Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Oath Breaking

Oath Breaking (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 08:00 PM
 
I like OreoCookie's posts and overall style. He is good.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2017, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
But this most learned of people, our Latin professor himself, (kek) says there was no problem, so Trump is fine too, I guess.
More deflection. You don't have to be smart or educated to be ethical.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I have no delusions that the Repubs are "better", there's only precedent, and Obama screwed us all over with how far he was willing to take EOs.
It sounds more as if you are more upset with the content of Obama's executive order rather than the principle of using executive orders to govern.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 02:42 AM
 
^^^

Not to mention the fact that my fundamental point was not addressed. What SPECIFICALLY constituted executive overreach on the part of the Obama Administration? Other than vague right wing talking points? Because as quiet as it's kept I haven't seen anything thus far that Trump has done with respect to executive orders that is outside his constitutional authority as POTUS. My point is that there are some who criticized Obama's use of that exact same authority. But when pressed upon why SPECIFICALLY ... they come up short. Which calls into question their true underlying motivations.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 04:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not to mention the fact that my fundamental point was not addressed. What SPECIFICALLY constituted executive overreach on the part of the Obama Administration? Other than vague right wing talking points?
I think this is a related, but separate issue: What are actual decisions you disagree with? For instance, Obama signed an executive order which forbade oil explorations in two regions of the Bering Sea; His authority is based on a rarely used law from 1953, so it is based on power explicitly granted by Congress. The fact that it is “old” or “rarely used” legally means nothing, because also the Constitution is old. So if you criticize Obama's actions because you disagree with the decision, then by all means, petition Congress the change the law. A second executive order of this stripe comes to mind, namely one about gun control, which instructed agencies to implement existing laws more efficiently. In contrast there were those executive orders to keep the country running during the times when Congress was deadlocked yet again.

The other issue is how much power should the executive have? This is independent of intent or outcome, but a matter of principle. During the Bush years the DoJ cooked up quite a few secret counterintuitive interpretations of laws (dare I say, going against the spirit of the law). Many Presidents went to war without asking Congress for permission. In fact, WW2 was the last time Congress formally declared war. Bit by bit this power, against Constitutional intent, went to the executive. You can also see this in other democracies where law making becomes more and more top-down. Think of it as mission creep, and you can find plenty of other cases such as commerce being regulated to a large degree by the federal government — there was no ill-intent by anyone, it's just that initially the US grew from an agrarian society with little interstate commerce (which is regulated federally) to an industrialized society where most trade is interstate or even international. So the powers of the President have effectively grown over time, and this is one of the reasons why President Trump is now such a scary proposition. Therefore if that sort of thing is important to you, you could criticize that Obama didn't make it his mission to turn back this clock. But of course, he was under extenuating circumstances, the gridlocked and opposed Congress didn't make that easy.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Because as quiet as it's kept I haven't seen anything thus far that Trump has done with respect to executive orders that is outside his constitutional authority as POTUS. My point is that there are some who criticized Obama's use of that exact same authority. But when pressed upon why SPECIFICALLY ... they come up short. Which calls into question their true underlying motivations.
Yes, I think this is a good observation. Now here is the question: do you feel President Trump has too much power amassed in the executive? If so, how much would you want to cut? But of course, the next Democratic President will also miss this power, so measure twice. Judging from the tone in your post, you seem to be ok with the power Trump has (albeit not necessarily what he wants to do with it ).

If you just want to find something to criticize Obama for, and you decide to pick executive orders because you think you didn't like their contents, then you are just criticizing Obama's political stances but not executive orders. In case you are only willing to cut the President's power if a guy (or gal) from the “other” party is in power, you are really not against the expansion of power, just against the person or party wielding it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
More deflection. You don't have to be smart or educated to be ethical.
He's neither, as he's frequently shown. However, this isn't necessarily about ethics. You're expecting better judgement from someone (Trump) whom you all believe is incapable of it. When I told you all this would happen one day, everyone scoffed and waved off Obama's abuse of power as a necessity due to an intractable congress, but the fact remains that in these situations the means is more important than the the ends. He single-handedly set this country up for someone to move in and rule, instead of simply biding his time or allowing for a future administration to continue what he started. His vanity brought this about, not Trump's opportunism.

It sounds more as if you are more upset with the content of Obama's executive order rather than the principle of using executive orders to govern.
Then you aren't listening.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you kidding me ? It's peanuts.

Unless there are other, bigger direct investments, please stop wasting our time.
Indeed. Hillary wouldn't even drag Bill out of a hooker's bed for that little.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When I told you all this would happen one day, everyone scoffed and waved off Obama's abuse of power as a necessity due to an intractable congress
In a similar vein, the same people who are screaming about the return of fascism are the same people who screamed the Second Amendment is past its expiration date.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In a similar vein, the same people who are screaming about the return of fascism are the same people who screamed the Second Amendment is past its expiration date.
Not making the connection, explain?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Not making the connection, explain?
One of the common refrains against the Second Amendment serving as a check on tyranny is the First World being past the point where tyrants get into power.

I've always questioned that.

If the danger of Trump being a tyrant is as great as we are led to believe, it seems I was correct to question it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One of the common refrains against the Second Amendment serving as a check on tyranny is the First World is past the point where tyrants get into power.

I've always questioned that.

If the danger of Trump being a tyrant is as great as we are led to believe, it seems I was correct to question it.
You're right if it gets flexed to solve the problem. Doubly so if kind do some of the flexing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:17 PM
 
The other three my that's ridiculous about calling Trumps stake in the pipeline peanuts is if it's so inconsequential, wouldn't it have been simpler to divest than give the appearance of a conflict?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're right if it gets flexed to solve the problem. Doubly so if kind do some of the flexing.
It primarily functions as a deterrent. The intent is not to flex.

What is the gap between how Trump will behave versus how he would behave if the possibility of assassination or armed revolution were non-existent?

I predict it would be large, especially if prodded by some some major terrorist attacks.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 04:45 PM
 
I think that you will find that many of us snowflakes don't think an armed citizenry is the best deterrent to tyranny. I think a lot of us put our faith in free press and the rule of law.

Most of the rest of the developed world has figured out how to avoid tyranny without the right to bear arms, so to me, there is no cognitive dissonance here.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It primarily functions as a deterrent. The intent is not to flex.

What is the gap between how Trump will behave versus how he would behave if the possibility of assassination or armed revolution were non-existent?

I predict it would be large, especially if prodded by some some major terrorist attacks.
The probability of him being assassinated is virtually non-existant because 99% of the would be assassins voted for him.
I suspect if someone took a potshot and missed by a mile he would shit himself, embarrass himself and then probably run away and/or hide.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2017, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He's neither, as he's frequently shown. However, this isn't necessarily about ethics. You're expecting better judgement from someone (Trump) whom you all believe is incapable of it.
You are still deflecting: if this is an important issue to you, then it is up to you to elect someone to the office who shares your values in this regard. What you do here is just something we have seen so often, that it has become a boring trope: merely criticize something “when the guy from the other party does it”. That's hollow criticism because it is not founded on principle, but expedience and convenience. And hollow criticism isn't convincing to a person of principle.

It is not Obama's “fault” that Trump got elected, that responsibility falls to the people who voted for him. It is not Obama's responsibility that Trump seemingly enjoys the power of executive orders. We should not use blanket statements for Trump's executive orders either, we should look at them individually and decide whether they are expanding executive power or not. For instance, Trump is fully within his right as a President to, say, ask the executive branch to focus efforts on enforcement of existing laws.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One of the common refrains against the Second Amendment serving as a check on tyranny is the First World being past the point where tyrants get into power.

I've always questioned that.

If the danger of Trump being a tyrant is as great as we are led to believe, it seems I was correct to question it.
Truth. Yet, he must be a very poor tyrant, since he has no qualms about arming all lawful citizens.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are still deflecting
Nope. You expect me to hop up and down on this? I've already said my peace on the matter, right now it's time to enjoy the spastic fit from the Left over Trump's extended EO powers.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 09:20 AM
 
Trump can assume that 80% of the gun owners in this country would back him militia-style.
So time for the left to buy a gun, is that what you're saying?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope. You expect me to hop up and down on this? I've already said my peace on the matter, right now it's time to enjoy the spastic fit from the Left over Trump's extended EO powers.
Don't worry, I was just checking the reason you were whining about Obama all this time.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2017, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Don't worry, I was just checking the reason you were whining about Obama all this time.
Riiiight, sure thing. I was upset regarding executive overreach for years. Forgive me if I don't take you seriously (or suddenly become more rattled) just because you recently "came to Jesus" regarding the problem, because someone you don't care for entered office.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 12:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
because 99%
It only takes one, which is why it makes for a good equalizer.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Riiiight, sure thing. I was upset regarding executive overreach for years. Forgive me if I don't take you seriously (or suddenly become more rattled) just because you recently "came to Jesus" regarding the problem, because someone you don't care for entered office.
I think you should go back re-reading my posts here in the PL instead of projecting what you think my opinion is. In this thread I haven't criticized Trump for signing overreaching or even illegal executive orders, but for unnecessary ones. I wrote a nuanced take in response to OAW, so I won't rehash all my points. Meanwhile you here do what you incorrectly accuse me of doing: you stick partisan arguments over principles. If you are oh-so worried about executive overreach, you should speak out loudly against unnecessary executive orders instead of continuing to whine about Obama and the Democrats.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It only takes one, which is why it makes for a good equalizer.
I wish that one would hurry up. Of course then you'll need another one for Pence. Did we ever establish how many people would have to die before you get a vaguely sane president under the current administration?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2017, 02:38 PM
 
As the Overton window moves to enclose casual discussion of murdering the entire Executive branch, has there any movement when it comes to justification of an armed citizenry?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
you stick partisan arguments over principles.
Then your perception is way off, as I have no party in this. Trump's EOs state his intentions, the direction the administration is going to take. This has been regular practice for ages.

If you are oh-so worried about executive overreach, you should speak out loudly against unnecessary executive orders instead of continuing to whine about Obama and the Democrats.
As I said before, it's not the volume of the EOs, it's what they do. Why are you whining about EOs that are essentially "mission statements"? They're not the legislative variety that Obama made infamous, at least not yet.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2017, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I wish that one would hurry up. Of course then you'll need another one for Pence. Did we ever establish how many people would have to die before you get a vaguely sane president under the current administration?
I guess I don't need to point out how people who imply threats like these are worse than the people they want rubbed out, right? If/when the bobbies come knock on your door, don't be surprised, it's happened before to members here.

Tell me, did you celebrate when Richard ****ing Spencer was assaulted? (What am I thinking? Of course you did.) Do we need to explain to you how violence breeds more violence, thuggery begets thuggery, or did you just skip that part in grammar school? What happens when Spencer's goons kill the next person who takes a swing at him? Then it escalates further?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,