What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is awful

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Rover said:
Also, lets not forget any executive order does have to pass muster with the court system. Its not like he's the Pope handing down edicts that everybody has to follow with no recourse.
Click to expand...

Ding. Ding. Ding.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

"If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide."
Ann Coulter on Twitter

Now that makes zero sense (at least 4...how many grandparents are we supposed to have?) anyways but the best is a bunch of people pointed out that Drumpf then couldnt vote because his mother was an immigrant. It is making her quite angry :D

"But then Trump couldn't run, since his mom and paternal grandparents weren't born in the US. So, um, yeah."
-Jake Tapper

her response:

"So what? You talk about the Hispanic vote - and YET YOU COULD NOT VOTE IF ONLY HISPANICS VOTED! @jaketapper"

I am not sure what that means but I think she blew a gasket ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Rover said:
Also, lets not forget any executive order does have to pass muster with the court system. Its not like he's the Pope handing down edicts that everybody has to follow with no recourse.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. The outrage from the right about EOs is fairly absurd. If they had done their job, they wouldn't be necessary. If the President oversteps his or her bounds, then the judicial branch will step in and walk it back.
 
Rover said:
Also, lets not forget any executive order does have to pass muster with the court system. Its not like he's the Pope handing down edicts that everybody has to follow with no recourse.
Click to expand...

But don't. But our reeducation camps (CCD/Sunday School) have been an abysmal failure since the mid 60s.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

joecct said:
But don't. But our reeducation camps (CCD/Sunday School) have been an abysmal failure since the mid 60s.
Click to expand...

Bring back the Jesuits. Francis can go on an ex cathedra tear.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Handyman said:
"If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide."
Ann Coulter on Twitter

Now that makes zero sense (at least 4...how many grandparents are we supposed to have?) anyways but the best is a bunch of people pointed out that Drumpf then couldnt vote because his mother was an immigrant. It is making her quite angry :D

"But then Trump couldn't run, since his mom and paternal grandparents weren't born in the US. So, um, yeah."
-Jake Tapper

her response:

"So what? You talk about the Hispanic vote - and YET YOU COULD NOT VOTE IF ONLY HISPANICS VOTED! @jaketapper"

I am not sure what that means but I think she blew a gasket ;)
Click to expand...

who knew "divorce and remarry" could come in handy?!?!!? :D
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

More On Drumpf's Failed Lawsuit in Nevada

Diana Orrock, the Republican National Committeewoman for Nevada and a vocal Drumpf ally, said she was unaware of the lawsuit before POLITICO contacted her.

“I know that the [Clark County] registrar was on TV this morning saying that anybody who’s in line was allowed to participate in the voting process until all of them came through,” she said. “If that’s what they did, I don’t have a problem with that … I don’t know that filing a suit’s going to accomplish anything.”
Click to expand...

:D
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Handyman said:
No I think Scooby and I agree with you, the problem is (right now) one party has decided they dont want to do anything. They especially dont want to do anything if a certain Black President puts forth the idea and act like petulant children being forced to go to Grandma's House anytime they are asked to. Well things need to be done, and if the Legislative Branch is going shirk their responsibility someone needs to be the adult in the room. If the Congrssional GOP wants to sit on their hands and not govern then Executive Orders are needed.

You (not you personally) dont get to be the "Party of No" and then whine because you didnt get a say in the decision. Just like you dont get to play the "Let the People Decide Who Should Choose the SC Justice" card and then, when your gambit blows up in your face come out and say "We still wont hold hearings!". That makes you a hypocrite and you lose your right to complain.
Click to expand...
I understand the rationale for why Obama and others think he is justified. I just think it's a bad road to go down.

Our government was set up for a series of checks and balances. No question one party can (and has) dug in its heels and said no. One of the purposes, and I believe benefits to a system like ours is it promotes compromise. Personally I think blame can be assigned in both directions in that regard. If one party is not negotiating, take it to the people in the next election. Show how you were prepared to take certain action, to compromise to a certain level. If the people agree with you, your party will be given power.

The problem with the position you guys endorse is that it actually discourages compromise. If I'm the President and I want to get a certain law passed, why would I compromise when the other side says "no" if I know I can basically implement the same thing through executive memorandum or order.

For those of you who have paid attention, you'll recall that I posted many months ago the Republican Senate was in a perfect position to get a great deal on the Supreme Court nominee when Scalia died. Obama would have loved to have another appointee as part of his legacy and would have clearly compromised on the candidate. But they decided to roll the dice on a longshot, a clear error in my opinion. Would our country be better off in such a situation if the President could simply say, ok, I order that Garland is now a justice?

Right now you guys are all in favor of this method. Tell me where you'll stand if someone like Ted Cruz is President in four or eight years and the only thing standing between him and his agenda is a Democratic controlled Senate? Do you want Ted spewing out memos on every subject that dribbles out of his mind?

As for Rovers comment, it is a pretty horrible way to govern if we're going to have laws "passed" by executive fiat, and ultimately rejected or toned down by court decisions years later.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

dxmnkd316 said:
An excellent point. The outrage from the right about EOs is fairly absurd. If they had done their job, they wouldn't be necessary. If the President oversteps his or her bounds, then the judicial branch will step in and walk it back.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this. Did no one here even attend a civics class in high school or college? If we are going to legislate by having the executive issue decrees, subject to later review by the courts, what exactly is the point of a legislative body?

Can anyone point me to any authority, in the federal constitution, any state constitution, the federalist papers, anywhere, that endorses the proposition that if someone isn't happy with how or whether the legislative body is or is not doing its job, we can just take them out of the loop?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

SJHovey said:
I don't understand this. Did no one here even attend a civics class in high school or college? If we are going to legislate by having the executive issue decrees, subject to later review by the courts, what exactly is the point of a legislative body?

Can anyone point me to any authority, in the federal constitution, any state constitution, the federalist papers, anywhere, that endorses the proposition that if someone isn't happy with how or whether the legislative body is or is not doing its job, we can just take them out of the loop?
Click to expand...

You ever use Google? George Washington used them.

I rest my case.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Handyman said:
"If only people with at least 4 grandparents born in America were voting, Trump would win in a 50-state landslide."
Ann Coulter on Twitter

Now that makes zero sense (at least 4...how many grandparents are we supposed to have?) anyways but the best is a bunch of people pointed out that Drumpf then couldnt vote because his mother was an immigrant. It is making her quite angry :D

"But then Trump couldn't run, since his mom and paternal grandparents weren't born in the US. So, um, yeah."
-Jake Tapper

her response:

"So what? You talk about the Hispanic vote - and YET YOU COULD NOT VOTE IF ONLY HISPANICS VOTED! @jaketapper"

I am not sure what that means but I think she blew a gasket ;)
Click to expand...

All four of my grandparents were born in Greece so that would've left me out!
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Drudge has the first "goal lamp" up on the evening:

Hillary +PA
Trump +AZ, GA, IA, NC, OH

FL, CO, NV, MI are showdowns <--- FL? Great, "Hanging Chad 2.0"

Drudge is predicting this'll go into the evening.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

The Sicatoka said:
Drudge has the first "goal lamp" up on the evening:

Hillary +PA
Trump +AZ, GA, NC

FL, CO, NV, MI are showdowns <--- FL? Great, "Hanging Chad 2.0"
Click to expand...
Well, that's according to form. I'm not surprised the ********s in NC are going to end up going Trump. They had promise.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

SJHovey said:
I understand the rationale for why Obama and others think he is justified. I just think it's a bad road to go down.

Our government was set up for a series of checks and balances. No question one party can (and has) dug in its heels and said no. One of the purposes, and I believe benefits to a system like ours is it promotes compromise. Personally I think blame can be assigned in both directions in that regard. If one party is not negotiating, take it to the people in the next election. Show how you were prepared to take certain action, to compromise to a certain level. If the people agree with you, your party will be given power.

The problem with the position you guys endorse is that it actually discourages compromise. If I'm the President and I want to get a certain law passed, why would I compromise when the other side says "no" if I know I can basically implement the same thing through executive memorandum or order.

For those of you who have paid attention, you'll recall that I posted many months ago the Republican Senate was in a perfect position to get a great deal on the Supreme Court nominee when Scalia died. Obama would have loved to have another appointee as part of his legacy and would have clearly compromised on the candidate. But they decided to roll the dice on a longshot, a clear error in my opinion. Would our country be better off in such a situation if the President could simply say, ok, I order that Garland is now a justice?

Right now you guys are all in favor of this method. Tell me where you'll stand if someone like Ted Cruz is President in four or eight years and the only thing standing between him and his agenda is a Democratic controlled Senate? Do you want Ted spewing out memos on every subject that dribbles out of his mind?

As for Rovers comment, it is a pretty horrible way to govern if we're going to have laws "passed" by executive fiat, and ultimately rejected or toned down by court decisions years later.
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of it...I am just saying it is the only way things are getting done. I dont like those types of powers no matter who does them. But there is no compromise right now and I know you know that. The GOP is afraid...they cant even be seen pretending to work with Obama or some Fundy Righty will try and Primary them out. Jesus Faux News almost blackballed Christie after the Hurricane because he refused to rip Obama cause Obama was trying to help. To the current form of the GOP compromise = failure.

Your example is the perfect one...a year ago many of the people ripping Garland thought he was a great example of someone Obama could put forth. Then he did and they had to say no. He went from "Solid American Centrist" to "Liberal Flamethrower" overnight. But it just isnt the SC...look how many Federal Judge seats are left vacant right now because of the way they do business. Look how hard they fought to prevent medical care for First Responders. If Obama wanted to honor Ayn Rand with a statue Paul Ryan would have to disavow her. The Party is off the rails, the leadership is weak and everyone is afraid. When Eric Canter was ousted and when Boehner was shown to have no spine things went off the deep end.

Right now the GOP is in the middle civil war...the elites vs. the fundies.

The only way we can get what we want (compromise) is for either the GOP to grow a pair or for a true conservative party to emerge from the ashes. What passes for the GOP now is barely conservative and is just not fit to run the Country.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

Scarlet said:
All four of my grandparents were born in Greece so that would've left me out!
Click to expand...

I am 3 out of 4 (paternal grandma was born in Pohland) so I am stuck. Do I get extra credit if the other 3 are at worst 2nd generation? ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXIV: Both candidates are the same, but here's why yours is aw

SJHovey said:
I understand the rationale for why Obama and others think he is justified. I just think it's a bad road to go down.

Our government was set up for a series of checks and balances. No question one party can (and has) dug in its heels and said no. One of the purposes, and I believe benefits to a system like ours is it promotes compromise. Personally I think blame can be assigned in both directions in that regard. If one party is not negotiating, take it to the people in the next election. Show how you were prepared to take certain action, to compromise to a certain level. If the people agree with you, your party will be given power.

The problem with the position you guys endorse is that it actually discourages compromise. If I'm the President and I want to get a certain law passed, why would I compromise when the other side says "no" if I know I can basically implement the same thing through executive memorandum or order.

For those of you who have paid attention, you'll recall that I posted many months ago the Republican Senate was in a perfect position to get a great deal on the Supreme Court nominee when Scalia died. Obama would have loved to have another appointee as part of his legacy and would have clearly compromised on the candidate. But they decided to roll the dice on a longshot, a clear error in my opinion. Would our country be better off in such a situation if the President could simply say, ok, I order that Garland is now a justice?

Right now you guys are all in favor of this method. Tell me where you'll stand if someone like Ted Cruz is President in four or eight years and the only thing standing between him and his agenda is a Democratic controlled Senate? Do you want Ted spewing out memos on every subject that dribbles out of his mind?

As for Rovers comment, it is a pretty horrible way to govern if we're going to have laws "passed" by executive fiat, and ultimately rejected or toned down by court decisions years later.
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is based on the assumption the GOP wants to compromise. They don't. Garland is the perfect example of this. He's a wonderfully qualified candidate that is considered by most as a left-leaning moderate. The Senate has sat on it like a bunch of GD 2-year-olds. They don't want compromise.

SJHovey said:
I don't understand this. Did no one here even attend a civics class in high school or college? If we are going to legislate by having the executive issue decrees, subject to later review by the courts, what exactly is the point of a legislative body?

Can anyone point me to any authority, in the federal constitution, any state constitution, the federalist papers, anywhere, that endorses the proposition that if someone isn't happy with how or whether the legislative body is or is not doing its job, we can just take them out of the loop?
Click to expand...

I'd turn that right back around on you. The President is checked by the judicial branch and the legislative branch. If the President ordered something unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will overturn it. If he did something illegal, the legislative branch can impeach him.

They aren't being taken out of the loop. At all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top