fellow that was her husband, but he left her to live with another guy who had been his college roommate. Subsquently the former husband had hormone and full surgery to become "completely female" (it's words). The former wife learned that during their entire marriage the husband had been having an "affair" with his college roommate. After the divorce, the former husband and the former roommate got married.

Imagine being one of the children and trying to explain to the other players on your baseball team just who is picking you up after the game.

 

[spike.t]

About 30 years ago the firm that I was with had a client. she had 2 children with the fellow that was her husband, but he left her to live with another guy who had been his college roommate. Subsquently the former husband had hormone and full surgery to become "completely female" (it's words). The former wife learned that during their entire marriage the husband had been having an "affair" with his college roommate. After the divorce, the former husband and the former roommate got married.

Imagine being one of the children and trying to explain to the other players on your baseball team just who is picking you up after the game.

That's kinda confusing...so they were a guy and guy couple all that time basically...but then he became a guy/woman...but the guy stayed even though now it was a guy/woman....

 

[spike.t]

 

[spike.t]

‘We may be looking at the end of capitalism’: One of the world’s oldest and largest investment banks warns ‘Greedflation’ has gone too far

Albert Edwards, an economist at the 159-year-old investment bank Société Générale, says corporate greed may call for the unthinkable: Price controls.

fortune.com

 

[Vintageguy]

‘We may be looking at the end of capitalism’: One of the world’s oldest and largest investment banks warns ‘Greedflation’ has gone too far

Albert Edwards, an economist at the 159-year-old investment bank Société Générale, says corporate greed may call for the unthinkable: Price controls.

fortune.com

Yeah, that’s what these geniuses need to do to really make a mess of things. Capitalism works if left alone, prices and supply get sorted out by the laws of supply and demand. Capitalism will sort out the weak and stupid from the strong and smart. But it seems we always have to suffer these types who know better. Instead we hand out money not earned and bail out the weak and stupid so they can do it again. It’s always those who work hard and play it smart that end up paying for all of these too.

 

[spike.t]

Yeah.......

 

[Katy Darren]

I have said this before, and I am willing to stand by it AND I don't think it's unreasonable: I want the people I vote for - who represent me - to do good things (policy) and do it with a modicum of dignity.

Here's one of the reasons I said I wouldn't vote - and I stand by that too.

If this was still the Donald Trump of 2016, I'd probably be OK with that. Not overjoyed, but OK. I think I'd say the same thing of the Donald Trump of 2020. I did vote for him both of those year

Your opinion may be quite different; Y

I hear this a lot nowadays and it always makes me roll my eyes, I simply cannot understand it, you pick one or the other. You’re picking Biden or some other liberal that will continue the horrible slide. Unacceptable to me, it’s not even a close or hard decision, evidently fine for you. Why for me? I ignore the bs and watch the policies and Trump’s were awesome, as good or better that we’ve had since Reagan. The rest is just bs political noise designed to confuse and distract and the left’s playbook is working on WAY too many conservatives.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Point by point....

"You’re picking Biden or some other liberal that will continue the horrible slide."

I acknowledge this is possibly true.

"Unacceptable to me, it’s not even a close or hard decision, evidently fine for you."

You're right. Unless things change, it is fine by me. We clearly have different standards.

"Why for me? I ignore the bs and watch the policies and Trump’s were awesome, as good or better that we’ve had since Reagan."

His policies were good. As I have said before, I'm not convinced we will get the same with a second go round.

"The rest is just bs political noise designed to confuse and distract and the left’s playbook is working on WAY too many conservatives."

Does Trump work for the left? Because unless that's the case, it's not the left's playbook that's working on this particular conservative. It's Trump's personality, and how he conducts himself. That's what's working on me - it has zero to do with the left or their playbook. If he could act like an adult, even some of the time, he'd have my vote. If he is the nominee (I still hope that's not the case) and nothing changes in how he conducts himself, he will have lost my vote himself, not because of anything the left is doing.

 

[BSO Dave]

I agree mostly with your post here. Lincoln had/has been described as the "benevolent dictator" of his time. "Lincoln was not subject to either of those due to the results he ultimately achieved". Maybe for THAT period in our history, the "one off" exception to the Constitution and thus expanded "executive powers" was justified? When's the next "exception"? Brandon's radical march towards climate change and gun control using "enhanced" executive powers? Or a future President using his/her enhanced executive power for something even more ominous whom "is not subject to those due to the results they achieve"? SLIPPERY SLOPE!

Please don't mistake my reference to Lincoln's use/abuse of his executive powers as an endorsement... I am simply pointing out Lincoln as arguably the most famous historical example of what a POTUS will do when they feel they have no other options to forward their agendas. There where some in Congress making a case to impeach Lincoln for his alleged abuses of power. Had he not been assassinated, it may have happened, but we will never know..

Executive powers are broad and often non-specific in the Constitution especially in regard to war powers and national emergencies. This is where it gets really slippery. Is this by design of the framers? I don't know.. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argued adamantly to ensure that that the Chief Executive's power be broad and expansive. When his critics accused him of lobbying for a king by another name, Hamilton really only offers the singular counter argument that a king is an inherited power for life, while a POTUS is elected by his citizenry every 4 years.. There is some very interesting stuff in the Federalist Papers. It's a hard read, but very revealing..

You are commenting from the perspective of a perfect system. Sadly, there is no such thing. Our system isn’t perfect. Nothing man designs is. But it is by far the best system man has ever devised. We suffer when we subvert it.

Hi Doug3006,

From your quote above, I'm not sure if you inadvertently added my quote again, or are trying to say that I am the one commenting from the perspective of a perfect system??

In any case, I agree once again.. The system we have is not perfect, but by far the best compared to any other...

I think Churchill's quote says it best:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

On this topic, I am only trying to say is that the reality is that it happens and will continue to happen... With that reality, I absolutely tolerate an imperfect process by a POTUS that we elect to implement ANY measures necessary to save this country form itself. We are in crisis and emergency..

Getting back to the original conversation where I stated that Trump could accomplish a great deal with executive orders alone, are you saying that all executive orders are unconstitutional?