-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 23, 2020, 10:29:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 223232 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #500 on: February 07, 2016, 10:37:46 AM »

So you agree that Obama has not used executive orders with unusual frequency?
No I don't.  It is the type of Executive Order and whether it was beyond the scope of his Enumerated Powers, traditionally vested to Congress.  And not the actual number but the wholesale policy change it effectuated.   Wink

Was that a trick question? LOL

I'm kidding.   Wink
It seems like a trick answer.   Cheesy
Not really.  It is not the number of orders, but whether the substance of the order is one that Congress is tasked with.  Wink
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #501 on: February 07, 2016, 10:39:49 AM »

So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #502 on: February 07, 2016, 10:45:22 AM »

So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  Wink 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #503 on: February 07, 2016, 10:50:07 AM »

So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  Wink 
So you still believe that Obama has used executive orders with unusual frequency. You've been shown documentation that refutes that. Do you have documentation that supports your assertion? And I don't mean someone saying so; I mean someone showing a count that's more accurate than the data in the link I provided.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #504 on: February 07, 2016, 10:52:52 AM »

So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  Wink 

That wasn't the question. The question was about number. You agreed.

You can agree on one point while maintaining it isn't what should be the point, or the measure of the issue.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #505 on: February 07, 2016, 10:58:37 AM »

So the answer to the question is yes, you agree.
the captain - At the beginning of the post, I said, "No, I don't." And, I don't agree that there are fewer in number but more important in impact. I think Obama has overstepped his job description.  Wink 
So you still believe that Obama has used executive orders with unusual frequency. You've been shown documentation that refutes that. Do you have documentation that supports your assertion? And I don't mean someone saying so; I mean someone showing a count that's more accurate than the data in the link I provided.
Emily - I linked the GW Bush executive orders just to show an example of the range of orders and not the impact. Running the government by executive fiat, bypassing the process is results in a dictatorship. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #506 on: February 07, 2016, 11:00:20 AM »

I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #507 on: February 07, 2016, 11:13:09 AM »

I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  Wink

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. Wink

http://www.presidency.uscb.edu/data/orders.php

"The form, substance and numbers of presidential orders has varied dramatically in the history of the US Presidency." (from above)
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 11:22:09 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #508 on: February 07, 2016, 11:27:10 AM »

I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  Wink

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. Wink
I agree it's not the president's role to legislate, but an executive order may not run counter to standing law or it can be stayed judicially.   If it's within the letter but against the intent, Congress can override any executive order at will.  If they are finding that executive orders are frequently counter to the intent of the law but within the letter, they should write their legislation more carefully.
Given that you tacitly agree, though won't say so, that Obama has not used executive orders peculiarly frequently, then we've got an ideological question. On the matter of the rightness of the use I find, no doubt unsurprisingly, The Republican presidents' use more noxious, though I'm hardly a fan of Democratic presidents' policies either, for the most part. The problem is, I find, that there's a particular disingenuousness with the right-wing media, starting in the late 80's but gaining significant strength in the 90's. And their followers have forgotten how to distinguish fact from opinion.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #509 on: February 07, 2016, 11:30:11 AM »

I understand what you are saying about the impact. I'm asking about the number.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_fedral_executive_orders

Hope it copies.  Of course, Roosevelt is high on the list.  He was into his 4th term.  Obama has one-tenth of Roosevelt but the impact is where it's at.  Wink

It is not Obama's role to legislate. That is outside of his job description and what he was elected to do. Wink
I agree it's not the president's role to legislate, but an executive order may not run counter to standing law or it can be stayed judicially.   If it's within the letter but against the intent, Congress can override any executive order at will.  If they are finding that executive orders are frequently counter to the intent of the law but within the letter, they should write their legislation more carefully.
Given that you tacitly agree, though won't say so, that Obama has not used executive orders peculiarly frequently, then we've got an ideological question. On the matter of the rightness of the use I find, no doubt unsurprisingly, The Republican presidents' use more noxious, though I'm hardly a fan of Democratic presidents' policies either, for the most part. The problem is, I find, that there's a particular disingenuousness with the right-wing media, starting in the late 80's but gaining significant strength in the 90's. And their followers have forgotten how to distinguish fact from opinion.
Emily - the distinguishing as you say of "fact from opinion" is correct. And why it needs to be focused upon in schools where kids learn that skill so they don't drink the Koolaid.    Kool-Aid Man
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2893



View Profile
« Reply #510 on: February 07, 2016, 11:56:42 AM »

You gotta love flippedscrgel for her ability to not answer questions directly if the answer doesn't help further promote her agenda.

The deflects are also wonderful.

And then she ends it with a Wink so everybody will accept her bullshit "answers" in good humor.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #511 on: February 07, 2016, 12:07:09 PM »

You gotta love flippedscrgel for her ability to not answer questions directly if the answer doesn't help further promote her agenda.

The deflects are also wonderful.

And then she ends it with a Wink so everybody will accept her bullshit "answers" in good humor.
sweetdudejim - you may not like or agree with my responses but they are mine.

Before i responded to some, I did a little homework.

Those are personal attacks. Just sayin'. 

Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #512 on: February 14, 2016, 07:06:05 AM »

That Republicans are promising to block the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia is a joke. I have yet to hear a single reason. Yes, it's an election year. And...? The president's duties and responsibilities extend throughout his term. Does Article II, Section II say that the president shall nominate Supreme Court Justices during the first three years or his term? The fact that the other party may or may not win the presidency is wholly irrelevant. OK, Republicans would prefer a Republican nominee. No sh*t. But who cares? Contrary to the past eight years of their existence, you ought not try to take your ball and go home out of fear you might not get your way.

The president won the election, and thus the responsibility of nominating justices. He's obviously going to go for a liberal, but he also obviously realizes the opposition against anything he says or does. Throughout history, he'd nominate a semi-moderate liberal and the GOP-led Senate would approve the nominee unless s/he was incompetent--but not because s/he was of a non-GOP ideology.

I'm so frustrated with the idiocy. I really am. We're really going to get to a point where nobody can do anything unless they control both houses and the presidency. Bunch of fucking idiots.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #513 on: February 14, 2016, 07:07:41 AM »

You know what, what about a president's third year? After all, that's getting pretty close to his fourth year, in which he's a lame duck. Better not approve any nominations.

And second year? That's a midterm election! No, no nominations should be vetted and passed then either.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2453


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #514 on: February 15, 2016, 07:53:40 PM »

That Republicans are promising to block the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Scalia is a joke. I have yet to hear a single reason. Yes, it's an election year. And...? The president's duties and responsibilities extend throughout his term. Does Article II, Section II say that the president shall nominate Supreme Court Justices during the first three years or his term? The fact that the other party may or may not win the presidency is wholly irrelevant. OK, Republicans would prefer a Republican nominee. No sh*t. But who cares? Contrary to the past eight years of their existence, you ought not try to take your ball and go home out of fear you might not get your way.

The president won the election, and thus the responsibility of nominating justices. He's obviously going to go for a liberal, but he also obviously realizes the opposition against anything he says or does. Throughout history, he'd nominate a semi-moderate liberal and the GOP-led Senate would approve the nominee unless s/he was incompetent--but not because s/he was of a non-GOP ideology.

I'm so frustrated with the idiocy. I really am. We're really going to get to a point where nobody can do anything unless they control both houses and the presidency. Bunch of fucking idiots.
It will be quite interesting to see if Obama can pull this off. Also,  if the Republicans just out and out block him, this will be a very good issue for the Democrats to use in the election. The Republicans being the party who has shut down the govt, did nothing but vote to end the ACA over 50 times and impeded the President's duties under the Constitution.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #515 on: February 16, 2016, 07:49:24 AM »

Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #516 on: February 16, 2016, 08:13:54 AM »

Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.

Can't speak for anyone else but my complaint isn't to imply the president's nominee needs to be pushed through and approved. It's that the process should commence and be carried out without unnecessary hesitation. The senate absolutely has the right to reject the nominee.

I also believe a qualified nominee should take into consideration the realities of the nation's politics, as evidenced by elected officials. And that qualified nominees should, absent SERIOUS problems (not political concerns) be approved. As election winners love to say, elections have consequences.

So in this in this case, the president should nominate someone he likes, but not the most liberal candidate imaginable (as both houses are Republican). And unless vetting shows an ax murder or something... But the whole "the process must be delayed until next year" nonsense is sh*t. I would say this regardless of who was in power and my preferred candidates. I was opposed to Dem objections to Bush's appointees, too.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #517 on: February 16, 2016, 08:29:27 AM »

Of course, just because Obama nominates someone doesn't mean he or she should be approved or rejected just because. The process shouldn't be delayed, either. The Democratic-controlled Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork in 1987. There was no rush to approve the Republican president's nominees (Anthony Kennedy was the third candidate, approved more than a year after Lewis Powell resigned). Let's also not forget how the "tolerance" party treated Clarence Thomas. The Democrats shouldn't be surprised if said gridlock happens again this time.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #518 on: February 16, 2016, 08:51:04 AM »

I generally agree. I think my criticism of both parties is well documented.

Though to be fair, Thomas's allegations seemed pretty credible
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #519 on: February 16, 2016, 09:01:11 AM »

Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #520 on: February 16, 2016, 10:15:01 AM »

Long dong silver. Pubic hair on my Coke can.

A black man can be conservative, I have no issue there. (One of my best friends, who is also my financial advisor, is a black, male conservative.) just speaking for myself, I don't have qualms with that. Others might. Not my problem or point. And ABSOLUTELY there was, and increasingly is, partisanship involved in nominating and vetting appointments. But there was at least smoke warranting investigation for fire with Thomas. And he (obviously) got approved anyway, unlike what's going to happen with the laughably "Constitution worshipping" GOP.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #521 on: February 16, 2016, 10:33:30 AM »

Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
As do yours, my proclivities shade my perspective: my memory is clearer of Anita Hill being pilloried for being a 'Delilah'. Those hearings were part of the formation of my feminism.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2453


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #522 on: February 17, 2016, 01:05:19 AM »

Funny how the Democrats want a new Supreme Court Justice appointed so quickly and without question...I guess they don't remember the events of 1987-88.

Can't speak for anyone else but my complaint isn't to imply the president's nominee needs to be pushed through and approved. It's that the process should commence and be carried out without unnecessary hesitation. The senate absolutely has the right to reject the nominee.

I also believe a qualified nominee should take into consideration the realities of the nation's politics, as evidenced by elected officials. And that qualified nominees should, absent SERIOUS problems (not political concerns) be approved. As election winners love to say, elections have consequences.

So in this in this case, the president should nominate someone he likes, but not the most liberal candidate imaginable (as both houses are Republican). And unless vetting shows an ax murder or something... But the whole "the process must be delayed until next year" nonsense is sh*t. I would say this regardless of who was in power and my preferred candidates. I was opposed to Dem objections to Bush's appointees, too.
This!

Our system is really broken. I was just reading that the Senate has approved only one Federal Appellate Court opening out of 12 since the Republicans took the Senate. As most Americans are Pro-choice, this process is going to be closely watched. The obstruction may well backfire at the ballot box for the Republican party! Americans want Washington to start getting things done!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #523 on: February 17, 2016, 08:06:21 AM »

Thomas was blackballed for being a black conservative, plain and simple. Nothing sends white gated-community liberals into a furor more than a black man who doesn't subscribe to their crap, y'dig.
As do yours, my proclivities shade my perspective: my memory is clearer of Anita Hill being pilloried for being a 'Delilah'. Those hearings were part of the formation of my feminism.
Let's not forget that men can be feminists, too!  Wink
Logged
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #524 on: February 17, 2016, 04:50:09 PM »

They're not men; they're women with penises.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.272 seconds with 22 queries.