President Trump's First 100 Days

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, Nov 13, 2016.

  1. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    As long as the POTUS has EO's, I wouldn't spend two seconds worrying about The Hill, or the cats who sit atop it.

    I understand the political and legal realities of EO's, but don't believe that POTUS should be allowed to use them, absent the most extraordinary and narrowly defined moments, and only then when all lesser means have been proven to have been attempted in good faith, or to avert the imminent risk of substantial harm to US securities, interests, people, etc., even including a SCOTUS review and approval, beforehand)
  2. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    No, your math is incorrect. Government spending is not equivalent to throwing cash in a barrel and burning it. It gets spent right back out, and it is spent on you, me, and everyone else. Wealth and money can grow, right? Well those dollars spend the same after going through the machine as they did before.
  3. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    I don't think the President has direct control over enough spending to do diddly squat to the deficit through EO's. Military, Social Security and Medicaid are all controlled by Congress, if I am not mistaken.
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    The rules governing Senate procedure are governed by law, too.
  5. IP

    IP Advanced Pruitt Apologetics Bot

    They robbed the American people of an Obama appointee, no matter how you slice it.
  6. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I honestly have zero understanding of the limits to EO's, if any exist, or where they may be.
  7. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    I don't think the Senate is under obligation to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court as long as a quorum is maintained at 6 judges. But I could be wrong. And even then, the Constitution has no minimum number of judges.

    Since Obama had 11 months still in office, I do believe his nomination should have been given a fair shake, but it wasn't. It is just more partisan cat fighting that seems to have gripped our country over the last 20 years.
  8. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    the money multipler for govt spending is much lower than tax cuts.
  9. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

    This is unreal.
  10. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    When this board gets into an economic fight, here is all I see:

    I don't know wtf you guys are talking about.
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I understand the sentiment, even if I disagree with it.

    But my point on Senate rules still stands, and those same Americans elected enough Republican Senators, so as to make it possible. A

    And those elections were bound by the law, too.
  12. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    All fair, and it was politics, pure and simple. But had the roles been reversed, the Dems would have done the exact same thing - and did, with federal judges, under Harry Reid.

    And absent Democrats (who have grown lazily accustomed to simply accusing the GOP of doing the exact same shit that they had already or would later do themselves, and with a serous tone and straight-face, no less), most everyone knows and acknowledges the reality of these facts, and that both Parties are just as shitty as the other.

    But just as the GOP's actions were motivated by pure political outcomes alone, so too are the complaints of the Dems in how it all occurred. Sure, they would have loved to see Garland appointed to SCOTUS - but they knew that such was never, ever, ever going to happen, and if only from a purely mathematical standpoint alone - they neither had the votes to make it happen nor any means by which to suitably entice or convince enough of the GOP contingent to cross-over so as to gain them. When they lost the Senate, Obama lost the ability to get another member on SCOTUS.

    It's just that simple.

    So, if the Dems understood that reality then (they did), and continue to understand it now (they do), what are they [itch bay]ing about, exactly? Well, IMO, it's about Garland, but it really isn't, either. They're pissed that he didn't get a hearing, not because they had any illusion that he'd be appointed, but because it robbed them of weeks (if not months) of grandstanding during the confirmation process and in [itch bay]ing that the GOP was holding the court hostage, not abiding by some non-existant and fictitiously contrived rule or law which they would claim as requiring a Senate vote, etc.

    They're not nearly as pissed that Garland wasn't seated as they are that the GOP got away with it unscathed, and that the Dems never got the pound of political flesh they felt they deserved. Pure unmitigated and unmistakable politics again, and on all sides.

    I'm not arguing that one is wrong and the other right, or that two-wrongs is a valid argument - I'm saying that they are each singularly focused on pure self-serving politics alone, nothing else, that anyone who otherwise believes anything about either Party is a dummy, as each are indefensibly and completely total shit, from elitist top to crooked bottom.

    *NOTE: None of this latter fluff is "at" you, or even your point, NA. I just sort of started ranting about generalities, and wasn't in any way aiming at you.
  13. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Put Custom Title Here

    100% true. All of it is complete political wrangling, and there is nothing new under the Sun. Been this way since the Roman Senate was doing its thing 2300 years ago.

    It has just gotten worse than usual the last 25+ years (I say since Bubba was elected and the GOP saw their chance to "right the wrong" of Nixon getting, for all intents and purposes, kicked out of Office). Compromise has become the 8th Deadly Sin.
  14. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Everyone - myself included - [itch bay]es about the inability to compromise, in agreement with just what you said.

    But then, we keep electing them, and if any of them even seems open to the ideation of compromising or working together, they get ran, or face the dire risk of it.

    At some point, "We" (and certainly "Me") - and not "They" - are the problem.

    I'm no longer certain if a solution even exists, or which could be found and capitalized upon, even if it did.

    Talking, discourse, dialogue and debate no longer seem to me as having any hope of ever being effective, at least in our current climate, and in fact, may be doing more harm than good. That is, if some are to be believed that this place is any suitable indication of the country as a whole. Peaceful coexistence, even which must be purchased by silence and apathy, has become increasingly appealing.
  15. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Perhaps the fact that 9th is so much larger than other circuits is the reason it has been reviewed to a larger extent. And, your link is from 2010, so current estimates do have it at third. Regardless, the major points remain in that there are exceptionally few cases that go in front of this court which are then reversed by the Supreme Court and that Trump gives two shits about their liberal/conservative makeup as opposed to them rubber stamping his actions.

    Also, it may be worthwhile to note, the breakdown of Democratic nominated judges to Republican nominated judges is 54-46%. Of course, that disrupts the narrative you strive very hard to achieve.
  16. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    If only there were something in the message you respond to here that would have addressed this, like something "salient", which would completely negate your attempt to undercut my point. Hmmmm.....

    What is clear, though, is that the facts are not quite on your side as you assume.
  17. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Do you think that the 9th's numbers have gotten better, or any less liberalized, since 2010 and after 8 years of Obama appointees?

    I quoted you facts, and cited their reputable source. I feel you don't like the narrative which naturally emerged from that source, then challenge the facts or reassess your argument.

    Or, just stick with "I don't like it." and we can move on.
  18. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Only some of what you assert is fact, i.e. the numbers, not the nature of the court, and the facts aren't really telling the same story you are telling of a rogue court in need of check. In fact, I even noted the fact of the distribution of judge appointments by party being pretty even. Don't start claiming victory when I've clearly noted the fact that the examples you provide, followed by mine, don't exactly jibe with what you claim. For example, in the link you provided, the number of affirmed cases for the 9th is larger, by a good amount, than any other circuit, as well.

    I don't find it particularly notable that the, bar far, largest circuit has the most number of cases both affirmed and reversed, which is why I stated initially that I thought the most salient point you had was the circuit is too big.
  19. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

  20. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal


Share This Page