• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

JayUtah said:
Yes it does, because it is nominally answerable to Congress via the Appointments Clause, which gives authority to Title 5.
Click to expand...
Has Trump violated the Appointments Clause? Not that I can see.
JayUtah said:
No, that's now how it works. He's removing people who have traditionally had discretionary and oversight power within the executive branch and either not replacing them or replacing them with loyalists
Click to expand...
You have appealed to what the founding fathers intended, but a lot of the "traditional" independence that you're referring to doesn't go back to the founding fathers, but is a more recent invention. But this is still just consolidating his control over the executive branch, it doesn't extend the power of the executive branch. There's an important difference. And having the executive branch accountable to the president is a lot more democratic than having it accountable to no one.
JayUtah said:
The Trump administration has already tried to claim it holds the true power of the purse and thereby has sole discretion over appropriated funding.
Click to expand...
No, he has not. You will note that Trump has not tried to spend any money that Congress has not appropriated. THAT would be claiming the true power of the purse. He has tried to not spend money, but the idea that Presidents couldn't do that is also a relatively recent invention. It's not contained within the Constitution.
 
You should also check with your local library. They may have media available on a mobile app like overdrive or loop
 
Ziggurat said:
Has Trump violated the Appointments Clause? Not that I can see.
Click to expand...
Straw man. The specific laws that government the operation of the executive branch get their authority from the Appointments Clause. Those are still the law of the land.

Ziggurat said:
You have appealed to what the founding fathers intended...
Click to expand...
No, I'm appealing to what gives rise to the presumption of regularity.

Ziggurat said:
And having the executive branch accountable to the president is a lot more democratic than having it accountable to no one.
Click to expand...
Not my claim.

Ziggurat said:
No, he has not. You will note that Trump has not tried to spend any money that Congress has not appropriated.
Click to expand...
Straw man.
 
Ziggurat said:
Has Trump violated the Appointments Clause? Not that I can see.

You have appealed to what the founding fathers intended, but a lot of the "traditional" independence that you're referring to doesn't go back to the founding fathers, but is a more recent invention. But this is still just consolidating his control over the executive branch, it doesn't extend the power of the executive branch. There's an important difference. And having the executive branch accountable to the president is a lot more democratic than having it accountable to no one.

No, he has not. You will note that Trump has not tried to spend any money that Congress has not appropriated. THAT would be claiming the true power of the purse. He has tried to not spend money, but the idea that Presidents couldn't do that is also a relatively recent invention. It's not contained within the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Trump would certainly not be the first president to selectively enforce the edicts of Congress.

And of course Congress can always impeach, if they are sufficiently incensed at the president ignoring their explicit intent.
 
Donal said:
You should also check with your local library. They may have media available on a mobile app like overdrive or loop
Click to expand...


Libby is the one they use out here in my part of the PNW, and I got the free pdf version because there was a five week wait for the kindle one in the Seattle and King County library system.


-
 
theprestige said:
I want to fight this war to the last Russian, if that's what it takes.
Click to expand...
If that's what it takes to do what, exactly? Regain all the Ukrainian territory? And what if it takes every last Ukrainian to do it? Is that worth the cost? And just as importantly, what exactly is the plan to make that happen?
theprestige said:
I think a victorious Ukraine, and a defeated Russia, will be a net good for the world.
Click to expand...
Sure, it would be. But how do you make that happen? I think the idea that it even can happen any time soon is completely unrealistic.
theprestige said:
I think supporting Ukraine is an investment that will prove incredibly lucrative to its future trading partners, if we see it through.
Click to expand...
Again, if there's no one left, there's no one to trade with. And yeah, "no one" is a bit hyperbole, but seriously, population matters. And the longer the war goes on, the less population is left. They are literally chewing through their future here.
theprestige said:
I think abandoning Ukraine has been perhaps the single biggest ◊◊◊◊ up of the modern America first conservatives.
Click to expand...
You do realize that we haven't actually abandoned them, right? We're still sending them military aid.
theprestige said:
It saddens me greatly, that you and I are on opposite sides of the Ukraine issue.
Click to expand...
See, I don't think we are on opposite sides. I think we're on orthogonal sides. I think you're looking at what you want (and in an ideal world, I want it too), while right now I'm looking at what we can actually get. And I'm not seeing an answer from you to indicate I'm wrong about what we can actually get, only an insistence that we should want more than I think we can get. And it's not enough to want it. Where's the plan to get it? "Just keep doing what we're doing" doesn't suffice. Ukraine isn't actually making territorial gains here.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Russia is the enemy. America is the target. Trump is a soldier.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous. Being a soldier requires committing yourself to an external cause. Does that really sound like Trump to you?
 
AmyStrange said:
Libby is the one they use out here in my part of the PNW, and I got the free pdf version because there was a five week wait for the kindle one in the Seattle and King County library system.


-
Click to expand...
Ya, I've had issues with not just a waiting list, but new stuff not being available. Pretty much what you expect from borrowing physical media from a library
 
Donal said:
Ya, I've had issues with not just a waiting list, but new stuff not being available. Pretty much what you expect from borrowing physical media from a library
Click to expand...

I have over four hundred physical books, and I love them all, but I also have more than a hundred kindle books.

I only get kindle copies from the library, because it's easier for me to read them in bed.

Yeah, I'm a lazy f**** so what can I say.


-
 
Ziggurat said:
We're all finding out a lot about government spending that we didn't know before.
Click to expand...
One, we found out that there are zillions of people over 100 who are receiving social security. Two, we found out that fifty million was spent on condoms for Gaza. Three, we found out that Samantha Power made millions illegally from her time at USAID...Oh, wait; none of those three things is actually true (links and/or quotes supplied on request). What we actually learned is that Elon Musk is brilliant at playing to the groundlings and knows zilch about how to find fraud and waste.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
One, we found out that there are millions of people over 100 who are receiving social security. Two, we found out that fifty million was spent on condoms for Gaza. Three, we found out that Samantha Power made millions illegally from her time at USAID...Oh, wait; none of those three things is actually true (links and/or quotes supplied on request). What we actually learned is that Elon Musk is brilliant at playing to the groundlings and knows zilch about how to find fraud and waste.
Click to expand...


Well said and thank you, but unfortunately, the maga weirdoes are too stupid to realize they've been played.


-
 
angrysoba said:
Yes, but you and the article are both making the point I made, contrary to Amy Strange.

I am not saying the Republicans are not trying to get Social Security cut.

I am saying there is no way that they want to be the ones to do it.

It would literally make no sense even from the most cynical viewpoint that they would drive up the debt and then cut social security. That is one of the few ways they would actually get on the other end of the pitchforks.
Click to expand...

Which is true enough, in principle. I'm reminded again of Roe v Wade, though. A lot of Republicans were enjoying the political advantage that they gained by railing against Roe v Wade, while assuming that the Party wouldn't be stupid enough to actually destroy it, so they didn't have to face the problems that the inevitable suffering would cause.

With that said... AmyStrange said at the start of this was -

AmyStrange said:
I personally think the end game is to make the national debt so outrageously high that no one has a choice but to cut back on or eliminate entirely the social programs that help people, but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's not specifying that the Republicans would necessarily do it. Rather, it's about creating conditions that would force the hand of government to break Social Security. As we agree, they would prefer Democrats to do it, but like with Roe v Wade, Republicans just doing what they've been trying to do if they think that they can and like they've repeatedly sought to do as they've pushed less than honest narratives to seek political advantages is entirely plausible. I don't see where AmyStrange said something actually unreasonable here. AmyStrange is essentially describing the Republicans' Two Santa Clauses strategy, after all, though Republican attacks on Social Security have been ongoing for a while as they also seek to give it a death of a thousand cuts, like they did with Roe v Wade, even if they don't manage to outright destroy it.

angrysoba said:
Sure, cut Big Pharma who are just making vaccines to give your children autism and make them trans.
Click to expand...

A quibble because it annoys me and is out of place on the list - Big Pharma refers to the big pharmaceutical businesses, not an internal government thing that could reasonably be cut. You fairly certainly knew that, of course.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Again, if there's no one left, there's no one to trade with. And yeah, "no one" is a bit hyperbole, but seriously, population matters. And the longer the war goes on, the less population is left. They are literally chewing through their future here.
Click to expand...

And that's their decision to make. Russia's numerous statements that Russia intends to commit genocide against Ukrainians and their demonstrated actions along those lines likely plays a major role in that, of course. Giving up is likely to chew up both their future and their freedoms.

Ziggurat said:
See, I don't think we are on opposite sides. I think we're on orthogonal sides. I think you're looking at what you want (and in an ideal world, I want it too), while right now I'm looking at what we can actually get.
Click to expand...

There's another important angle in play, though. Should we focus solely on the now or also pay attention to the future? I'm pretty sure that none of us want Russia's aggression to continue, after all, and the dire costs that it's inflicting on all. If we actually believed that Russia would be completely satisfied and that actual peace would result, that would be one thing. If you actually believe that, I have a bridge to sell you, though. Appeasing Russia is extremely likely to lead to a future with much more and worse war. Ukraine either defeating Russia or even just not giving up and holding them back are both preferable to that. Actual peace can only reasonably be achieved with Ukraine victorious, in this situation, or after a larger and bloodier war later on.

Ziggurat said:
And I'm not seeing an answer from you to indicate I'm wrong about what we can actually get, only an insistence that we should want more than I think we can get. And it's not enough to want it. Where's the plan to get it? "Just keep doing what we're doing" doesn't suffice. Ukraine isn't actually making territorial gains here.
Click to expand...

Ukraine's overall strategy has been attrition, not focusing on territorial gains, so demanding territorial gains as a bar is unreasonable from the start. The ample stockpiles that the USSR left Russia have become quite dramatically depleted, though, which is in line with Ukrainian strategy. "Just keep doing what we're doing" or, preferably, increasing support are honestly both valid.
 
Last edited:
If you go back and look at the maps (ISW is a good place) you'll clearly see Ukraine was in the process of pushing Russia out of their territory, even with one hand tied behind their back, until they started running low on ammunition and the Republicans decided to sit on their hands for months on end rather than approve more funding. And has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the money would have been spent here, in the U.S.A. where we make bullets and shells. But no, they had to quietly help give Putin the upper hand, the bastards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom