Supreme Court Sides with Environmentalists

[Beerina]

People have been fighting against the Imperial Presidency long before Trump or Obama, and will continue long past when they're gone.

I'd like those of you concerned about it right now to remember this when "your guy", for various definitions of your and guy, is next in power.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Ziggurat]

People have been fighting against the Imperial Presidency long before Trump or Obama, and will continue long past when they're gone.

I'd like those of you concerned about it right now to remember this when "your guy", for various definitions of your and guy, is next in power.

But I won't hold my breath.

I said before Trump was elected that the presidency was too powerful. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would help liberals realize that. For the most part, they haven't. Most of them think only Trump is the problem.

 

[wareyin]

I said before Trump was elected that the presidency was too powerful. I also said that I hoped Trump's election would help liberals realize that. For the most part, they haven't. Most of them think only Trump is the problem.

Hmmm, how can you think the Presidency is too powerful, but also cheer on and support Trump for taking more power/ignoring any constraints on his power?

Don't worry about answering, I'm pretty sure it's the same way conservatives howled about Obama issuing executive orders made him a dictator, then turned around and praised Trump for issuing executive orders. They went so far as crowing about the number of EO's he issued as an example of his accomplishments!

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm, how can you think the Presidency is too powerful, but also cheer on and support Trump for taking more power/ignoring any constraints on his power?

He hasn't really done either of those things, except in your mind.

Don't worry about answering, I'm pretty sure it's the same way conservatives howled about Obama issuing executive orders made him a dictator

I never thought Obama was a dictator.

And executive orders are a normal function of all presidencies. The scope of power of an executive order is defined by the constitution and/or legislation. To the extent that you or I think an order is a bad use of a proper scope, that's a political issue to be solved by who we elect as president. To the extent that the scope itself is too large, that's something for Congress to fix.

They went so far as crowing about the number of EO's he issued as an example of his accomplishments!

Phone and pen, phone and pen. Did you complain then? No, you didn't.

 

[wareyin]

He hasn't really done either of those things, except in your mind.

I was going to respond to this with a laughing dog, but then I remembered who I am talking to. So, rather than laugh at the ignorance (feigned or genuine), I will attempt to educate you on what has been basic, common knowledge for the entire world for some time now.

Trump routinely ignores court orders, which is ignoring any constraints on his power from the Judicial branch.
Trump ignores Congressional Subpoenas, and routinely circumvents the Constitutionally mandated Senate approval for his cabinet members by appointing "acting" cabinet officials, which is ignoring constraints on his power from the Legislative branch.
Trump recently claimed "total authority" to order states to reopen, and in fact claimed total authority period: "When somebody's the president of the United States, the authority is total," he said. This, hopefully even you can see, is taking more power.

So now that you have seen your error, I am confident that you will immediately stop supporting Trump. In no way will you spout any twisted logic that attempts to justify these power grabs which are greater in scope and number than any previous President.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump routinely ignores court orders, which is ignoring any constraints on his power from the Judicial branch.

I'm not going to go through all of these to point out your flaws. The first one will do. he story itself is outdated. Trump didn't ignore the court, he just didn't act quickly enough to satisfy you.

A president who doesn't unblock people on Twitter fast enough isn't exactly the second coming of Stalin.

 

[wareyin]

I'm not going to go through all of these to point out your flaws. The first one will do. he story itself is outdated. Trump didn't ignore the court, he just didn't act quickly enough to satisfy you.

A president who doesn't unblock people on Twitter fast enough isn't exactly the second coming of Stalin.

Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.

Of all the presidential overreaches in US history, blocking people on Twitter has to be at the bottom. But it's the first thing that sprang to your mind.

 

[wareyin]

Of all the presidential overreaches in US history, blocking people on Twitter has to be at the bottom. But it's the first thing that sprang to your mind.

It was the first of many examples I provided. But hey, it certainly makes clear how worried you are about Presidential over reaches! If you can ignore one example out of many on a technicality, then you can had wave away everything else, and Trump is perfect!

 

[Ziggurat]

It was the first of many examples I provided. But hey, it certainly makes clear how worried you are about Presidential over reaches! If you can ignore one example out of many on a technicality, then you can had wave away everything else, and Trump is perfect!

I’m concerned about the office itself being too powerful. I’m not concerned about Trump specifically. Any president in office will use the powers available to him, that’s inevitable. The only way to change that is to change what those powers are, not who holds them.

You are worried about Trump specifically, and not the office itself being too powerful. Every argument you have made is about Trump specifically.

 

[wareyin]

I’m concerned about the office itself being too powerful. I’m not concerned about Trump specifically. Any president in office will use the powers available to him, that’s inevitable. The only way to change that is to change what those powers are, not who holds them.

You are worried about Trump specifically, and not the office itself being too powerful. Every argument you have made is about Trump specifically.

Every argument I have made is about Trump specifically ignoring any constraints on the powers of the Presidency as well as taking more power. If you don't care about these efforts, or worse actively support them, then your claims to care about the office being too powerful ring as true as .... well as every deeply held value that conservatives espoused before Trump that they are completely against now. Par for the course, I guess!

 

[Ziggurat]

Every argument I have made is about Trump specifically

Exactly. You are under the mistaken impression that Trump is the problem.

ignoring any constraints on the powers of the Presidency as well as taking more power. If you don't care about these efforts

No, I don't really care that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

 

[wareyin]

Exactly. You are under the mistaken impression that Trump is the problem.

Yes, the person who has done that which you pretend to be concerned about to comically extreme levels is clearly worth cheering on.

No, I don't really care that Trump

did what you pretended to be concerned presidents doing. Exactly. It demonstrates that this, like every other deeply held conservative value, can be discarded on a whim to support your guy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, the person who has done that which you pretend to be concerned about

Once again, my concern is with the scope of presidential power. ALL presidents use their power. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. Who is president isn't the problem, what powers are vested in the presidency is. Replacing Trump will not change the scope of presidential power. Idiocy is required to think that it would.

 

[wareyin]

Once again, my concern is with the scope of presidential power. ALL presidents use their power. You cannot expect them to do otherwise. Who is president isn't the problem, what powers are vested in the presidency is. Replacing Trump will not change the scope of presidential power. Idiocy is required to think that it would.

Ignoring Trump's unconstitutional power grabs seems to be a stupid way to be concerned with the scope of presidential power. But, again, a conservative who claims to care about something right up until his guy does it is par for the course. Let's not forget, before you said you didn't care that Trump has expanded the scope of Presidential power, you said that Trump hadn't expanded it. I expect the next part of this dance will follow the typical pattern and be something along the lines of how it's good that Trump unconstitutionally expanded presidential power because....something something Obama.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ignoring Trump's unconstitutional power grabs seems to be a stupid way to be concerned with the scope of presidential power.

Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....

Yes, I know you aren't concerned with Presidential abuses of power, you know you aren't concerned with Presidential abuses of power, it's just something you say when you want to complain about a Democratic Pres. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate how deeply help conservative values work!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Wow, I am so shocked that you used twisted logic to defend Trump for doing exactly what you complained about. Totally blown away.

Like Christians desperately defending God and the Bible, no matter what.

"No, no, you don't understand, God had to slaughter all those completely innocent Egyptian children! Because otherwise the Pharaoh wouldn't have had free will! God hardened the Pharaoh's heart? Oh, but it was still good, because, because, er..."

 

[johnny karate]

A study in contradictions.

Then:

You seem to be arguing that as long as they didn't violate the law, then there's no problem, no reason for concern, and no reason to voice discontent.

That is illogical.

References to Orwell follow from there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11142533#post11142533

Now:

Yeah, I need to be real concerned that Trump blocked people on Twitter.

Truly frightening stuff. The horror, the horror....

 

[Ziggurat]

A study in contradictions.

Then:

References to Orwell follow from there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11142533#post11142533

Now:

There's no contradiction at all. Some things which are illegal are of considerable consequence, and some things which are illegal are of little consequence. Similarly, some things which are not illegal are of considerable consequence, and some things which are not illegal are of little consequence. Legality doesn't determine significance. It's really not a hard concept, and it applies in both cases.

If you want to argue that Trump blocking people on twitter is of considerable consequence, then actually make the argument. But if you want to try to play this gotcha game, you need to actually understand what's being said, and you failed to do so.