Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, PurpleDawg said:

...

The Danish royal household had already put a lot of work and effort into the visit...

 

That's what happens when an uppity woman talks.

  • Haha  (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this belongs in “Myocardial Infarction,” “Travel,” or “God Save Us,” but anyway, here’s how I spent my morning:

 

FC8A69D66A014CD185C1.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris suspending Parliament, Jair letting the Amazon burn, Donald doing Donald ... autocrats are really having their moment now ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

Boris suspending Parliament, Jair letting the Amazon burn, Donald doing Donald ... autocrats are really having their moment now ...

 

Weak people think tough times call for "strong" men. Trouble is what we get aren't so much strong men as bull-headed idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

Boris suspending Parliament, Jair letting the Amazon burn, Donald doing Donald ... autocrats are really having their moment now ...

Maybe it's a good thing I've been off grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PurpleDawg said:

Maybe it's a good thing I've been off grid.

 

Don't worry.  Everything is fiiiiine ...

  • Haha  (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a mess! His own brother just quit his cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

Is there anyone in the world who is stupid enough to be fooled by a pathetic Sharpie?

 

5516029_090419-wls-trump-alabama-img.jpg

 

I’m still shocked he was able to fool 62,984,828 into voting for him in the first place... 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary was a horrible candidate, people decided that rolling dice was a better option...

 

Also, most presidents are horrible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frogtwang said:

Great decision. 

 

Well, that what you get with democracy.

 

For the most part the executive is weak. So he's on Twitter all day. Everyone seems to hang on every tweet. I think it is dumb to do so. Way too mush fixation on a guy that really does nothing. Get a life people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rothbardian said:

 

Well, that what you get with democracy.

 

For the most part the executive is weak. So he's on Twitter all day. Everyone seems to hang on every tweet. I think it is dumb to do so. Way too mush fixation on a guy that really does nothing. Get a life people...

 

Mitch asserts he can do nothing without the executive leading him. So I guess he, at least, disagrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Mitch asserts he can do nothing without the executive leading him. So I guess he, at least, disagrees.

 

Would the Senate Majority Leader argue that the American form of democracy has a strong executive? Probably not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rothbardian said:

 

Would the Senate Majority Leader argue that the American form of democracy has a strong executive? Probably not...

 

Nice evasion which ignores Mitch's own words: “I said several weeks ago that if the president took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes, I’d be happy to put it on the floor. If the president is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it it’ll become law, I’ll put it on the floor.”

 

I wouldn't infer a "weak executive" from those words, but others may differ, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we hear a lot about the "Imperial Executive" when there are Democrats in office.  The government has been shifting power from the legislature to the executive for more than a century, starting with Teddy R. and Woodrow, exponentially increasing with FDR, and steadily growing ever since.  We don't even pretend that we need a legislative vote to go to war anymore.  For much of the last decade, the legislature has become even more of a dysfunctional mess, pushing more power to the executive (and judicial, I'd argue).

 

You may be right that this particular president is such an incompetent charlatan that it has limited his effectiveness, but I don't agree that he's done nothing and has no power.  He's having a real impact on immigration, for the worse, IMO.  His dismantling of the federal government in its oversight capacity over the environment, commerce, scientific research has been greatly effective and devastating, IMO.  His "diplomacy" has pulled us away from our traditional allies and pushed us toward autocrats and dictators.  His "drain the swamp" government has made prior corrupt governments look like relative public servant saints.

 

So, sorry, I do believe that a small-minded, narcissistic, bigoted, humorless, misogynistic, uncurious, anti-intellectual, imminently corrupt, con-man taking the reins of the Imperial Presidency is a big phucing deal.  And I am flabbergasted by the ethical gymnastics required to believe that having that guy in power is a justifiable price to pay so that the courts can be packed with people of a particular ideology.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

imminently corrupt

 

It's NOT "imminent"!  :P

 

As for the rest, well I too think one has to ignore a whole heck of a lot of history and current practical realities to call the executive branch in the USA these days "weak".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Duquesne Frog said:

I feel like we hear a lot about the "Imperial Executive" when there are Democrats in office.  The government has been shifting power from the legislature to the executive for more than a century, starting with Teddy R. and Woodrow, exponentially increasing with FDR, and steadily growing ever since.  We don't even pretend that we need a legislative vote to go to war anymore.  For much of the last decade, the legislature has become even more of a dysfunctional mess, pushing more power to the executive (and judicial, I'd argue).

 

You may be right that this particular president is such an incompetent charlatan that it has limited his effectiveness, but I don't agree that he's done nothing and has no power.  He's having a real impact on immigration, for the worse, IMO.  His dismantling of the federal government in its oversight capacity over the environment, commerce, scientific research has been greatly effective and devastating, IMO.  His "diplomacy" has pulled us away from our traditional allies and pushed us toward autocrats and dictators.  His "drain the swamp" government has made prior corrupt governments look like relative public servant saints.

 

So, sorry, I do believe that a small-minded, narcissistic, bigoted, humorless, misogynistic, uncurious, anti-intellectual, imminently corrupt, con-man taking the reins of the Imperial Presidency is a big phucing deal.  And I am flabbergasted by the ethical gymnastics required to believe that having that guy in power is a justifiable price to pay so that the courts can be packed with people of a particular ideology.

 

I think your first point is spot on. There has been an erosion of legislative power to the executive. And dare I say it isn't a good thing. If point 2 is true, and as an anarchist, I wish he would dismantle the whole thing, but I know I am at the extreme. Still, there should at least be the thought that government can do wrong and that it should from time to time correct itself. We may disagree over the team that does the correction and what was corrected but I would suggest that believing that any curtailment of government is inherently a bad thing is just as extreme as my position.

 

Agree on immigration. Disagree with foreign policy wrt to North Korea. Any dialogue is better than no dialogue. I don't care if NK is nuclear, I want the people, that are basically held as prisoners freed. The most recent President's are all war criminals.

 

Your third point is an awkward endorsement of anarchy, but welcome to the club...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Nice evasion which ignores Mitch's own words: “I said several weeks ago that if the president took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes, I’d be happy to put it on the floor. If the president is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it it’ll become law, I’ll put it on the floor.”

 

I wouldn't infer a "weak executive" from those words, but others may differ, I guess.

 

Not weak and strong are two different things. I'd take the position that the Presidency inherently is weak. You could convince me that it is currently not weak though...but not strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rothbardian said:

 

I think your first point is spot on. There has been an erosion of legislative power to the executive. And dare I say it isn't a good thing. If point 2 is true, and as an anarchist, I wish he would dismantle the whole thing, but I know I am at the extreme. Still, there should at least be the thought that government can do wrong and that it should from time to time correct itself. We may disagree over the team that does the correction and what was corrected but I would suggest that believing that any curtailment of government is inherently a bad thing is just as extreme as my position.

 

Didn't mean to imply that I felt that any curtailment of the government is bad.  There are things the government does that I don't think it should be doing.  However, I do believe the government has an important oversight role to play, particularly for things that the free market is not incentivized (i.e., it isn't profitable, or it takes too long to realize profitability) to handle.  For every (possibly valid) critique of government overreach and ineffectualness one might levy, I think an equally long list of humans acting on nominal "free market" principles taking profits in exploitation of labor/the environment/the disenfranchised/etc.  And while the government doesn't always do a good job of protecting those non-profit seeking goals a society should have, it's about the only tool we've got. 

 

43 minutes ago, Rothbardian said:

 

Agree on immigration. Disagree with foreign policy wrt to North Korea. Any dialogue is better than no dialogue. I don't care if NK is nuclear, I want the people, that are basically held as prisoners freed. The most recent President's are all war criminals.

 

I'm indifferent on his policy toward the PRNK.  I don't oppose the dialog, but I also don't think he's accomplished anything with it either.  My foreign policy issues with him don't have much to do with his little buddy Kim.

 

And we've discussed this before, but I'm not sure there has ever been a President, or pretty much any other historical leader, who wouldn't be a war criminal by your definition.  So I don't know how useful that label is.

 

43 minutes ago, Rothbardian said:

Your third point is an awkward endorsement of anarchy, but welcome to the club...

 

If I thought a utopian ideal could be reached whereby large collections of humans always acted rationally or if I could find any historical examples of a large collection of humans casting off their power-mongering leaders and not replacing them with the yoke of some other top-down leadership structure filled with different power-mongerers, I might be inclined to call myself an anarchist.  I think anarchism might have been a plausible system in a prehistoric context of small tribes of people with fairly simple needs and economic structures.  But humans, particularly in groups, are not rational and most humans like to be led and society is too complex for every human to be able to competently act as a self-actualized agent in all matters of import. 

 

So I'm pretty sure that gets me bounced by your doorman ...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...