GasBandit
Staff member
His agenda aside, Obama's repeated overreaching of executive power set the stage for anything and everything Trump manages to get away with in the face of open opposition. I warned of EXACTLY THAT years ago.
His agenda aside, Obama's repeated overreaching of executive power set the stage for anything and everything Trump manages to get away with in the face of open opposition. I warned of EXACTLY THAT years ago.
Did I hear you right? Did you just say that what Trump is doing is actually Obama's fault? I don't think the "Obama made me do it" argument is enough for Trump to be able to abdicate responsibility for his actions.
His agenda aside, Obama's repeated overreaching of executive power set the stage for anything and everything Trump manages to get away with in the face of open opposition. I warned of EXACTLY THAT years ago.
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
Obama didn't make him do it, Obama made it possible for him to do what he wanted to do - which is exactly the opposite of what Obama and his supporters would want (also most reasonable people).
It's a reminder that genies don't go back into bottles, and centralized government power is the most dangerous of double-edged swords.
Yes, but it sounds like you're saying that this overreach started with Obama, as if he was the initiator, and it has not been one long, slippery slope reaching back to ... who knows?
--Patrick
I'd say Adams, but the Alien & Sedition act was quickly repealed.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
He made the slope a lot steeper, moreso than any president since FDR.
It came to light recently that trump rejected the militarys plan for ISIS because it was too much like Obamas plan. Missing the fundamental point that both plans are the militarys plan, so naturally they are similar. It's like he would reject the miltarys advice to take the centre square on the first move of tic tac toe; because that's what Obama would do....
That would probably happen.[DOUBLEPOST=1499308202,1499308065][/DOUBLEPOST]
Why is this proverb a thing? They totally do go back into the bottle/lamp/whatever. The genie/djinn/imp is ensnared by the vessel; that's the whole point.
Not permanently bound, but the whole idea of binding one is to keep it. Freed ones are called something else; I can't remember, but it starts with a "M" sound. Those are the ones you have to trick.
I guess there are other versions though, as happens with folklore and mythology, but it just seems like a weird phrase, like "the cat is out of the bag." If a thing can be contained once, it can be contained again. There must be better analogies out there.
Posting this for my wife, since she's resisted my needling to sign up for an account of her own: "If you had ever owned cats, you would know that once a cat has been placed in a bag and let back out again, that cat ain't goin' anywhere near that f***in' bag ever again."
--Patrick
Well then, I gotta say I hope Obama's favorite game on the Oval Office computer was Global Thermonuclear War, thus removing any interest in playing Trump might have.
Isn't the ACA a law (or bill or whatever), a.k.a. not executive power at all? Which is why Trump can't just sign an order unmaking it?
His agenda aside, Obama's repeated overreaching of executive power set the stage for anything and everything Trump manages to get away with in the face of open opposition. I warned of EXACTLY THAT years ago.
Yes, but Obama pushed through a lot of other stuff by EO. Partly because COngress blocked him doing pretty muich anything, partly because it was often easier or whatever. While I think EOs have their place and use, GB's got a point Obama over-used them plenty of times.
IIRC drone strikes and a whole lot of military engagements-but not-quite-wars have been EOs.
It got to the point where Obama would have to sign an EO to give himself permission to breathe, because McConnell would've blocked it in the Senate.
Yeah, but GB was replying to a post about healthcare.
And haven't all "wars" since WW2 been EO's, since Congress hasn't declared war on anyone since then, and they're the only ones that can declare it in the US?
Anyway, the actual question should be if how one can use a EO has expanded or not lately, not how much they're using it imo.
From REALLY quickly searching, I found the following on Wikipedia: 2003 Invasion of Iraq
Take from that what you will if that's an official declaration of War, or what, but something was clearly voted on.
GasBandit
Staff member
Bubble has the gist of it. The ACA's passage was a different type of political skullduggery (backroom meetings to arrange pork payoffs in the dead of night on christmas eve when nobody was looking), but I was referring to the MARKED increase in the useage of Executive Orders for the specific purpose of implementing policy that clearly should have required congressional approval. Even SNL - a definite liberal bastion if ever there was one - started making jokes about the overreach.
Be glad for that. A president is not a dictator. If the situation had been otherwise, think how fucked you'd be NOW.
Technically it was not a "declaration of war," it was an "Authorization by congress of the use of force," which is political double talk wormspeak for "we need to go to war but I want to be able to technically say I never voted for war because I like my cushy government job." The US hasn't declared actual "war" since WW2.
If the situation had been otherwise, with someone other than Mitch running the Senate and not blocking EVERYTHING, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now, and those executive orders wouldn't have been necessary.
I mean, how much of the right wing stupid, the anti-vax, anti-science, flat earth crazy, is nothing but "FUCK OBAMA!" in a different set of clothes?
GasBandit
Staff member
You don't always get what you want. But that's not an excuse to set precedent by doing an end-run around your constitutional obstructions, blazing a trail for people you might not agree with to follow, widen, and pave. The system is designed so that the chief executive is not a king. Often, gridlock is the best possible outcome.
Well, I've already made the grenade metaphor a dozen times.
That's just the thing. The trail was blazed because Mitch decided to blow up the existing roads.
GasBandit
Staff member
Then you don't blaze. You sit, and you campaign, and win seats.
The ACA was exactly how legislation is supposed to work so I'm not quite sure why there's this myth of "It was all done in secret"
Hell, Obama went to a Republican retreat and took questions from them directly on it. The historical revisionism that it was all passed quickly and secretly needs to die a horrible death.
All of that said, Executive Orders are exactly the wrong way to legislate and prone to the exact reversals that Trump is doing.
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh, it wasn't quick, but it wasn't going to pass until they tempted a few RINOs over with backroom deals. And yes, it passed the Senate on DECEMBER 24th, 2009. Dead of the night. Christmas eve.
As for "exactly how legislation is supposed to work," that actually made me laugh out loud.
It was ANYTHING but transparent and "above board."
And that's where the first term failed so badly. The Democrats tried to play by the rules as they were at the time. While Mitch took the rulebook and went number one, number two, AND number three (use your imagination) on it.
All those opportunities to use that majority and tell the GOP to fuck off, but no. They had to stick to the ideals of "bipartisanship," and "building a bridge." Too worried that Fox Noise and the ditto heads would talk mean about them.
GasBandit
Staff member
Then you have no room to complain when Trump does the same things. If the ends ultimately justify the means, then our constitution is a sham and we don't actually live in a republic.
Which Republicans voted for it? And are you ignoring the two year process that culminated in a vote?
It IS a sham, because teh Donald has publicly declared that he has no intention of upholding his oath of office. Specifically the emoluments clause. And in response, Congress has shown no interest in upholding THEIR oaths by holding him to account for violating his.
Would it really be a coup if the military upheld their oath and removed the bastard? Otherwise I'm going to continue to root for the giant meteor.
Ehhhhh. But the loony toon right wing nutjobs who insist on arming themselves to prevent a tyranny from coming back are starting to have a point. You know, the well regulated militias
GasBandit
Staff member
It was a sham before Trump. You just agreed with the motivations behind the violations, then.
It depends on if it succeeds.
One could say they're in violation of the UCMJ for dereliction of duty for NOT removing him and Congress at this point.