posted by QuakerOats
When regular Americans and defenders of liberty are so portrayed, you know the nation is in peril.
Then you only have yourselves to blame for the nation's demise
posted by QuakerOats
When regular Americans and defenders of liberty are so portrayed, you know the nation is in peril.
"Regular" is a subjective term.
And "defenders of liberty?" Look, you can support whoever you want, but you don't get to help yourself to the notion that you "defend" (whatever that means) liberty when you unquestioningly fall in step with a guy who signed a bloated omnibus, banned travel to certain countries (even for law-abiding citizens), approved a ban on bump stocks, funded Planned Parenthood, imposed free trade penalties on US businesses to manipulate the market, and has thrown a tantrum (like his predecessor) when Congress hasn't just let him do what he wanted.
Truthfully, I'm not sure Democrats could have asked for a better Republican president. He does things a neoliberal would like in policy, but his temperment makes Republicans look bad.
Democrats need to look up the term 'regular', instead of attempt to re-define it, as they do just about everything.
Trump was elected by the 'regulars', and the defenders of liberty. At some point, everyone will have to acknowledge it.
Till then, my 4 word phrase will still be a "diatribe", I guess. LOL
You could add deplorable for accuracy
Yet another step in the right direction, and hopefully the next step will be to shut down the CFPB completely.
posted by QuakerOatsDemocrats need to look up the term 'regular', instead of attempt to re-define it, as they do just about everything.
I'd be happy to hear you define it with any specificity and defensible accuracy. It's a subjective term. Regular compared to what? Regular in what way?
posted by QuakerOats
Trump was elected by the 'regulars', and the defenders of liberty. At some point, everyone will have to acknowledge it.
If you're making the case that it was a selection out of exasperation, and not conviction ("Fuck, he sucks, but what's the alternative?"), I can at least sympathize.
But if a person calls themselves a "defender" of liberty, and then votes for an authoritarian out of conviction, they're a hypocrite, and they don't even really want to further liberty, much less "defend" it (again, whatever you think defending it means, aside from ranting on the Internet).
posted by QuakerOats
Till then, my 4 word phrase will still be a "diatribe", I guess. LOL
I can't call most of what you say a diatribe. Your longest posts are copy/paste jobs of articles.
"authoritarian" .......... LOL; another buzzword of the left, used to make him appear 'frightening' (which is another favorite of the left).
posted by QuakerOats"authoritarian" .......... LOL; another buzzword of the left, used to make him appear 'frightening' (which is another favorite of the left).
a) Not a leftie. Again.
b) Authoritarianism has been around as a political ideology since long before now. Hardly a "buzzword," but it describes the following quite well:
- disagreement with the fact that the Constitution itself grants Congress and the judiciary as much power as the executive branch
- the restriction (like traveling to certain countries) and impediment (like buying steel from certain countries) of rights for law-abiding citizens
- the approval of a massive, centralized government (like the one funded in the $1.3 trillion Omnibus that was recently signed)
And if your response has anything to do with Obama fitting the definition as well, I'll agree with you, but he's not the topic of discussion at the moment.
Cool, O-Trap apparently was able to get Quaker to the point where he gets unhinged enough to refer to "blind partisanship" as being a "defender of liberty", although simple logic would seem to indicate that if one gives complete support to one political party over the other(s) to the degree that they constantly denigrate one while propping up the other, they might be the opposite of a "defender of liberty".
Keep on keepin' on!
posted by O-Trapa) Not a leftie. Again.
b) Authoritarianism has been around as a political ideology since long before now. Hardly a "buzzword," but it describes the following quite well:
- disagreement with the fact that the Constitution itself grants Congress and the judiciary as much power as the executive branch
- the restriction (like traveling to certain countries) and impediment (like buying steel from certain countries) of rights for law-abiding citizens
- the approval of a massive, centralized government (like the one funded in the $1.3 trillion Omnibus that was recently signed)
And if your response has anything to do with Obama fitting the definition as well, I'll agree with you, but he's not the topic of discussion at the moment.
When did I ever disagree that the constitution created three separate, but equal, branches of federal government? When did Trump?
Travel restrictions? Such as those to insure the safety of the country and its citizens; as in the officeholder's constitutional duty to defend and protect?!?!!
Impediments? Maybe try trade negotiation tactics in order to insure markets are truly open and free, in order to benefit all market participants and establish a level playing field for competition, in order that decent jobs may be created for 'law-abiding citizens'.
Authoritarian, because a branch of government you are not part of effectively forces you to sign their budget built of morass, largess, and institutionalized logrolling? Hilarious ............try the opposite.
Trump going to use the military to protect the border from the Caravan of people walking from Central America... Good.
Which leads me to my next question, if we are already paying people to sit around on base and do random shit all day, why not send them to the border in rotations in the first place? Instead of a whole new tax budget of the Border Patrol?
posted by iclfan2Trump going to use the military to protect the border from the Caravan of people walking from Central America... Good.
Which leads me to my next question, if we are already paying people to sit around on base and do random shit all day, why not send them to the border in rotations in the first place? Instead of a whole new tax budget of the Border Patrol?
Short answer...it would screw up training assignments and deployments. If I had to guess, they will be National Guard troops, not active DOD troops.
Plus, you could just see how Mattis was not a fan of the idea.
That whole meeting and the press conference today is just a shit show. WTF did he bring up Crooked Hillary is the presence of foreign leaders?
Also, he talked mostly about those NATO countries paying their share and not hey guys, thanks for being the front line for Russia and we will support you. He did none of that.
What a shitshow.
Glad to hear he is going to do this.
I was about to ask the question, what should we do about this caravan:
A) -- welcome them with open arms and provide free and immediate housing, health care, and food stamps.
B) -- welcome them with open arms and transport them to inner-city neighborhoods to begin immediately selling drugs.
C) -- Transport them directly to Oakland where they can set up shop in a sanctuary city whose mayor will support, defend and protect them.
D) -- Prevent them from illegally entering the United States to protect the republic and its citizens and taxpayers.
posted by QuakerOatsGlad to hear he is going to do this.
I was about to ask the question, what should we do about this caravan:
A) -- welcome them with open arms and provide free and immediate housing, health care, and food stamps.
B) -- welcome them with open arms and transport them to inner-city neighborhoods to begin immediately selling drugs.
C) -- Transport them directly to Oakland where they can set up shop in a sanctuary city whose mayor will support, defend and protect them.
D) -- Prevent them from illegally entering the United States to protect the republic and its citizens and taxpayers.
E. Work with Mexico and Central America to determine how to reallocate those migrants in other central and south American counties. Also, start a regional dialogue that cuts to the root of the problem on why there is so many migrants and addresses the failed states in central South America. As the leader of the free world, the U.S. needs to work to address the problem in its own back yard.
And blindly accepting millions of illegals is not the answer. Build the wall to stop the bleeding, then suggest these other countries seek leadership and systems that will enable them to provide for themselves.
posted by iclfan2
Which leads me to my next question, if we are already paying people to sit around on base and do random shit all day, why not send them to the border in rotations in the first place? Instead of a whole new tax budget of the Border Patrol?
Who's going to do the random shit at base?
posted by QuakerOatsWhen did I ever disagree that the constitution created three separate, but equal, branches of federal government? When did Trump?
Not you.
However, Trump wasn't particularly fond of the system when his travel ban was rebutted by the judicial branch, which he, at the time, expressed that they shouldn't have a right to do. If memory serves, the government lawyers had, astoundingly, argued that the courts don't even have the authority to review his actions in the area of national security. An insistence on that level of impunity is problematic.
Also, I recall an interview with Fox in which he essentially didn't like the fact that the Senate had the means to apply pressure to affect the punishment Kellyanne Conway might have received back when that whole episode took place.
I wasn't trying to suggest that this indicates that YOU are an authoritarian. Merely that he is. In a family business, the president and CEO usually has the leeway to run it that way, and it seems like he's trying to operate as POTUS the same way he did operating his family's company.
posted by QuakerOats
Travel restrictions? Such as those to insure the safety of the country and its citizens; as in the officeholder's constitutional duty to defend and protect?!?!!
*ensure
And there are others who make the same case to restrict gun ownership to muzzle loaders and revolvers. They'd call it "ensuring the safety of the country and its citizens."
Either way, it's infringing on the rights of private, law-abiding citizens. If you were watching the happenings from the March for Our Lives, you probably saw the silly sign that said, "Is freedom more important that safety?"
Most of us on here answered 'yes'. I'm guessing you were one of them. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So yes, those travel restrictions. The ones whereby law-abiding citizens ... you know, the people who aren't breaking the law, which includes terrorism ... are being prevented the exercise of their liberty.
posted by QuakerOats
Impediments? Maybe try trade negotiation tactics in order to insure markets are truly open and free, in order to benefit all market participants and establish a level playing field for competition, in order that decent jobs may be created for 'law-abiding citizens'.
Again, ensure*
These "trade negotiations" were restrictive on American business owners every bit as much as any foreign entity. "You're either gonna spend more and buy American, or we're going to make sure you spend even more than that to buy foreign."
There's no scenario in which that results in free market. You don't get a free market by manipulating it. They are diametrically opposite. It's like saying we need to pass more laws to shrink government or we need to ban more things to make people more free.
Authoritarian, because a branch of government you are not part of effectively forces you to sign their budget built of morass, largess, and institutionalized logrolling? Hilarious ............try the opposite.
He didn't have to sign shit. That's the point.
posted by QuakerOatsGlad to hear he is going to do this.
I was about to ask the question, what should we do about this caravan:
A) -- welcome them with open arms and provide free and immediate housing, health care, and food stamps.
B) -- welcome them with open arms and transport them to inner-city neighborhoods to begin immediately selling drugs.
C) -- Transport them directly to Oakland where they can set up shop in a sanctuary city whose mayor will support, defend and protect them.
D) -- Prevent them from illegally entering the United States to protect the republic and its citizens and taxpayers.
What about:
E) Let them in, but don't transport them or provide them with anything. Make them responsible for fending for themselves.
Trump did not run roughshod over the judicial branch; he is allowed to disagree with their rulings, especially when the defenders of illegal aliens shop their venue.
As for travel, banning those coming in from certain terrorist sponsoring nations is fine, especially until we get a system (vetting) that actually works. That is his # 1 duty. In no way is it limiting my freedom as an American; it is enhancing it.
As for trade negotiations, you get a free market by doing just that, negotiating a free market. We have not had free markets or free trade, which is one of the main reasons why our mfg base was crushed. So temporary involvement for the purpose of gaining true free trade and equal access to markets can be necessary.
As for signing the budget bill, your true authoritarian would not have signed it, ergo .......
Bonus: E) - "let them in", that is what we have been doing for fuck's sake; it doesn't work. "Fend for themselves" = leach off the taxpayers. Those days are coming to a close.
posted by QuakerOatsTrump did not run roughshod over the judicial branch; he is allowed to disagree with their rulings, especially when the defenders of illegal aliens shop their venue.
No, he didn't run roughshod over the judicial branch. He was unable to do so, per the law of the land.
The problem, however, was not that he disagreed with their decisions. He disagreed with their ability to make that decision.
posted by QuakerOats
As for travel, banning those coming in from certain terrorist sponsoring nations is fine, especially until we get a system (vetting) that actually works. That is his # 1 duty. In no way is it limiting my freedom as an American; it is enhancing it.
"Terrorist sponsoring nation" isn't an official designation, because it's not a term with specific characteristics that can be checked off (much like "assault weapon").
And the problem with banning those coming in is that it also bans those who left who are returning.
As for your statement that it's "fine, especially until we get a system (vetting) that actually works," I wonder if you feel the same way about restricting gun ownership to revolvers and muzzle loaders. Is that also "fine, until we get a system that actually works?"
posted by QuakerOats
As for trade negotiations, you get a free market by doing just that, negotiating a free market. We have not had free markets or free trade, which is one of the main reasons why our mfg base was crushed. So temporary involvement for the purpose of gaining true free trade and equal access to markets can be necessary.
A free market isn't the sort of thing you can negotiate for. Negotiation involves the governmental use of influence. A free market is the absence of governmental influence. As a governing body, you withdraw from the equation. You don't exert yourself in new and additionally pervasive ways.
posted by QuakerOats
As for signing the budget bill, your true authoritarian would not have signed it, ergo .......
Fuck me. Are you kidding? Are you saying that an authoritarian wouldn't have signed off on a deficit-spending measure that fuels the centralized power from which the President exerts power?
Do you know what authoritarian means?
posted by QuakerOats
Bonus: E) - "let them in", that is what we have been doing for fuck's sake; it doesn't work. "Fend for themselves" = leach off the taxpayers. Those days are coming to a close.
Leeching off someone else is the categorical opposite of fending for themselves. So no, "fend for themselves" != leech off the tax payer. In fact, fending for themselves is ... very specifically ... NOT leeching off taxpayers.
They come. They can stay. But they don't get any handouts. I noticed that such an idea was absent in your multiple choice option, but it wouldn't allow for them to be an undue burden on the financial state of affairs while still not denying them the ability to contribute in whatever way they can.
We let them in knowing they were coming just makes the border weaker.
posted by SpockWe let them in knowing they were coming just makes the border weaker.
wat
posted by O-Trapwat
He had a rough game of Red Rover during gym class.
There are indeed some decisions that remain under the purview of the president, no matter the overreach of liberal judges wishing to legislate and administrate from the bench.
"A free market isn't the sort of thing you can negotiate for. Negotiation involves the governmental use of influence. A free market is the absence of governmental influence. As a governing body, you withdraw from the equation. You don't exert yourself in new and additionally pervasive ways."
We did not and do not have free global markets; I think that is the premise you are missing. Obviously if we did we would not need intervention. However, the government already inserted itself into the marketplace with asinine trade agreements, so now it is only the government who can unwind the agreements, distortions, and unair trade they created. After that occurs they can step aside and allow markets to function on a level playing field.
Why are republicans and democrats still betting the farm on polls? After this past presidential election, I would have thought that people would automatically disregard polls because they are no longer a reasonably good yardstick.