Niagara Bill Posted May 29 Posted May 29 This may be the test, democracy vs dictatorship. Will federal agencies follow the rule of law and the courts or the actions of the administration. The world awaits the outcome. 1
Big Blitz Posted May 29 Posted May 29 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: You're missing the point. If you despise what Obama and Biden did under executive orders thinking they shouldn't have that much power then you are an absolute hypocrite if you approve of what Trump is doing with tariffs. Congress has power of the purse. Period. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution. Couldn’t be more clear: 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 29 Posted May 29 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: You're missing the point. If you despise what Obama and Biden did under executive orders thinking they shouldn't have that much power then you are an absolute hypocrite if you approve of what Trump is doing with tariffs. Congress has power of the purse. Period. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the constitution. The problem with this line of thinking is that we can point to these examples (Obama and Biden) which reveal how government actually works in practice. How do we know this? Well, see Obama and Biden. Step back a bit further and we can look at the actions of the DOJ and special counsel and know that the government has allowable tolerance on the handling of national security (HRC) and holding, dissemination of classified material (Biden), and dealing with hostile foreign nationals attempting to derail free and fair elections (Clinton-Steele). We know that transparency and light in the darkness is the ideal, but we also know that the ideal is not the standard. If we look at your post, @Andy1 gives you a thumbs up for your post on hypocrisy, but we’re left to wonder why he would cast his lot with a Biden presidency when he was a critical advocate and co-conspirator in Obama’s actions? I think it’s because we recognize that government actually operates in ways contrary to the way it should. That’s the norm. That’s how it’s done. That’s the standard. 1
Roundybout Posted May 29 Posted May 29 8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Couldn’t be more clear: Using Smoot-Hawley to say Trump has authority to do this is misleading, at best, and incredibly ignorant, at worst. For one, SH involved tariffs passed by the HOUSE, not by the President. For another, it was such an economic poison pill that a new liberal trade bill was passed in 1934 and effectively nullified SH. Also, the Federal Trade Act of 1974 does not give the President authority to drop sweeping tariffs, it allows him to create trade deals that Congress can pass quickly.
Big Blitz Posted May 29 Posted May 29 2 minutes ago, Roundybout said: Using Smoot-Hawley to say Trump has authority to do this is misleading, at best, and incredibly ignorant, at worst. For one, SH involved tariffs passed by the HOUSE, not by the President. For another, it was such an economic poison pill that a new liberal trade bill was passed in 1934 and effectively nullified SH. Also, the Federal Trade Act of 1974 does not give the President authority to drop sweeping tariffs, it allows him to create trade deals that Congress can pass quickly. Now, if you want to argue the National Security threat I’m all ears - explain the Court siding with China. Them doing so basically says this isn’t about law. It’s lawfare. And, since we now want to go back to original intent - I sure hope the SCOTUS applies this to the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship.
Niagara Bill Posted May 29 Posted May 29 Just now, Big Blitz said: Imagine siding with China I hope you are not insulted, but you do realize that everyone knows you are a paid schill...and no one pays any attention to the reams of info you copy and paste. 1
Albwan Posted May 29 Posted May 29 Just now, Niagara Bill said: I hope you are not insulted, but you do realize that everyone knows you are a paid schill...and no one pays any attention to the reams of info you copy and paste. Ditto, clown 1 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted May 29 Posted May 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: This may be the test, democracy vs dictatorship. Will federal agencies follow the rule of law and the courts or the actions of the administration. The world awaits the outcome. It is a democracy. The president was elected by the voters winning the required electoral votes and also the popular vote. And unlike other "democracies" no candidate was disqualified like in Romania nor was any party outlawed like they're looking to do in Germany because the ruling powers were threatened so they resort to restricting the options presented to the voters to retain power. Or punish free speech like the UK. So our democracy works pretty well. Anyone looking for potential dictatorships should cast their gaze to Europe. Edited May 29 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Niagara Bill Posted May 29 Posted May 29 15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: It is a democracy. The president was elected by the voters winning the required electoral votes and also the popular vote. And unlike other "democracies" no candidate was disqualified like in Romania nor was any party outlawed like they're looking to do in Germany because the ruling powers were threatened so they resort to restricting the options presented to the voters to retain power. Or punish free speech like the UK. So our democracy works pretty well. Anyone looking for potential dictatorships should cast their gaze to Europe. At this point in history you are 100% correct. And I hope you always are. But, the direction has been strange and concerning. I just mention, that this point and ruling could be very telling. There is no way of ignoring the administrations criticism of the judiciary to this point. At the very least, the administration will have to openly prove the extreme need for emergency measures against the entire world. The checks and balances that have made the US the envy of the world are about to be tested. Here's hoping they stay in place. 1
Big Blitz Posted May 29 Posted May 29 12 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said: At the very least, the administration will have to openly prove the extreme need for emergency measures against the entire world. Because this ***t isn’t sustainable. This is the American dream……..
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Posted May 29 8 minutes ago, Big Blitz said: Because this ***t isn’t sustainable. This is the American dream…….. that justifies destroying democracy? perhaps we should vote on that. And we will nov 26 if trump doesn't cancel elections. 3 1
IYKYK Posted May 29 Posted May 29 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: that justifies destroying democracy? perhaps we should vote on that. And we will nov 26 if trump doesn't cancel elections. Your pearl clutching is duly noted.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Posted May 29 Just now, Westside said: Your pearl clutching is duly noted. your ignorance is a forgone conclusion. 1
Big Blitz Posted May 29 Posted May 29 33 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: that justifies destroying democracy? perhaps we should vote on that. And we will nov 26 if trump doesn't cancel elections. Sure thing, President Auto Pen. 1
JDHillFan Posted May 29 Posted May 29 35 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: that justifies destroying democracy? perhaps we should vote on that. And we will nov 26 if trump doesn't cancel elections. How does someone your age, ostensibly a man, become so over the top dramatic? Truly embarrassing. 1
Roundybout Posted May 29 Posted May 29 1 hour ago, Big Blitz said: Because this ***t isn’t sustainable. This is the American dream…….. You have to build more housing. I can’t say it enough. You have to increase the supply. 1
Doc Brown Posted May 29 Posted May 29 (edited) 7 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The problem with this line of thinking is that we can point to these examples (Obama and Biden) which reveal how government actually works in practice. How do we know this? Well, see Obama and Biden. Step back a bit further and we can look at the actions of the DOJ and special counsel and know that the government has allowable tolerance on the handling of national security (HRC) and holding, dissemination of classified material (Biden), and dealing with hostile foreign nationals attempting to derail free and fair elections (Clinton-Steele). We know that transparency and light in the darkness is the ideal, but we also know that the ideal is not the standard. If we look at your post, @Andy1 gives you a thumbs up for your post on hypocrisy, but we’re left to wonder why he would cast his lot with a Biden presidency when he was a critical advocate and co-conspirator in Obama’s actions? I think it’s because we recognize that government actually operates in ways contrary to the way it should. That’s the norm. That’s how it’s done. That’s the standard. I could try to deflect but you're right. We've gotten to the point where we've become reliant on the courts to strike down unconstitutional executive orders so why should we expect either side to not test the boundaries. @Big Blitz post from above proves your point where he unknowingly pushing for more power to the executive branch because it means a victory for his side. It was my idiotic assumption that maybe the party that traditionally views the role that the federal government should be limited (Republican party). That goes for little intervention in the free market, a strong national defense, a strong checks and balance system, the promotion of federalism, and protecting the basic liberties and rights of all legal citizens of this country. I guess the true conservatives have been hijacked by a party where if you speak out against executive overreach when a Republican is in office you're shunned. It really shouldn't be that way but here we are. Edited May 29 by Doc Brown 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted May 29 Posted May 29 3 hours ago, Roundybout said: You have to build more housing. I can’t say it enough. You have to increase the supply. The zoning red tape doesn't help this at all.
Recommended Posts