Random Politics & Religion #14

charged with treason

No, I'm faulting him for putting his city's main nerve center for emergency response services into what he knew was a high-value terrorist target. Remember, not even ten years prior, the WTC had been cbombed in one of the parking garages there, that should have been on his mind at the time in his decision making about it and he should have picked another location based on that knowledge.

What is with you and the treason thing? Seriously, mate. Get off it.

No, I'm faulting him for putting his city's main nerve center for emergency response services into what he knew was a high-value terrorist target.

*heavy sighing*

Laying the groundwork for future Democratic Party attacks, a new Politico piece detailing the numerous ways Donald Trump has promised to dismantle eight years of Barack Obama’s executive overreach now warns Americans, without even the slightest hint of self-awareness, to prepare “for an imperial presidency.”

Of course, judging from his disposition and history, it’s conceivable that Trump would use his pen and phone to circumvent constitutional norms if his agenda meets congressional resistance. As of this moment, though, he’s not done or suggested anything of the sort. Politico simply conflates undoing abuse with the abuse itself.

Politico’s reporters are very concerned about Trump’s use about “executive fiat” — a popular conservative phrasing these past few years — that might undo what should never have been. Liberal initiatives are generally treated as sacred, immovable objects, enshrined into the very heart of our national identity for time immemorial. The New Deal has gained just such currency, but it doesn’t have to happen to the international Paris climate change agreement – an agreement that was never sanctioned by the Senate.

Of course, the idea that Democrats are worried about the sanctity of our checks and balances rather than the preserving agenda gains is laughable. Remember, Obama didn’t merely push the limits of executive power, like others before him; he normalized and popularized arguments for circumventing the intention of the Constitution. The president — and his allies — regularly maintained that it was his duty to impose progressives’ will on the nation because the legislative branch “didn’t act” in a way he believed it should. This was always couched as a moral imperative. No post-World War II president (and maybe none before) had ever overreached in this way. Courts consistently found his actions unconstitutional, yet he continued to make the argument and act on it.

Let’s also remember that the Left spent the past eight years lamenting checks and balances as “obstructionism” that would sink sound democratic governance. “When they say ‘checks and balances,’ that’s their code word for obstruction or something worse,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently warned when she thought her party would take the White House. Only last week, The New York Times referred to conservative/libertarian arguments to keep the court ideologically balanced a “coup” against the Supreme Court. When Republicans won Congress back in 2010, Washington was always referred to as “dysfunctional.” Legislators were “nihilists” and “willfully negligent.”

I look forward to consistency on this issue. Surely all the people who grumbled about our “unproductive” Congress the past few years will celebrate the speed in which Republicans enact the Trump administration’s agenda. No doubt, Vox writers will continue to lecture us about the destructive nature of the filibuster and argue strenuously against transparency. We need to get things done, right?

Liberals justified their attacks on checks and balances by claiming that the GOP’s positioning is driven solely by racism or some other hatred. In the matter of governance, this is irrelevant even if true. Constitutional norms aren’t contingent on the intentions of those governing. But it’s also ridiculous. “Unprecedented” or not, what’s happened in Washington is an organic political reaction to a nation with two parties that can’t agree on much. Barack “I won” Obama was no more interested in compromise than Republicans were.

Although I hope the GOP will strengthen the filibuster rather than do away with it, it will have a strong case for undoing Obamacare using the same parliamentary methods Democrats used to pass it. Now, it would probably benefit the GOP to approach Democrats and make a genuine efforts to incorporate some of their ideas into any package (the best-case scenario is to do it through federalism, which has been under relentless attack over the past two decades). As Democrats have learned this cycle, going it alone is not a sustainable way to govern in this system. I’m not naïve enough to believe that most partisans wouldn’t sacrifice checks and balances to enact their favored policies, but it’s in these moments that you wish the both sides would understand why it’s important to guard them.

There is no permanent ruling majority. Democrats acted as if they would never lose an election again. Admittedly, this is not unique. Now, most liberals — in punditry and government — have absolutely no standing to make arguments for preserving process. A legacy built on edicts is easily discarded — which is good news for the republic.

I hope that now that she doesn't have to campaign or run the country she can get proper treatment for her Parkinson's Disease.

That said...just let it go. Trump won. No need to be smarmy.

That said...just let it go. Trump won. No need to be smarmy.

It's possible, Trump does, at 70 years old, fall easily within the age bracket for when Alzheimer's starts to affect a person's mind.

After 8 years of *** from the left, and even then, it's still not going to end from the left, I think us conservatives deserve at least a little smarminess. Until Trump *** something up in the very near future.

In the press conference with Obama first thing Trump says is he has great respect for Obama...except when he called him a disgrace and the worst president ever <_< Peaceful transition and all, but let's limit the hypocrisy a little bit.

"We have to remember that we're actually all on one team…We’re not Democrats first, we're not Republicans first, we are Americans first. We're patriots first. We all want what’s best for this country."
- President Obama, November 9, 2016

Does this mean you don't think the right has been lobbing *** for the past decade?

It's eyebrow raising to be sure, but if you're looking for painful after-election contradictions, they're everywhere:


Yeah, you should have thought of that, you know, 8 years ago.

The right refuses to accept the blame for the auto industry and housing collapse, which is pure *** because they caused it by repealing consumer protections, especially Glass Stegall, during Bill Clinton's watch, which was further compounded under G.W's administration.

Yeah, you should have thought of that, you know, 8 years ago.

He wasn't an American first when he (and equally, the congress he was fighting) let the government shut down.

Try again, this time with an appropriate quote though. Not being sarcastic.