"So are you a federal power grab guy. Or a states rights guy? I suspect that answer changed about nine months ago."
Yeah, I haven't heard the usual crowd chanting "states rights" for a while, now. It's almost like it's just something some people say when it's not their guys in charge.
Yeah, I saw a news segment about the firings, and they also showed quick flicks of the actors that just lost their income streams, such as Melissa McCarthy as Spicer.
I wasn't being specific about Exec Orders, but, in general. Executives and legislators get constant criticism for what they do, and "illegal" and "unconstitutional" get thrown around a lot. Some is just partisan bs. But some is in a gray area where there's no precedent.
F'rinstance, passing major legislation via a budgeting rule at one time was considered a "trick", and "probably unconstitutional", when it was done. But once the regimes change, the new regime looks and says: here's a technique that we can use.
Perhaps. I'm not sure. I remember a lot of crap posts about "Shrub". And during the 2008 election there was lots of crap from both sides. Lots of people complained of course. And I didn't see much improved discourse over Obama's 8 years.
What is see is: People that used to complain bitterly about the "other" side doing despicable things, and complaining about it, switch completely around. Suddenly when "their" side was doing the exact same things, it became "a reasonable thing to do".
I've seen this in our history, and in the history of other countries in the world. It's almost like it's something that humans do.
The way that i see it is: RNC - We need someone to run against Obama. Reps - He's probably unbeatable. I don't want to screw my chance when he's termed out. RNC - We need someone to run. Else someone with no qualifications will decide to run. Reps - Well, Romney's pretty well set. RNC - And we didn't plan on running him after Obama anyways... MR - Oh, all right. If I don't run there's no telling who might run.
I'd like any prez to do well. I agree we have a margin of error. Trump is a disruptive agent. It depends on which cabal that ends up controlling, er, backing him. I keep in mind Douglas Adams and his dissertations on what makes a good prez and who should get the job.
Well, honestly, this is trickle-down economics in a nutshell... economic progress proceeds by providing more luxuries to the rich. Back in the real world this is a recipe for wasteful and dangerous misallocation of resources.
This is actually kind of insightful. Well, interesting, anyways.
"People in the USA never realized what actually propelled them to #1, so they have no clue how to continue to be an example to the rest of the world."
I'm not sure about that. Total warfare with unconditional surrender as the goal was one of the methods. With nuclear weapons that is now a MAD option.
So we have our proxy wars and our security theater. Many look around and say "the world has never been in a worse state". Others look around and say things like "we're not killing each other by the hundreds of millions like we did last century" or "chances of being terror victim is less than a lightning strike". But that suits almost nobody's agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh. Went to the google to prove you wrong. Sadly, I found that apparently none of the major US news media have picked this up yet.
"So are you a federal power grab guy. Or a states rights guy? I suspect that answer changed about nine months ago."
Yeah, I haven't heard the usual crowd chanting "states rights" for a while, now. It's almost like it's just something some people say when it's not their guys in charge.
Oh, come on tovarishch, you can do better than that. I guess it does become boring after a while, though.
The only place Trump can stay among his 8% *is* at the golf course.
Without the data dumps and the constant trolling, there would have been no hedge to bet.
ditto
Yeah, I saw a news segment about the firings, and they also showed quick flicks of the actors that just lost their income streams, such as Melissa McCarthy as Spicer.
I'd like to see him bring back Gary Busey as White House Press Secretary.
No, I would realize that I was reading a fan reboot of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
I wasn't being specific about Exec Orders, but, in general. Executives and legislators get constant criticism for what they do, and "illegal" and "unconstitutional" get thrown around a lot. Some is just partisan bs. But some is in a gray area where there's no precedent.
F'rinstance, passing major legislation via a budgeting rule at one time was considered a "trick", and "probably unconstitutional", when it was done. But once the regimes change, the new regime looks and says: here's a technique that we can use.
ditto
"You are a mewling, puking, despicable person for holding the views that you have."
This is the level of most of the "discussion". I don't think it's useful for solving problems. It is useful for expressing the emotion of hate.
Oh shit, you're right.
Perhaps. I'm not sure. I remember a lot of crap posts about "Shrub". And during the 2008 election there was lots of crap from both sides. Lots of people complained of course. And I didn't see much improved discourse over Obama's 8 years.
What is see is: People that used to complain bitterly about the "other" side doing despicable things, and complaining about it, switch completely around. Suddenly when "their" side was doing the exact same things, it became "a reasonable thing to do".
I've seen this in our history, and in the history of other countries in the world. It's almost like it's something that humans do.
Activists are fine. Activists in the flyover states got Trump elected.
Ha, yeah, pretty much.
The way that i see it is:
RNC - We need someone to run against Obama.
Reps - He's probably unbeatable. I don't want to screw my chance when he's termed out.
RNC - We need someone to run. Else someone with no qualifications will decide to run.
Reps - Well, Romney's pretty well set.
RNC - And we didn't plan on running him after Obama anyways...
MR - Oh, all right. If I don't run there's no telling who might run.
Is that you, Jr.?
I'd like any prez to do well. I agree we have a margin of error. Trump is a disruptive agent. It depends on which cabal that ends up controlling, er, backing him. I keep in mind Douglas Adams and his dissertations on what makes a good prez and who should get the job.
That's interesting. I'll check the link out.
Not dem. Not rep. Hmm, Libertarian? No, you would have told us. Green? Too obvious. War & Peace party?
Let's try this: "The Rock for President". How doth thee answer, yay or nay?
"_______ is the worst thing to ever happen to the American people."...is what people say when they have no knowledge of history.
Frankly, I'd like "my side" to quit acting like "the other side".
Well, honestly, this is trickle-down economics in a nutshell... economic progress proceeds by providing more luxuries to the rich. Back in the real world this is a recipe for wasteful and dangerous misallocation of resources.
This is actually kind of insightful. Well, interesting, anyways.
"People in the USA never realized what actually propelled them to #1, so they have no clue how to continue to be an example to the rest of the world."
I'm not sure about that. Total warfare with unconditional surrender as the goal was one of the methods. With nuclear weapons that is now a MAD option.
So we have our proxy wars and our security theater. Many look around and say "the world has never been in a worse state". Others look around and say things like "we're not killing each other by the hundreds of millions like we did last century" or "chances of being terror victim is less than a lightning strike". But that suits almost nobody's agenda.
Well, this presidency definitely has enough cowbell if nothing else.
QFLOL
Yep. Once precedent is set, it will be used as a weapon by the other side. Often to better effect, because they have experience to go by.