Political Current Events March 3-4 | SOTU Address

[CFordUNC]

He should bring out a couple of guys with him so those hands don't go to waste.

Oh, I think we’ve got a couple on this board would volunteer.

 

[StrangePackage]

If Democrats had clapped for the little boy fighting cancer, would Republicans have agreed to restore the cuts which their last budget made to pediatric cancer research?

Fucking ghouls.

 

[ZenMode]

1. Again, I am astounded by your view that what you "think" is relevant. Here's the reality: Every executive branch since FDR has heeded the command of Humphrey's Executor, which provides for some degree of agency independence. This is the first administration to challenge that. And I'm sure you don't know what Humphrey's Executor is, which is understandable because it's a law school thing, but still you probably should sit these conversations out. Point is: this is absolutely new.

Never heard of it. Either way, many presidents have tested their executive power. Biden tried to forgive trillions in student loan debt and use OSHA to force the vaccine on 80 million Americans. Yes, Trump is testing executive powers MORE than other presidents, but it, like the tax rate on the richest Americans, is just a question of degrees.

2. I didn't realize you were talking about needle swaying in terms of electoral politics. That's quite the amorphous standard, but sure. Under that standard, the environment does not appear to be a needle-moving issue at the present time. It really, really needs to be. We will see what happens.

Yep, needle moving was my original point:

If you take away social issues, what do Democrats and Republicans really disagree about that is going to move the needle? The tax rate on the richest people? Do we spend ridiculous or only semi-ridiculous money on the military? Will this year's deficit be over/under $1 trillion?

3. You should stop talking about EOs as if they are law.

I'm not. I'm just talking about that as what they are.

It is not true that all presidents have tested the limits of their power, and it's especially not true that they do by executive order. The "testing the limits of power" really started with W. Obama participated in that during his second term, in response to Congressional obstruction. Trump and Biden also did it, for different reasons. But the practice began with W. And it wasn't by executive order, because executive orders typically don't do anything.

Ok. Most, if not all, in my lifetime have tested it.

Obviously Nixon tested the limit of his power but that was seen as aberrational at the time and was clearly rejected by both parties. I'm talking about "respectable" limit-testing.

Subjective and, again, just a difference of degrees, right? Not currently a needle mover.

 

[Silence Dogood]

If Democrats had clapped for the little boy fighting cancer, would Republicans have agreed to restore the cuts which their last budget made to pediatric cancer research?

Fucking ghouls.

Typical illogical response

 

[ZenMode]

He should bring out a couple of guys with him so those hands don't go to waste.

 

[UNCatTech]

You are the most annoying poster on the board.

Let's make a deal and super ignore each other. I'll go first.

 

[4thgenheel]

Typical illogical response

there's nothing "illogical" in pointing out that republicans used a kid with cancer as a prop last night but in the real world they're fucking over kids with cancer.

it's actually extremely logical, lmao.

 

[finesse]

there's nothing "illogical" in pointing out that republicans used a kid with cancer as a prop last night but in the real world they're fucking over kids with cancer.

it's actually extremely logical, lmao.

It's not necessary to expose hypocrisy with them. It's considered SOP.

 

[superrific]

Never heard of it. Either way, many presidents have tested their executive power. Biden tried to forgive trillions in student loan debt and use OSHA to force the vaccine on 80 million Americans. Yes, Trump is testing executive powers MORE than other presidents, but it, like the tax rate on the richest Americans, is just a question of degrees.


Yep, needle moving was my original point:

If you take away social issues, what do Democrats and Republicans really disagree about that is going to move the needle? The tax rate on the richest people? Do we spend ridiculous or only semi-ridiculous money on the military? Will this year's deficit be over/under $1 trillion?

3. You should stop talking about EOs as if they are law.

I'm not. I'm just talking about that as what they are.

Subjective and, again, just a difference of degrees, right? Not currently a needle mover.
[/QUOTE]

My view of Nixon isn't subjective. It's based on the fact that folks on the left and the right have pretty much come to a consensus that he was awful, especially in this regard. Watergate is not respectable. Full stop.

Biden did not abuse executive power in either of those cases. He acted pursuant to a Congressional statute in the case of student loans (and even the majority who struck it down had to invent reasons, because they admitted that Biden's actions were within the literal meaning of the statutory text, which normally is enough for them to say it's lawful). As for the vaccine mandate, he also acted pursuant to the statutes, and again the Supreme Court agreed that the OSHA act literally gave the agency the power it exercised. Then the Supreme Court said, 1) well, did Congress speak clearly enough to satisfy us? and 2) for reasons we won't explain, OSHA has the power only to regulate workplace harms that are unique to the workplace, which makes no sense.

So those are not abuses. Obama's DACA program is closer, which is the example you should have used. But again, Obama was taking action consistent with administrative law.

None of this is remotely like the president declaring the constitutional power -- stated in the constitution nowhere, and implied nowhere -- to disregard acts of Congress when he feels like it. That's never happened since . . . well, never is the answer I'd give, but I will allow for the possibility that it was a point of discussion in the very early years.

 

[Silence Dogood]

there's nothing "illogical" in pointing out that republicans used a kid with cancer as a prop last night but in the real world they're fucking over kids with cancer.

it's actually extremely logical, lmao.

No evidence of that. Very telling for those that didn't clap for the boy. The dems are divisive. Trump threw them a lifeline and they still botched it. The voters will remember!

 

[Silence Dogood]

It's not necessary to expose hypocrisy with them. It's considered SOP.

Silence when dems can't be united over young boys story, knee jerk reactions that pubs are harming children, delusional.

 

[superrific]

No evidence of that.

LOL

 

[4thgenheel]

No evidence of that. Very telling for those that didn't clap for the boy. The dems are divisive. Trump threw them a lifeline and they still botched it. The voters will remember!

lmaooooo, you clearly don't even understand what basic words and concepts like logic mean.

as @StrangePackage pointed out, pretending that republicans "support" pediatric cancer patients whilst they actually yank funding from pediatric cancer research just represents a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.

this is all way over your head right now but you could learn something here. start by reading about logic, logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance.

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not. I'm just talking about that as what they are.

Subjective and, again, just a difference of degrees, right? Not currently a needle mover.

My view of Nixon isn't subjective. It's based on the fact that folks on the left and the right have pretty much come to a consensus that he was awful, especially in this regard. Watergate is not respectable. Full stop.

Biden did not abuse executive power in either of those cases. He acted pursuant to a Congressional statute in the case of student loans (and even the majority who struck it down had to invent reasons, because they admitted that Biden's actions were within the literal meaning of the statutory text, which normally is enough for them to say it's lawful). As for the vaccine mandate, he also acted pursuant to the statutes, and again the Supreme Court agreed that the OSHA act literally gave the agency the power it exercised. Then the Supreme Court said, 1) well, did Congress speak clearly enough to satisfy us? and 2) for reasons we won't explain, OSHA has the power only to regulate workplace harms that are unique to the workplace, which makes no sense.

So those are not abuses. Obama's DACA program is closer, which is the example you should have used. But again, Obama was taking action consistent with administrative law.

None of this is remotely like the president declaring the constitutional power -- stated in the constitution nowhere, and implied nowhere -- to disregard acts of Congress when he feels like it. That's never happened since . . . well, never is the answer I'd give, but I will allow for the possibility that it was a point of discussion in the very early years.

I agree about Nixon and see no reason to debate subjective views of EO's.

My point was that there are no current differences between the parties, beyond social issues, that are going to move the needle with voters. That's why social issues like abortion, DEI, males in female sports, gay rights, etc get so much attention from both parties.

 

[Silence Dogood]

lmaooooo, you clearly don't even understand what basic words and concepts like logic mean.

as @StrangePackage pointed out, pretending that republicans "support" pediatric cancer patients whilst they actually yank funding from pediatric cancer research just represents a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.

this is all way over your head right now but you could learn something here. start by reading about logic, logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance.

I understand that, but always linking cuts to the most harmful thing seems illogical. The Gabriella Miller kids first research act was restored and funded for 5 years, passed seperate from spending bill. Also Trump doesn't draft legislation, he's simply celebrating a young kids inspiring story. You've yet to celebrate it, so weird.

 

[BlueSteel]

Honestly, I think the Democrats need to either join the fight in a way that is actually meaningful, or get the hell out of the way. Holding up signs or whatever goofy little stunts they pulled are lame and pathetic, IMO. They should have either boycotted attending the speech altgether, or stood up en masse and walked out.

This x1000. To me—and a handful of other Ds and Is I've talked to today—the Democrats looked like a lifeless field of sad sourpusses last night. Where is the energy? Where is the forward thinking? Where is the messaging? Haphazardly waving those dinky little signs saying "False" or "Elon Steals" is the best they've got? This ain't it. Dems are doomed unless they find a pulse and some swagger. Totally uninspiring, imo.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I understand that, but always linking cuts to the most harmful thing seems illogical. The Gabriella Miller kids first research act was restored and funded for 5 years, passed seperate from spending bill. Also Trump doesn't draft legislation, he's simply celebrating a young kids inspiring story. You've yet to celebrate it, so weird.

LOL. Trump is most definitely approving cutting cancer and vaccine and other vital research, although he's happy to let Elon do the dirty work. And "celebrating a young kids inspiring story" is actually grossly hypocritical when it's your party that is cutting national cancer research. But it doesn't surprise me that Trump did that, as he has no shame whatsoever, nor does the rest of his party nowadays.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Oh, I think we’ve got a couple on this board would volunteer.

thats homophobic lol. i must say i laughed at "miserable little pissant slut"

god bless america

 

[4thgenheel]

I understand that, but always linking cuts to the most harmful thing seems illogical. The Gabriella Miller kids first research act was restored and funded for 5 years, passed seperate from spending bill. Also Trump doesn't draft legislation, he's simply celebrating a young kids inspiring story. You've yet to celebrate it, so weird.

no, you clearly do not understand.

and you have absolutely no idea what i do or do not celebrate. what a weird, inappropriate thing to say.

 

[superrific]

Subjective and, again, just a difference of degrees, right? Not currently a needle mover.

I agree about Nixon and see no reason to debate subjective views of EO's.

My point was that there are no current differences between the parties, beyond social issues, that are going to move the needle with voters. That's why social issues like abortion, DEI, males in female sports, gay rights, etc get so much attention from both parties.

How do you know they won't move the needle? People either didn't know or didn't understand the tariffs.

I predict that the economic downturn Trump has created all by himself will in fact move the needle with voters. That is a major difference between the parties. This isn't one of those situations where the economy went down, and the other side tries to pin it on the administration. This is the story:

1. Trump says he will round up immigrants and put in tariffs.
2. Liberals and economists said this will cause inflation and lower GDP
3. It lowered GDP and raised inflation, as predicted.
4. Trump didn't promise to hatchet the federal government, but he did. The entirely predictable effect of causing a substantial downturn appears to be happening.

This is an acute policy difference over specific issues. The problem for you, of course, is that you don't like it when people like me are right.