EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 827
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:35 xDaunt wrote: This woman is out of her depth. i have no clue what she's saying. it's like they just decided to put up white noise in front of a screen since they know partisans will be partisans no matter what they say edit: did she just say big brother? we're not defined by our limits but our potential? really....? this is not doing well as a republican "we love women and respect them, no seriously!" | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:35 xDaunt wrote: This woman is out of her depth. After Obama's done, it can only go downhill. After that, it is just extreme right and extreme left nonsense. It's a pain to listen to and I commend your fortitude. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind... Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent. Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
And this Republican women is awful. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:38 Nyxisto wrote: lol that guy on CNN "with Obama's speeches i'ts like with sex, even the worst is still excellent" and everyone in the room is like "wtf did he just say?" And this Republican women is awful. Did Chris Matthews move to CNN? I'm not even listening to this woman. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:37 Introvert wrote: FYI, the Constitution IS law. So with that in mind... Rewriting Obamacare deadlines, trying to violate the Recess Appointment Clause, passing a bill with the individual mandate, etc. I could give you more, but this would be the 184674 they've been laid out. These are just the most recent. Also some of this stuff is nuanced, especially when it relates to more vague sections of the Constitution. So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:43 Roe wrote: i dont remember god saying anything about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i think that was john locke and the founding fathers... I'm not watching. Did someone really say that? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:31 Introvert wrote: I like how you refer to the House, in theory the closest branch to the people, as "sabotaging." When he was re-elected, so was the House. When he was re-elected, the Constitution was not also up for election. That doesn't GO up for election. So yes, when he acts outside the bounds of the law for expediency, it concerns me. How can you trust ANY politician with that kind of power? He's still far left. Just because he doesn't act to the astounding extent you apparently want him to doesn't mean he's not far left. We've had this discussion here before. Yes, he IS rewriting the rules. He's even threatening to just make up new ones. Does this not concern you? The president isn't even a liberal much less far left. If his stated positions are liberal then 60%+ of americans are liberal on a lot of issues then. Also you are right that the house is supposed to be the closest branch to the people but since it was sort of gerrymandered a lot (mostly republicans but I also live in a state where it was done by dems) so it barely represents the views of the people of its state much less the nation because if it represented the views of the nation there would be a different speaker at the moment. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:40 Mohdoo wrote: So when the supreme court says something is acceptable, what further basis is there for something to be illegal? Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June). I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again.... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:48 Introvert wrote: Because the Court's ruling doesn't make it correct? That should be obvious (hell, they can't even agree on most things). Besides, I don't recall the Court ruling on these deadline changes. (The appointment case is going to be decided in June). I would direct you earlier in the thread (at multiple points) where this was discussed. But if you'd like I suppose we could start down this path once again.... The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:44 Adreme wrote: The president isn't even a liberal much less far left. If his stated positions are liberal then 60%+ of americans are liberal on a lot of issues then. Also you are right that the house is supposed to be the closest branch to the people but since it was sort of gerrymandered a lot (mostly republicans but I also live in a state where it was done by dems) so it barely represents the views of the people of its state much less the nation because if it represented the views of the nation there would be a different speaker at the moment. When the president threatens to act unilaterally, that's pretty far left. I don't know what definition you are using, but if you go by the meaningless words he spews then he seems to be simultaneously a bipartisan moderate and still a far left egalitarian. That's because he couches what he says in a way that makes it seem compassionate. Again, just because he doesn't declare himself dictator and rob money out of the wealthy's bank account doesn't make him a moderate. He has pushed through as far left things as he can get. And he's still a lefty for talking about and actively trying to achieve certain goals, even if he can't go as far as he would like. The Repubs did not just win to to gerrymandering, though agree it is an issue. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/did-democrats-get-lucky-in-the-electoral-college/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5093 Posts
On January 29 2014 12:51 Mohdoo wrote: The law changed when the supreme court said so. You are describing what you wish was the case, not what happened. So then why not just abolish all other branches of the government? I KNOW the mandate is the law, but I'm saying it's in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson's fear of the Courts was well placed, I'm afraid. you don't seem to know what 'left' means. I mean American left. | ||
| ||
