Doc Brown
-
Posts
17,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc Brown
-
-
The role of Congress is not to act in accordance with the President's wishes; but rather to act as a check on Presidential power.
If Congress disagrees with the President, and checks his attempts to advance his agenda, it does not bestow special powers to act unilaterally on the President.
The fact that you seem to be making excuses for President Obama, noting a "do nothing Congress", is representative of an actual Constitutional crisis.
And they succeeded as Obama's immigration executive orders were overturned in the Supreme Court. The system worked.
-
Is this what you think the media's job is?
No, but that's what they do.
-
Let me say it again, progressives: process matters. Paris Accords, immigration, Title IX, the ACA...the best intentions in the world don't mean **** if you ignore legislative process and make it legally unbinding.
As far as the ACA, Republicans will get the blame if they cut off the subsidies. The media will be sure of that as the ACA is the most popular its ever been. As far as the Paris Accords, Obama knew the Senate would rule against it so he issued his executive orders and knew with the media spin if a Republican president did withdrawal they would also be the bad guy. An ABC poll just came out that 59% oppose him withdrawing from the Paris Accords with only 28% supporting it so he calculated correctly regardless of your opinion of Obama. This will give the Democratic candidate leverage in the 2020 election and may impact the midterms.
Also, do you really think he'd get immigration reform passed in the GOP dominated House and Senate? Obama definitely abused his executive powers more than anybody since Harry Truman, but like Truman it was because of a "do nothing Congress."
-
Don't be surprised 33........he is just following instructions.
MSNBC host implies Trump is trying to provoke a terror attack for political gainTo be clear, Trump's first tweet after the terrorist attack was exploiting it to support his "travel ban." Using those words was stupid when the administration said over and over again it wasn't a ban and the tweet may play into the SCOTUS ruling (I still think they'll rule in Trump's favor though as they should). He also took the London's Mayor's tweet out of context the next day and criticized his "no reason to be alarmed" statement (had to do with extra police patrol) to again argue for the travel ban. Trump not tweeting would be very helpful for his administration.
Having said that, that MSNBC host is an idiot.
-
Whether Maclin signs here or not, it makes the Chiefs weaker at WR which is good news for the Bills.
-
So what do we think the Bills could get him on: A 1-year prove it deal or a multiple years contract?
He's been consistent throughout his career. Last year was his worst because he missed 4 games. I wouldn't object to a 2 or 3 year deal.
-
It is them against us. It's just the "them" in that equation is not Muslims and never has been.
How did Wahhabisim actually start? It was fostered by the British who wanted to undercut the Ottoman Empire in the 1700s. Then the Germans in the late eighteenth and through the nineteenth century introduced the concept of extending jihad to secular targets and nations in an effort to undermine the British colonies in the ME. Who is Britian's largest arms buyer? The Saudis. Who is at the heart of funding ISIS and spreading a corrupted form of Islam to serve their own ends? The Saudis... Along with many western powers.
Islam isn't the problem. Wahhabisim is a problem - but not as much as those who use it as fuel for their proxies to wage war against their enemies... And those people are largely not Muslim.
Spot on and the recent $110 billion Saudi Arabia arms deal continues America's long practice of putting defense contractors interests in front of national security interests. Same goes for the UK.
-
I'll do the most obvious one in recent Bills history to get it out of the way.
Reason- He liked to check down.
-
I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.
Game, set, match. Not photo shopped at all.
-
Praying for London. We need more Muslim countries on the travel ban list. Wake up America.
-
Yes, because he's an idiot.
And in this case, his predecessor is equally as big of one.
What's even more scary is that even if the Paris Accords was ratified by the Senate two years ago and was considered a treaty, Trump still arguably had the constitutional authority to withdrawal from it. Article 2 section 2 of the constitution says you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty. However, article XV of the constitution gives the president power to withdrawal from treaties under particular circumstances without Senate approval under certain circumstances.
Here's a decent article on the topic http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/can-the-president-terminate-the-abm-treaty
-
Love Stevie Johnson but a player publicly blaming god for dropping a game winning pass is definitely a first.
-
I'd have a little more respect for her if she'd worn a burkah. That would at least have provided a semblance of artistry to it - a backhanded commentary on Trump, Islam, and spared us looking at her mug.
Here's what she said in a Vulture article in December after the election. She's a sick human being.
"You know a lot of comics are going to go hard for Donald, but my edge is that I'll go direct for Barron," Griffin said at the Equality Now Gala on December 6. "I'm going to get in ahead of the game."
-
I'd love to get him, but there's pry 30 other teams saying the same thing. My first thought is the Packers giving Rodgers more targets.
-
We're still talking about Kathy Griffin? This is the dumbest non-issue since Game of Thrones put George W. Bush's head on a pike.
(Although it was amusing to hear her in an interview today claim that Trump is ruining her life over this.)
LOL. I forgot about that nonsense of a story. Kathy Griffin's a little different though as it was obviously intentional. I hope her career is shot as there's no excuse for that.
-
Okay...so we can rank him above Harrison at least.
-
I'm getting so tired of this as this will drag on for years. Let me know is Trump's ever impeached. Oh, and for the moronic corporate Democrat politicians who I'm sure browse this board frequently, stop with the Russia hysteria and start examining what the hell happened to your party to make Donald Trump president.
-
TRUMP: "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris."
THE FACTS: That may be so, but Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, is not Trump country. It voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in November, favoring her by a margin of 56 percent to Trump's 40 percent. The city has a climate action plan committing to boost the use of renewable energy. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, has been an outspoken supporter of the Paris accord, and tweeted after Trump's announcement that "as the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future."
http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/paris-agreement-factchecking-trump/
Um, as president you do what you think's best for all Americans. Even those who didn't vote for you. Correct?
-
Did you even read what you wrote? It was okay for Obama to be authoritarian because he was checked by the House exercising its authority under the Constitution???? Never mind that the Republicans were irresponsible children...you're arguing that because they're irresponsible children, the Constitutional framework on which the government is based should be discarded for the President's convenience????
And then, having established a faux-Republic run according to the whims of men rather than the rule of law, you run a candidate with loooooong track record of petty entitlement, opportunism, and elitism, who is wholly incapable of handling the office as currently structured. And she turns out to be the most unelectable candidate in history, as she managed to lose to a Cheeto Dust Golem who if anything is even more reckless in a system that encourages the abuse of power THAT YOU JUST !@#$ING ADVOCATED!!!!
How can people not see this? You can't argue "Obama had no choice because the Republicans are meanies," then immediately turn around and say in the same goddamn breath that Trump shouldn't be allowed. The powers attach to the office, not the man. If you're advocating for Obama's abuse of power in the face of Congressional intransigence, you are likewise arguing for Trump's exact same abuse, because the powers attach to the office, not the man.
Yes I read what I wrote and I didn't say I approved of what Obama did with his executive overreach nor complain about Trump attempting to do the same. I said democrats are paying the price because of Obama. Putting words in my mouth a little bit there. What do I or 45% of Democrats have to do with Hillary being the nominee? I didn't vote for her in the primaries as she was an awful candidate. Also, you see Trump a "Cheeto Dust Golem" while I see him as the only Republican in the field who would of beaten Clinton in the general.
-
The solution to that is: negotiate a deal that passes the Senate.
It's not "Ignore the Constitutional requirements of the US government and announce at a press conference with the Chinese Premiere that we're going to abide by it 'Because I said so!'" Because that results in an "agreement" that's not an agreement, in being completely non-binding and having no legal standing.
This should not be a difficult concept. You had eight years of a president ruling by executive fiat, to the point of unilaterally altering the law during press conferences, for no other reason than he thought Constitutional process and checks and balances were "obstructionist," so could be bypassed or ignored as deconstructive. But now that you've got an opposition president who's overturning those executive fiats by his own exercise of executive fiat, you're absolutely shocked to find out that so much of the past eight years has nothing resembling the authority of law.
And it's not just the Paris Accords. We've already been through this with immigration and national monuments. Up on deck is gutting the abuse of Title IX as a substitute for the criminal code. We even saw it with the exercise of the nuclear option in the Senate. Why is anyone surprised that power is vested in the office and not the man, and when that power is abused the capacity for abuse conveys to the next holder of that office???
Obama only had the luxury of having the House and Senate for two years (a supermajority in the Senate for 70 something days in the Senate I believe) and spent most of that time on the ACA. I laugh when Republicans say Obama refused to work with them as they purposely obstructed anything the Democrats tried to do including Mitch McConnell saying their main goal was to make him a one term president right after the midterms in 2010. GOP senators and congressman were incentivized to obstruct in order to keep getting reelected. A trait the democratic party is now embracing and will continue to do so if they win back the house in 2018. So yes, Obama ruled by executive fiat as it was the only way he could get anything done and now Democrats are paying the price. Let's see what major legislative victories Trump can get done having both the House and the Senate at his disposal.
-
What a stupid thread. He's not even a quarter of the way through his first term.
-
So what? All you're saying is what I am saying: it was never ratified.
Want it ratified? Get a Democrat in the WH and win control of the House and Senate, and there you go!
Oh, wait. You had that. Pissed it away.
This world would be so much easier to live in if Democrats could ever...just once...grasp the concept of self-accountability.
But no.
Russia. Wikileaks. Comey. Bad data. Broke DNC. Couldn't pass the climate agreement. Boo-freaking-hoo.
You'd still need 67 votes so I'm doubting it would ever pass the Senate. The Democrats lost because they turned their back on the working class, identity politics, and ran a horrible candidate.
-
There is no debate. It was never ratified. All it got was Barry's signature. That's not an agreement. It's an autograph.
YOu want to argue he did it under EO? Trump can just un-EO the EO.
What the hell is wrong with everyone on this?
It never would of been passed by 2/3rds in a Republican majority Senate. Got to keep the big energy company donors happy.
Interesting that energy giants such as Exxon-Mobil and Chevron were in favor of the United States remaining in the agreement.
That's what they said publicly. Yes.
Then why even have a White House ceremony announcing the US is out with Trump saying the non-binding parts are "immediately" withdrawn from?
So Trump can explain his decision and scream JOBS JOBS JOBS.
-
Yeah... considering that 32 of the 50 state legislatures are controlled by the GOP, what, exactly, do you think is going to happen if this fantasy of yours actually comes to pass?
Whatever little fantasy scenario you are concocting isn't going to happen. 'Covfefe' has a better chance of becoming an actual word than an Article V convention giving you what you want.
I would concur with this statement, but knowing the media's fascination with Trump over the last two years it wouldn't surprise me if Merrian-Webster added it to its dictionary.
The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I agree that Harry Reid foolishly eliminating the filibuster to push through federal judge nominees and executive office appointments did lasting damage to this country. He even foolishly said before the election that Dems should use the nuclear option to get Garland through if they had the majority in the Senate and the presidency post election. Joke is on him now as McConnell did the same with Gorsich.