An honest question to those on the left.

nwtrucker
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Thank you!! My headache just went away. LOL.

Clearly, your better educated/read than me and you've opened interesting questions that I need to clarify for myself.

I seem to have mixed two questions without realizing it. His arbitraries with the A.C.A. and his announced plans to use E.O's to further his political ambitions. This was unintended.

Help me with one question, if you would. How were these changes to the A.C.A. implemented? E.O.s or not?

I'm not any smarter than you, or probably, that much better educated. I've just spent a long-time arguing LOL.

Look at the Politifact article I just linked for you. They're either changes made by Congress and signed off on by Obama, or, they're part of the routine power of the Executive.f

EDIT: Think of it like this. Congress passes a law which says "There will be established a 'National Ice Cream Establishment Act (NICE Act)'. By this Act, the Goverment will offer multiple flavors of ice cream, including vanilla, chocolate and strawberry and such other flavors as may be from time to time deemed necessary, at a reasonable price and availability. The ice cream will be delivered and offered for sale via mobile carts and small vans ... et. al."

The Executive then takes that law and establishes the Department of Ice Cream Kart Systems (DICKS). The President decides which kinds of ice cream to offer, what the sizes will be, what the milk content will be, etc. The Executive determines how many karts and how many kart-vans will be purchased with the money allotted to the NICE Act, whether cones and cups will be offered, etc.

That's a simple way of looking at it, I think, if that helps.

beezzer

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I didn't say left or right.

Progressives have infected both political parties and are basically indistinguishable from one another. Regardless of the letter after their name.

Can you provide a quick, one or two sentence, definition of what you mean by "progressive"?

Nanny-state.
Big government.
Disregarding the Constitution.

Lol like the regressives don't like big government. They love how tax dollars are spent on global corporations that ships jobs overseas and gave us that little thing called homeland security which expanded the size of the government. there is no party that doesn't like big government that includes Democrats, Republicans and the Tea Party.

I'm sorry but the US doesnt have a slightly left of center left leaning social democratic party like Canada does, which is the best party there is. Liberals on the world pie of political science are slightly right of center. Conservative is way down close to the totalitarian line.

Now the problem is, most social democrats are not fooled by Obama and realize this isn't democracy and he isn't preserving freedoms, this is a fascist state, not a socialistic left fascist state or you would have free and low cost universal health care coverage. Not 800 a month if you're lucky. He is a real fascist.

And he should be arrested by the military and removed. They have violated their oath to uphold the constitution by not doing so.

Odd double post.

And another point, all their rules and regulations violate your sovereign rights, and were never on the plate for any party on any election to violate or enslave or deprive citizens of their rights and so they are unlawful. Don't obey them for its a crime to obey a crime.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Oh, I see my error. One would have thought that with the sheer volume of that particular legislation, the bases would have been better covered.

Obviously, it was worded to favor latitude for the administration. Yet another black mark for the Republicans for not screaming at a higher decibel level...

Still, exemptions? delays until after key elections? This guy is using it all, isn't he.

Despite the dropped poll numbers, he comes out with that State of the Union address with that implied E.O. bypass of congress.

Indifference to the public's reaction? Arrogance? Incipient Dementia?...I like that one

reply to post by Unity_99


Trouble is both side's legislation infringe on free rights by definition...any "law" reduces freedoms. It's down to which one's are tolerable and the sheer number of them. Right now every state, county, federal agency is spitting them out as fast as they "juice up".

It's overwhelming...

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.

Which is hypocrisy from the right since they supported the creation of all this "security" stuff during the Bush administration. Obama is merely the current caretaker.

When a lighter skinned Republican gets back into the White House they'll be cool with it again.

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?

This message was addressed to the "left", not to Democratic voters who voted for Obama. I'm on the left, but did not vote for the man.

The thing is with executive orders, all presidents have done it and they used to do it a lot more in the early part of the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Franklin Roosevelt all issued so many executive orders they dwarf any contemporary administration. Do we consider them evil dictators that made us live through some hellish fascist regime? Well for some minorities at the time it was, but for those who are on the right and living today? The fear-mongering over Obama is a cartoonish exaggeration.

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?

Obama is dealing with a hostile and intransigent Congress. He has little recourse. They shut down the government in October over previous legislation Obama supported. What is the man to do? Go along with their hostage taking?

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?

I don't know enough about the issue to even comment at this time. I'm quite aware of human environmental impact and support pretty much all measures that can be taken to try to minimize the already great damage being done.

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

The publicly acknowledged issues that concern me are the infinity-spanning hot war the USA is engaged in and the struggle of the poor in this economy. Obama is certainly to blame for the continuation of the War on Terror, but is absolutely being stymied by Congress in being able to help the economically suffering. Big human condition concerns are what concern me.

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?

"Democrat party", eh? That's usually a right-wing pejorative term. Use "Democratic Party" instead if you don't want me to take you as somebody who listens to everything they hear on Fox News and AM radio and takes it as the absolute truth.

You want a deeper understanding of the right? You mean left, right?

The thing with the Democratic Party is its a fairly big tent. Even more so these days with Republicans purging anyone from their ranks who doesn't fit the small definitions they've made for contemporary conservatism.

There is no lock-step support because the party is pretty much all encompassing. A large portion of people who voted for Obama do not support gay marriage even though Obama now does, but they voted for him anyway. Why? What other choice did they have if they were going to vote?

All democratic processes are going to cause some problems for some people. Its the nature of the beast. Majority rules and the minority gets screwed in some way. Life ain't fair and neither is politics. If you want it changed you either get more voters out or you start a violent revolution.

The right enjoys creating grievances where none existed previously. The executive order thing is one. Benghazi was another.

When Congress refuses to do anything a President has two options. Sit on his hands or issue executive orders. If I was in Obama's position I would have stopped the wars, but I would also be issuing as many executive orders as I can to help the suffering of the lower classes. We're living through what many have termed the "Great Recession." We need something done NOW.

Any downsides or totally righteous?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Obama just did exactly, through lawless executive fiat, what those crazy right wingers tried to do during the shutdown.
Why?

For the good of the country?

Or for good of the his party?

reply to post by Frith


Thanks for the input.

Although both parties are corrupt. The right has the correct philosophy that the Framers intended America to be even though most of them no longer follow it.

reply to post by Gryphon66


OK, this is what I've learned, so far, in this thread. I had a misconception on how Obama was making these changes to the A.C.A.

The legislation allows for latitude by the head of the department...what's her name? The one that would have been fired long ago if she had been employed by a company instead of the gov't. As Obama is her boss, he made use of those legislative "latitudes" via her. I hold her responsible for the web snafu, not Obama.

Not illegal. Perhaps arbitrary, certainly against the wishes of congress. But NOT illegal.

I won't say the conservative media has created a mountain out of a mole hill, but, they certainly didn't go out of their to clarify this point well, either. I believe that's a fair assessment of that one.

Imo, exemptions for select groups goes beyond the normal and reasonable "latitudes" of executive privilege. He's crossed the line with that one.

I surmise that Obama has gone too far in implementing his agenda especially since he has confirmed many on the right's fears that he will E.O. to get what he wants in the rest of his term. This, I believe, is confirmed by his poll numbers despite generous reviews by the traditional media.

I made it difficult to get a straight answer due to my misworded questions at the start of this thread. Mia Culpa.

I re-amend my amended question to this.

To those on the left, do you see a downside to Obama's declared intention to bypass congress by using E.O.s to achieve his goals or do you see that to be righteous? Somewhere in between?

I hope I haven't screwed this one up.....

bjax9er
reply to post by ManFromEurope

 

Obama just did exactly, through lawless executive fiat, what those crazy right wingers tried to do during the shutdown.
Why?

For the good of the country?

Or for good of the his party?

I challenge you to give specific examples and provide reasonable factual backup for your claims.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Almost every law is passed, to some degree, with the understanding that the details will be worked out in practice. The only important thing to me, as you and I have interacted on this discussion for the first time, is that you're looking at a wider world than you were to begin with. You're not as convinced, as maybe you were at the beginning, that one "side" is right and the other wrong. Both sides are wrong. Extremism is a social cancer.

You might be surprised that I for one agree that the Office of the Presidency has overstepped its Constitutional boundaries more than once, beginning perhaps with Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase and going from there. Jefferson is a personal hero, but even he changed significantly after gaining the highest seat, and realized that governance often requires a less than egalitarian outlook. Lincoln surely overstepped his boundaries in declaring War on the Southern States. Grant certainly overstepped his in putting the country back together. Teddy Roosevelt certainly expanded the power of the Presidency as did his cousin Franklin for what was conceived as the great and necessary good at their respective times. But each and every one of these men were also condemned at the time as "Tyrants."

Would America have become the power that it has been in the world these last couple of centuries (and provided all of us alive today with the relative life of ease we have all experienced) if these men had not done what they did? No.

There's always another side to the coin. Best to you, Trucker, as you figure out where you stand in all of this.

reply to post by nwtrucker

Dear nwtrucker,

I'm glad your headache went away based on another member's post. I'm even more glad to give your headache back twice over.

Unfortunately, the Politifact article was presented to you as the clear, understandable truth. It's not. Politifact itself comes to a different conclusion here:
www.politico.com...
in an article entitled "The Obamacare Fix is Illegal."

There are multiple sources explaining why the changes to Obamacare violate the clear language of the law, or Constitutional principles.

www.cato.org...
"Obamacare's Top 10 Constitutional Violations."

And just a few more out of dozens of links:

cnsnews.com...

www.nationalreview.com...

www.longbeachcomber.com...

The example of the ice cream program is flawed. Add to that hypothetical law, the clause "Sales of the entire range of ice cream products will begin in each state no later than June 15, 2014." When the President decides not to start selling the ice cream until December 1, 2014, he is breaking the law. That's what he is doing in Obamacare.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Politico and Politifact are two different websites. But hey, that's one of those minor facts that can be so troubling, eh?

The rest of the websites are part and parcel of the right-wing media machine, meaning that they have an agenda and that agenda is not necessarily the highest and best truth. Remember, all of these websites are merely stating their OPINION, not fact. Furthermore, if you read them, you'll find that by-and-large, they're just copying and pasting certain key arguments.

Hmmm ... now there's a conspiracy chicken-and-egg ... I wonder who they're repeating these arguments FROM?

I encourage you, Trucker, to read them carefully though. Don't be quick to judge for either "side" of the matter. Look at which facts are added in and which are left out. Smell the spin.

My example of the "ice cream act" was not meant as a direct comparison to ACA, obviously, just a simple fun example of how the Executive and Legislative Branches interact.

If the President is breaking the law, I'm sure he will be corrected, unless the concept that he is breaking the law is merely one very narrow view tailored to one specific political agenda. He's not doing it in secret, but right out in front of the nation. The President CERTAINLY has his fair share of political enemies in the Congress who would leap at the chance to Impeach him, and SURELY if he's blatantly breaking the law and usurping the Constitution as the right-wing echo chamber is touting ... surely that effort would be successful, right?

Read for yourself and figure out. Come back with questions; I'm sure someone here can answer them.

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?

You went off the rails with your question. You seem to be implying that Executive Orders are constitutional violations. Presidents since Grover Cleveland -- if not earlier presidents -- have issued Executive Orders. Somehow you think that Obama using them is different from other Presidents using them. Why is that exactly? It wouldn't be because of the color of his skin, would it?

See, a conservative like yourself, who fancies himself asking a genuinely honest question to libruls, has actually asked a very biased and uninformed question, which really is a microcosm of the conservative Right's level of political discourse.

Now if you want to talk about actual constitutional violations, such as illegal wiretapping/meta data collection, and the issuances of death warrants by fiat for US citizens by the president and their death by drone, then I and a lot of liberals have a very big problem with Obama. But given the constitutional violations of the last Republican president -- lying to Congress in order to launch illegal, offensive wars, committing war crimes in said wars, torture, kidnapping, repressing the free speech of American citizens, using the DoJ to conduct political witch hunts, even worse illegal wiretapping violations, etc. -- I and other liberal have to support the lesser of the two evils, i.e. the Establishment Democratic presidential candidate, and accept him as president once actually elected (again, unlike the last Republican president who wasn't elected, but selected, with one of the selectors being a hunting buddy of the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

I was wrong. I apologize. You're quite right that Politico and Politifact are different sources.

The rest of the websites are part and parcel of the right-wing media machine, meaning that they have an agenda and that agenda is not necessarily the highest and best truth.

Politico is not a right-wing website. Politifact has been criticized as being part and parcel of the left-wing media machine, a machine more pervasive than the right's. If I found another left-wing website holding the same position, would you accept it then?

My example of the "ice cream act" was not meant as a direct comparison to ACA, obviously, just a simple fun example of how the Executive and Legislative Branches interact.

I quite accept that, but if it was not intended to be a comparison to Obamacare, euphemistically known as the Affordable Care Act, why use it? It may have been a simple fun example of how the branches are supposed to interact, but my addition of a few words show how they are interacting.

If the President is breaking the law, I'm sure he will be corrected, unless the concept that he is breaking the law is merely one very narrow view tailored to one specific political agenda.

I thought you knew better than that. The president is punished for breaking the laws by impeachment. There will not be sufficient votes in the Senate to convict him whatever he does. That doesn't mean he's not breaking laws.

Now if you're simply talking about being corrected, he has been corrected, multiple times, by courts. In fact his administration has been held in civil contempt for making a mockery of a federal court's ruling.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles:

Don't worry about Politi-whosawhatsis ... it's all crap in the long run anyway ... right, left, up or down.

I used the example because the example is correct. Congress does not specify every element of every administrative detail of every law that is passed. THAT is the job of the Executive Branch, and it always has been.

I get the sense that you are a good-hearted person. Call it a hunch. I know that you believe what you believe and I don't want to trouble you over much on any of it.

But facts, are facts and and opinions are opinions and it is very hard today for most people to detect the difference between the two. If the President is breaking the Law of the Land he will be impeached.

All this noise is leading up to the 2014 mid-term elections. I believe you know that if you think about it. These people and their media machines don't give a darn about the American People anymore ... they just want us to continue their blood-sucking careers to the detriment of all of us as a nation.

Best,

reply to post by nwtrucker


Yeah, these are strange times. It just feels like DC is out of touch with the people. I grew up with both conservatives and liberals around, and my sense is that the majority of American people are really good people at heart. So it shouldn't be that hard to get some of that goodness to shine through in DC, right? Apparently that's a taller order than it sounds.