An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Sorry for the delay on getting back to you on the party issue.

I wasn't happy with my response to it.

I think I agree in principal with the idea that parties are a potential liability, one that has been realized, yet, they also can be used to forward positive action as well.(even though these days it isn't working that way.)

A partial fix to the system might be banning party whips and mandating equal election funds for the senate and proportional funds for the house.(for each member) This could be legislated or even an amendment.

It might even earn bipartisan support.

What do you think of it?

nwtrucker
It's the Obama's methods that I ask you about. Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

That is my question to you. Is there even a thought or a concern about it on your part?

Is this the "ends justify the means" and it's the "right" thing to do? Do you see no consequence down the road to these actions?

Do you support the notion that the EPA and others can make new regulations without congressional approval? I.E. apparently 80% of wood burning stoves are banned nation wide as of Jan.3 and fireplaces are the next target for banning?

Are you even aware of these issues as the "mainstream" media has, at best, minimized them?

Coming very late into this topic, but don't get much time these days to peruse the site. The Obama administration has been somewhat disappointing in that it did not get more accomplished. It didn't help that but for the first 2 years, the congress has just taken the same tact of ends justifying the means by doing nothing. As far as the executive order...Obama has used it in the same range as Ford and Bush 1 and less than Bush 2 and far less than Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon. Here's a nifty link Executive Order.

The "mainstream media" is bad on both ends and is really just cowpokes corralling cattle for slaughter. I've said it before, the 24 hour news cycle is the worst thing that has ever happened to the news. Opinion spews forth as fact and the prattle is gobbled up by the unseeking public.

I think the EPA making new regulations without congressional approval is okay, else nothing may get done with the congress we have. It doesn't mean that all those regulations are going to be agreeable for everyone, but nonetheless, hopefully making a good decision overall.

Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

As far as I know, executive orders aren't unconstitutional.

Did you also oppose W. Bush and all the other Presidents who have used executive orders?? I'm guessing no.

th3dudeabides
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

I think the bigger question is should presidents have the power of executive order. Bush used them too and I didn't hear any of the blowhards decrying their use when it served their purposes.

nwtrucker
Each side of the political issue well knows the views of the other.

The current administration has taken us down a road that, obviously, the right disagrees with.

It's the Obama's methods that I ask you about. Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

That is my question to you. Is there even a thought or a concern about it on your part?

Is this the "ends justify the means" and it's the "right" thing to do? Do you see no consequence down the road to these actions?

Do you support the notion that the EPA and others can make new regulations without congressional approval? I.E. apparently 80% of wood burning stoves are banned nation wide as of Jan.3 and fireplaces are the next target for banning?

Are you even aware of these issues as the "mainstream" media has, at best, minimized them?

I guess I'm looking for a deeper understanding of the right as I've seen almost lockstep support for Obama's methods, top to bottom, in the Democrat party. Do you see no collateral damage to your party by these actions?

Sorry. It started out being one question and ended up with a few more.

Any downsides or totally righteous?

It's a false premise to state that obama violates the constitution. There is no basis in fact. If it were, the republicans would have impeached him long ago.

Further ALL presidents since Washington have had the executive order. It is quiet constitutional.

The president also has the constitutional right to direct agencies to create regulations to fulfill federal laws.

So Yes, I support obama's very constitutional use of executive orders and the very constitutional regulations necessary to implement federal law.

Totally bogus. Take a constitutional law class.

reply to post by RealWoman


I didn't say executive orders were unconstitutional. Executive orders that countermand extant laws without consulting Congress IS unconstitutional.

The "logic" of the GOP establishment for not impeaching Obama is the fact that it won't get through a Democrat controlled Senate and that in the long run, more voters will become aware of these abuses and increase the chance for a Republican President down the road....

This is the current situation...if you have been following these developments, you'd know this.

Apparently, this doesn't concern you?

reply to post by RealWoman


P.S. besides, replacing Obama with Biden would give any reasonable person pause.

So, you take the Constitutional class. The very existence of the EPA is "unconstitutional" per the tenth...

nwtrucker
reply to post by RealWoman

 

P.S. besides, replacing Obama with Biden would give any reasonable person pause.

So, you take the Constitutional class. The very existence of the EPA is "unconstitutional" per the tenth...

republicans don't care about protecting the environment, they don't care about protecting poor people, they don't care about protecting a women's right to choose to have an abortion, they don't care that workers having a livable wage, they don't care about giving every American the right to vote, they don't care about having a world class public education system, they don't care about corporations having too much power, they don't care that poor people get sick, and die, from not having healthcare....why do I say this?....not by what they say.... but, by the legislation they enact in state government, and the federal government.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I consider myself leaning to the left. That said, I don't think this administration operates from the left at all which makes your question unanswerable for the most part.

My question is when are you all going to wake up and realize that partisan politics only exist to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?

If you are talking right and left you have fallen into the trap and are part of the reason things are like they are.

reply to post by jimmyx


Interesting post. It was Nixon that started the EPA. Not a democrat. Being on the right, myself, you say I don't care about the environment? Gee, I want my daughter and grandchildren to have a poor or NO environment? It's funny how the left tells everyone what the right thinks.

At a state level, even the democrats have a "hands on" understanding that there is NO medical care, no environmental considerations if there's no private sector jobs to pay for these services. The feds? Too out of touch with the real world...both parties, IMO.

As far as education goes, my daughter went to private school, my grandchildren are home schooled, all doing fine...now that there away from the revisionist/indoctrination of our "world-class" education.LMAO.

The company I work for has had to cancel their employee medical plan thanks to the Obamacare. The poor need their help at a state level. Their health care arranged at a state level.

But that's just my opinion. You ARE entitled to yours and if your state agrees with you then they should enact you views.

That IS constitutional. Those of us who see thing differently also have the right to have our states to go their route.

The biggest beef I have with the left is their solutions, apparently, only work when enforced on everyone. At a federal level. That is as the biggest flaw you people have IMO.

Judging by the responses, I now feel the only way to preserve the Constitution is to dissolve this union. let each state go it alone or form newer, smaller associations of states. Sadder but wiser, these can go their routes as they choose....

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Perhaps unanswerable for you. I depends on your (and my) definition of "left".

A quick and superficial answer to your left/right conspiracy, which I partially don't disagree with, is I don't have a problem with the idea of an "elite". As long as that allows the average American the traditional opportunity to improve their lot for themselves and their families. I presume that sentiment is generally true of most Americans.

I actually hope there IS someone running the show above the cretins we're stuck with at the corporate/gov't levels...

I do care about our culture and traditions and will not brook ANY real or imagined implication/excuse that they aren't worth defending.

Fix those first. THEN address any "elitist" game-plan that interferes with them. Without a grassroots consensus, a commonality, there is, IMO, no chance of addressing number two.

In other words, more bluntly, I see you as the "problem". Not me. I allow that I could be wrong on that one. LOL.

nwtrucker

But that's just my opinion. You ARE entitled to yours and if your state agrees with you then they should enact you views.

That IS constitutional. Those of us who see thing differently also have the right to have our states to go their route.

The biggest beef I have with the left is their solutions, apparently, only work when enforced on everyone. At a federal level. That is as the biggest flaw you people have IMO.

Hi nwtrucker.

The idea you share in the quote above is one I read often these days...and it breaks my heart.

I'm an American, first. Not a Virginian, where I currently live, or a Californian, where I was born, but American.

I don't like the idea that I should have to pick-up and move to a state that values clean water more than it does $9.50/hr jobs at some factory so that a small group of investors can make massive profits, while skirting regulations.

Every American citizen should be able to enjoy a healthy environment, quality education and healthcare, etc, no matter which state they reside in.
Americans are nothing if not ingenious. If corporations can't find a way to make a profit without spoiling the surrounding ecosystem--then they should fail--not be given the opportunity to move to a more "polluter friendly" state.

The states should be able to run things however their populace sees fit--so long as all states abide by the same minimum Federal standards regarding the education, healthcare and the environment.

Just an opinion from another lefty. (Wait...you did mean left-handed folks, right?)

nwtrucker
Each side of the political issue well knows the views of the other.

Generally, they only see the other side through their own ideology-filter. Only rarely do they attempt to SEE the other side.

The current administration has taken us down a road that, obviously, the right disagrees with.

No, not in all respects.

It's the Obama's methods that I ask you about. Do you support Obama's use of executive orders/ constitutional violations?

That is my question to you. Is there even a thought or a concern about it on your part?

Loaded question with a negative presupposition.

Any downsides or totally righteous?

This is what is called a false dilemma, as if it were either "TOTALLY" righteous or not.

In short: Its better to look at the issues piece by piece than look from ideology-filters as rightists and leftists tend to do. Its a weakness of the American political debate in the last 20 something years.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Pat yourself on the back for the typical talking point rebuts. The thread was off the top, not prepared/edited for a semantics debate.

For it or "agin" it. In vignette? Obviously!

By-pass of congress via executive order is in fact a specific point. One which you have avoided answering from what I can see.

nwtrucker


By-pass of congress via executive order is in fact a specific point. One which you have avoided answering from what I can see.

But you're presenting it as some kind of left-right issue, as if the right generally thinks executive orders are wrong. Does the right generally think so, or do they only think so as long Obama is in office?

reply to post by Olivine


I have nothing against southpaws....

You have every right to a job that pays more than 9.50 an hour. You have every right to live in a clean environment. Good health care and a superior education.

Just be aware that that is your responsibility to achieve. Wait for gov't and you may end up not getting what you want or at some cost elsewhere that you didn't plan on.

My daughter went to private school. (L.A.) If I had waited for gov't to fix the education, I'd still be waiting. (grandkids are home-schooled).

If you want a job that pays better than 9.50 per hour for some scum-bag, then improve your value in the market place and you'll have one. (An increase in minimum wage only creates inflation to the consumer of those products and services, which, in turn, defeats the increase in minimum wage via inflation) Your "health care" will follow your earning curve.

Gov't health care, at least at a federal level, just increases costs through an increased bureaucracy and even lower quality of services. See Obamacare.



If I live in an unclean environment, I"M MOVING!! I'm not waiting for gov't action. Those that do...well I'll leave that one unsaid. The same for decent jobs.

You can live in the desert or in the mountains. Lots of clean air and water. Health care and a good paying job might be another story...

Your heart's broken? We make our own beds....

reply to post by Skyfloating


The frame of reference is political and was intended in this thread. It is natural to be less critical of someone allied to your views than an opponent. That's part of the reasoning in the thread. There is a limit to my tolerance of stupidities on the "right" and your seeing that phenomena occurring with the Tea Party within the GOP.

My curiosity lay in whether similar tolerance levels were being breeched on the left by Obama's action or not. Largely, the answer has been no.

I guess that's no real surprise, though.

If you desire to deflect the question via dissecting it point by point, that's your privilege.

However, your points become moot in that many have chosen to respond the question in good faith having recognized the question was also asked in good faith.

have anyone else noticed that it seems that the bills and such that come up that both parties support are those things that we the people regardless of affiliation seem to be overwhelmingly opposed to???

reply to post by dawnstar


LOL. Absolutely!

reply to post by nwtrucker


Thanks for the reply. As usual for me, I don't think I expressed myself clearly, lol.

First, the $9.50 amount was an example. My personal achievement is satisfactory, although I strive to learn more and be better every day.

Daily, there are news stories about companies large and small, who cut benefits, don't pay their loyal employees a decent wage, or are found to be knowingly polluting our shared environment. These same companies are shown to rake in obscene profits--yet they still cry about Obamacare or the horrible, unreasonable EPA regulations.
Obviously they can do the right thing, but greed gets in the way.

Yes, folks are free to take a different job or move.

I just can't buy into an "everything is disposable" mindset. Workers, our incomparable landscape--we can't just keep using them up and then move on when they become too costly or polluted.

There are clearly no quick and easy solutions, but I don't think ditching all federal oversights is going to be the answer.
Color me skeptical when it comes to the new State of "laissez-faire business utopia" peacefully bordering the State of "clean air and crystal waters".

Not to the mention the logistical nightmare of the population resettling in their personal "best fit" state, if we were to do away with federal mandates.

We just all need to learn to compromise and work together, to find that great big 'happy medium'--were there are few poor, few stinking-rich and gobs of contented "have enoughs".


ETA:
I forgot, I wanted to answer your original OP question.
Yes, I was excited for Mr. Obama to win in the 1st election--I knocked on over 300 doors for the man.
By 2012, I was so disappointed in him, I wrote in for Ralph Nader, again (same as in 2004, 2000, & 1996)