What I Think About Current Politics

I never stated that Trump undoing the corrupt Obama's EO's was corrupt in itself; he did what he had to do.

I'm merely stating that with Republican control of both houses, there was a better way to undo Obama's nonsense.

Surely you see this?

 

Not outright, but you clearly implied it here:

And the conversation began when I replied to this:

So are you walking back your initial claim, or would you have me believe there is a substantive difference between "underhanded" and "corrupt" in the present context?

Mighta been a million better ways, but yours does not strike me as one of them.

 

Haha dang dude, you're picking a fight with one of the more rightwing guys here. A president, regardless who he is, shouldn't use executive orders to set policy. It is an underhanded way of creating policy instead of law. That said, I understand and support Trump doing so to undo the evil Obama's actions, but he truly didn't need to do it and wasted an excellent opportunity.

So tell me, my Trump purist friend, what should have Trump done to undo Obama's EO's? I'm getting the feeling you're not quite educated about the constitution, but tell me a couple of those million better ways...

 

Pilgrim, I don't give a diddly damn what you call yourself. I care whether what you say makes sense; and if it doesn't, you may very well hear from the y-man. So deal.

Because...?

And what, exactly, is underhanded about it?

Hell if I know what that's supposed to mean, but I doubt you have any idea as to my opinion of Trump.

In case you've forgotten, you're the one who said he did it wrong, not me.

Double dog dare ya to cite the specific constitutional provisions which justify anything you've said about EOs. Pretty sure I'll end up laughing my ass off.

 

So tell me, do you think Trump could have come up with an alternative to the pen and a phone?

C'mon, dazzle me with your constitutional knowledge. Show me how you excelled in junior high school civics class.

Or not...

 

IOW, you can't support your claim about EOs with anything in the Constitution to save your life. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

I already made my point quite clear: with Republicans controlling both houses of congress, Trump could have signed laws that, for example, completely repealed all aspects of Obamacare and/or the horrible Paris Climate Accords. Instead, he piecemealed it by using EO's in place of legislated solutions.

These are but two brief, simple examples; tell me a different solution?

Or perhaps explain why then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was wrong when he said the protections provided by former President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program were an "unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch."

Sessions said that Congress should be responsible for immigration policy; I agreed with this 100 percent but you (and Trump) obviously disagreed. Tell me why you did so. You do realize the consequences in not demanding the Republican-controlled congress do so?

Or – and what I expect from you – flee from this thread as quickly as you can since your intellect seems to be somewhat, umm, lacking any sort of gravitas that allows you to debate our constitution in a somewhat intelligent manner...

 

Believe me, I get it: you want to drivel on about something I never asked about to divert attention from your ill-founded claim about EOs.

Why the hell would I, when I never came within lightyears of claiming any such thing?

Is English your fourth or fifth language, perchance?

That's pretty funny, coming from a guy who has yet to cite a single constitutional provision in support of his cockamamie assertion about EOs.

 

You are equivocating, which is usually the final step before giving up. But don't go quite yet; I think you, indeed, have the ability to carry on a basic debate. We just might be able to squeeze a cogent argument out of you yet.

You claimed Trump issuing executive orders were on par with a legislative effort to undo such orders from Obama; this is simply your opportunity to explain why you believe this is true.

Or did you misspeak?

I explained how, constitutionally, executive orders fall short of legislation. Again, you maintain this is not true... in your opinion.

So have at it; explain why you believe this. I'm looking forward to your in-depth reasoning, as you have already shown yourself to be quite the deep thinker haha...

 

No, you're projecting, as is obvious to anyone fluent in English and of sound mind.

I'll go whenever I damn well please, and stay as long as I damn well please. Enjoy.

Finally you got something right. The question is whether you have that ability.

As of now, there is no reason for me to advance an argument, cogent or otherwise. You, OTOH, have been challenged repeatedly to defend a specific claim, and have responded with nothing but avalanches of diversionary drivel.

Then surely providing a verbatim quote and link to that effect won't be a problem.

Again, a verbatim quote and link are in order.

 

Oh my.

A lot of typing and vacillating on your part as if you you want to fill up space, but have nothing to say.

Of course you will. I'm speaking strictly from my experiences with those similar to you in that they obviously have self-esteem issues that need to be met before they leave. I'm simply hoping we can have a discussion before you do so.

I do; perhaps it's time for you to begin?

You stated, in response to my assertion that Trump should have worked with congress to pass legislation instead of utilizing Obama's 'pen and a phone' nonsense in Post #77:

"Mighta been a million better ways, but yours does not strike me as one of them."

OK champ, name one.

You've failed to do so now in what, a half-dozen posts? So name just one, and we'll consider this a start...

 

More projectioneering on your part, is more like it.

No one would ever know it from your performance here.

Takes two to have a boxing match, and I'm the only in the ring.

To hell with that. Nothing starts before you retract your misrepresentations, as I'm not nearly dumb enough to try to discuss anything with a <rule 2 deletion> who might as well be a commie-lib, for all the probity he manifests.

 

C'mon, champ; just one of those, "Mighta been a million ways..." you spoke of.

Just one.

Or perhaps I was correct in that you have no clue. So typical of the keyboard warriors here...

I guess junior high civics class didn't stick after all.

 

No. If your response to this doesn't start with a retraction of your misrepresentations, it isn't there as far as I'm concerned.

 

Let's recap, shall we?

I claim Trump should have pursued legislative remedies instead of mirroring Obama's 'pen and a phone' nonsense to reach his policy goals. I then use an example of how he could have done so.

You vehemently disagree, claiming there "Mighta been a million better ways, but yours does not strike me as one of them."

I then ask you to provide one of those ways, and you are unable to do so.

You are acting like a petulant child; if you don't wish to debate, why did you respond? Is it simply that you gain great pleasuring in being a troll?

 

Well they took the vote but still Schiff in charge and Republicans and Presidents Lawyers can only do what Schiff allows. The outcome of the House Investigation will never be deemed the truth or fair as long as the rules are as passed today.

Plus, I believe the President never asked Ukraine to do anything to get their money. But the Obama Administration did.