No, no, the other Trevor Noah Trump skit.
There's so many...
Did you see the Nightly Show skit where the comedians all started walking off stage? I liked that one a lot.
Congress is the most powerful of the three main seats of our government, not the Presidency.
Currently, that still remains the truth, but with each president stealing more power from Congress than the one before it through the use of executive order, choosing to simply not enforce laws that they have before them, and the presidential ability to declare unofficial war, that is becoming less and less true with time.
Congress is the most powerful of the three main seats of our government, not the Presidency.Currently, that still remains the truth, but with each president stealing more power from Congress than the one before it through the use of executive order, choosing to simply not enforce laws that they have before them, and the presidential ability to declare unofficial war, that is becoming less and less true with time.
I'd hardly describe recent presidential behavior as "stealing" from Congress. More like Congress abrogating its responsibilities and, in many cases, asking the President to make the difficult decisions.
For example, when is the authorization for the use of military force against ISIS supposed to come up for a vote? With all these politicians insisting that we need to take action, it's interesting that there's nothing in the pipeline in support of that oh-so-needed action.
I was referring to Iraq, and more recently, marijuana. As much as I think it should be legalized, simply choosing not to enforce the law is not the way to go, especially when reclassification would take just filling out one form, or even delegating that to your Attorney General.
Not to speak for greentea, but I think s/he was talking about how George W. used signing statements to fulfill the function of a line item veto. (Correct me if I'm wrong, greentea.)
|
I was referring to Iraq, and more recently, marijuana. As much as I think it should be legalized, simply choosing not to enforce the law is not the way to go, especially when reclassification would take just filling out one form, or even delegating that to your Attorney General.
What exactly do you think Obama has done on marijuana that was 'stealing' from Congress?
He didn't challenge state laws legalizing marijuana. That is... he didn't taken the states to court to try to get their laws over-turned. However, he consistently stated that it remained a federal crime... until Congress lifted its ban on medical marijuana last year.
At that, I'm not sure what you think he stole from Congress in regards to Iraq or executive orders either.
I may from time to time in the future post threads/make arguments that would likely send some of you screaming up the walls. That usually isn't the desired effect I'm looking for, but from occasionally I feel that certain seriously conservative points have to be made. However, when I do that I'll try to do it when the moderators are around so they can have their cows early :-)...
Emphases added by Fergie.
I enjoy all points of view, and don't want anyone to feel excluded from posting here. The following question is NOT intended to have negative connotations, and I apologize in advance if anyone views it as negative.
I am genuinely confused by why you feel that conservative points need to be made here. You have already stated that you feel your Judeo Christian God’s Moral Law overrides any of this political stuff. You also seem to have nothing but distaste for those you define as liberal. So... why go through the trouble of posting this stuff, and as you said, "sending people screaming up the walls", and generating grief with the moderators?
Are you trying to convert us to your faith? Do you want us to share your political ideology? You seem to have put a lot of effort into this stuff, and I'm just not connecting the dots as to why? I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so please help me to understand a little more.
At the end you point out that the country needs hard nose people to deal with other countries. I'm pointing out that Trump may not be as good a negotiator as his wealth might suggests. He certainly has a hard personality, but his ability to negotiate is overestimated.As I said, most of my ideas for the current presidential election politics are based off of emotion rather than logic. It probably wouldn't matter if he were the most successful business man on the planet...I still wouldn't like him from my perceptions of him.Trump isn't even that great of a dealmaker.
Again, if he took his wealth and just invested in broad mutual funds in the stock market in 1982, he'd be twice as wealthy as he is now.
Yes he's made a lot of money, but he's grown his wealth half as fast as the rest of corporate America. He's a below average business man. He's only rich because he started out with his father's real estate holdings.
Ah, gotcha. Just pointing out my political ineptness, as I'm looking more based on emotion than logic or reason.
Many have countered to why I like the nice guys, and why perhaps choosing by emotion is the wrong way for me to do things.
Afterall, Love Carter, and he was a nice guy, but many revile him for it. They'd rather a Nixon or GW Bush in that regards than someone who is nicer in the White House. They feel one must exhibit strength rather than character to be successful there.
Politically, I'm in ept in this...so obviously I'll probably go with feelings rather than logic in that matter...but I see it as perhaps as a weakness making a decisions that way than on logic and reason.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump is the logical conclusion of the republican party's ideology.
Rich people are better than poor people. They are richer because they are smarter, harder working, more morally upright, self made people with talent and vision who get things done, NOT because their parents happen to be rich. Since trump is rich, he is therefore better, harder working, more moral than other people.
Facts don't matter. You can say anything you want as long as you say it confidently. And repeatedly. Global warming isn't real, rich people are better than poor people, trickle down economics work. If someone points out facts that run contrary to this ideology you handwave the facts as opinion, someone's knowledge as bias, and insult the very foundations of informations like news organizations and universities as liberal. Trump has more military training than military personnel, I am the least racist person you have ever met, I will just do everything... Trump is very good at confidently saying ridiculous things.
Anyone that disagrees with you both wrong and bad. Being liberal isn't a difference of opinion, its a moral failing and reason enough alone to discount an idea. You can evade a discussion about facts by simply pointing to their well known liberal bias.
Look a distraction! Instead of the rather obvious reasons that things are tough on the middle class lets blame the usual suspects, liberals (they're bad), minorities, immigrants, and welfare recipiants. Ignore that Mitt Romney has a lower tax rate than you do that single mother has RAMEN NODDLES! GET HER!
Above all: Poes law. It is impossible to make a parody of the right that can't be mistaken for the same thing. You can take any of the above arguments to any extent you want and people will think they're the same thing. Trump is proof of that.
I was referring to Iraq, and more recently, marijuana. As much as I think it should be legalized, simply choosing not to enforce the law is not the way to go, especially when reclassification would take just filling out one form, or even delegating that to your Attorney General.What exactly do you think Obama has done on marijuana that was 'stealing' from Congress?
He didn't challenge state laws legalizing marijuana.
I think what he did is the same thing he's criticized for with regard to immigration -- failed to sufficiently vigorously enforce the laws.
Add to this the fact that Federal law enforcement is woefully underfunded and understaffed, and you quickly run into the issue that Congress has not authorized -- nor will it authorize -- enough money to enforce all the laws all the time. This means that, per Congressional policy, the executive branch is required to pick and choose by setting policy about what will be aggressively pursued and what will not. The President, and through him, the Attorney General and the various law enforcement agencies are charged with deciding "as a substantive matter, the extent of society's interest in seeking punishment." (Ibid.)
So, yeah, this whole claim is basically out to lunch. "Choosing not to enforce the law" is exactly and explicitly the way to go when society has little interest in seeking punishment of breakers of this particular law, esp. when there are other more serious criminals to catch and prosecute, but when the law itself is unlikely to change.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
