An honest question to those on the left.

tridentblue
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.

Most of US are NOT liberal or conservative. It's not been an absolute "either or" until these last few decades.

The vast majority of us just want a country in which we and our families can take care of daily life's needs and maybe put something away for the future to make our lives better. The vast majority used to want to live and let live.

We have been goaded into this falsely dichotomous system where "yer either fer me er agin me."

That's what has to change. We have to focus on the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

If that's socialism, then I'm a socialist. /shrug

InverseLookingGlass

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

reply to post by nwtrucker

 

This is where it went off the rails.

Lose the assumption which you hold closest to your heart and you will discover the path of truth.

The US political system is designed to be perfectly polarized. The lesser of two evils. You can't possibly believe that anyone agrees with everything their preferred candidate does or says even on inauguration day. If you want to group people up, try the % of people that end up regretting their votes regardless of party affiliation.

This right here. Also for me I don't really classify myself as right or left. I do tend to lean more to left although it doesn't mean I agree with everything that the democrats do.

Very rare will I side with a republican a lot of their ideals are off the wall but, I understand why they believe the things they do. It really is the lesser of two evils but in the end it doesn't really matter half the politicians don't really believe half the crap that spews out of their mouth it's just used to prey on people to steer them to their personal agenda.

I didn't vote at all and I don't agree with a lot of the current administration but it would have been way worst if Romney or McCain were in office IMO. Obama gets blamed for everything and is hated so much even before he did anything! He was called the antichrist while he was running for president!

Rant over sorry about that. In the end red or blue were all people stuck on this earth together

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Actually, your are correct. If you were sufficiently bored and read through the whole thread you'd see that I've "seen the light" regarding the A.C.A. fixes and have retracted/amended my original question-twice-as there is a valid mechanism for presidential fixes.

But that's as far as I will go, for now. There are opinions/links provided that show that the fixes, at least some, may have crossed the line and require states to violate federal law by following those fixes.

As I learn more, mostly from better educated/read individuals than myself, I've come to the conclusion that both sides have apparent valid points and this one will have to be decided by the courts.(not that they can't screw up).

It is clear that any long delay in a judicial decision works in Obama's favor and could end up "academic" and a "fact accomplished" before all is said and done.

As far as Presidential precedent goes-and it's been repeated by others as well as yourself repeatedly-I become more skeptical of that justification as time goes on.

By that logic, Obama, with more than a few Republicans in support, could enter the senate, arrest and detain Tea party members and use President Lincoln as the precedent/justification.

Weak at best, IMO.

Still, I'm learning and there have been excellent posts from both sides of this issue.

Yes, snide comments aside, it was an honest question...still is.

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?

I have some questions as well,

Were you concerned for your constitutional rights when the republican backed patriot act passed?

Were you concerned when republicans backed the bill to not allow States rights to label GMO products?

Were you concerned when Bush decided it was a good idea for government to pick and choose winners and bailout private companies?

Were you concerned that prior to Obamacare , Romneycare was already active and running?

Were you concerned that Obama just continued Bushes efforts further along?

nwtrucker

I have a limited understanding of the Constitution and it's workings.

Isnt it abit silly then starting a thread then queationing the current Presidents use of EO and its vailidity under the constitution and then jumping on people that point out Reagan and defending his use of EO as constitutional when you have no idea whats constitutional and whats not?

Id say spend less time posting on ATS and more time Learning your own country constitution first! Your most important legal document! Im British and even I have read and learnt it!

Heres a link to get you started

reply to post by nwtrucker


I'm from Canada, and even here with our extra third party - they're still all scumbags. People need to stop this left verse right BS.

Left, right, and centre are all just words to divide people. I believe what I believe and no colour of a party or party mandate really supports the model of an independent thinker, and instead it seems political parties rely on targeting certain crowds (elderly, youth, rich people, poor people), which is without a doubt the most shallow tactic I see come out of politicians.

It's been said MANY TIMES (especially on this site), it's a vicious cycle. You don't like a politician, so evidently you just simply place your vote on the opposing team. Problem is there is just one opposing team.

Instead of targetting all these slimey politicians. Target the faulty voting system that apparently is providing a "democracy".

reply to post by Gryphon66


My turn to point out a bit for you.

Yes, "extremism is a social cancer". So is using/positioning/labeling those not in agreement with one's "agenda" as extremist.

Who defines it? The media? These guys in Washington spew the labels all over the place at each other then go to the same bars and share jokes and exploits with each other. Rhetoric, nothing more, nothing less.

I believe in one sense "fundamentalism" is a more accurate and less rhetorical than extremist. Though still positioned in the same in the same "bin".

You use "agenda" with lightening speed. LOL. Dare I say your "agenda" is truth? Unfortunately we all think that is the case for ourselves. There comes a point where "motivation" is the better term than "agenda". There is an overlap, but a distinction as well...

As far as a larger view of things go, sorry to disappoint, buddy, but my "overview" hasn't changed one whit. I am grateful for you clarifying/explaining my misunderstanding of Executive Privilege and value the communication we've had, but I see the point almost as minutiae.

Back to the thread, LOL, There have been many who have stated they have many disagreements with Obama and most do with any president, but so far none have answered the A.C.A. or E.O. State of the Union address with any trepidation.

None.(As you have said you aren't right or left, I don't consider you as one of those on the left I was posing the question to.)

I have avoided rebutting the usual left diatribes in this thread in an attempt to make it "safe" for any on the left to voice personal concerns.

Again, none.

This, for me, is more alarming than anything Obama has done or plans to do. It tells me Obama isn't the issue and never has been. He is symptomatic, nothing more. The base that supports him thinks similarly as Obama.

It makes me even more extreme/fundamental, or at the least, reinforces my views. Compromise is D.O.A..

Without compromise, the future of this nation looks bleak.

Downsides sure, but I would say that Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr all used executive orders and took us down this road too. Not laying blame, but if you really believe that Obama is singular, you are mistaken. This belief that Obama is taking wrong actions, might lead to a Republican president the next cycle. The issue, the single biggest issues, is that this republican will probably do the same thing, however he will be held blameless by the right and vilified by the left. What really changes?

reply to post by crazyewok


Ah, crazyewok, right on time. LOL.

Typical of you to attempt to introvert based on my humbleness. Let me rebut.

All our "understanding" of the Constitution is limited, except yours, of course. If you have read through the thread rather than your usual M.O., you'd see my Mia Culpa and revision of the original question.

I have learned and have become somewhat less ignorant, is that not the purpose of A.T.S.? What's your excuse?

reply to post by amazing

Thanks for acknowledging the downside. I have to agree with you to an extent. I do have to say that without any doubt, Obama has raised-lowered?-the bar to a new level with the State of the Union address....

reply to post by AlaskanDad


To clarify something about Executive Orders... It isn't necessarily the amount of EO's the President issues, it is the content issued inside them that is of concern. You could issue 100 EO's telling the State Department how to sharpen pencils and you will never see anyone bat an eyelash. But create one EO telling the Border Patrol that they are no longer to detain persons coming across the border. Which one is more egregious in reference to the law of the land?

reply to post by interupt42

Fair is fair. I will answer your questions the best I can.

Patriot act? Not concerned at first, I held the simplistic view that I had nothing to hide and cubby-holed it with "war time" necessity. Now? Far too broad in scope and like any gov't agency, given that much latitude, it turns into a cancer of the "aggressive" sort. At the least, massive curtailment with very restrictive time limiters, say six months duration, with proof of need, expansion/contraction as dictated at each interval.

Failing that, dump it and revisit the issue with the added benefit of hind site and come up with something better.

Feds re GMOs? I disagree with the Republicans, concerned isn't the word I would use, it's a state issue, not the Feds.

RhomneyCare? No problem with it, again, a state issue, not a federal one. Hence, dump Obamacare, and let the states that want universal health care have it and those that don't..not.

Bush bail-outs? Disagree with him on that one.

I give Obama a little "mulligan" on continuing most of Bush's "agenda". Once he gets in office and is privy to info thee and me are not, I'd expect, at least some, to be valid.

Does that answer your questions sufficiently?

Now answer mine. Do you have any concern or see any downsides to Obama State of the Union Address and intended use of E.O.s to bypass congress. Do you see any downside to the manner Obama has added "fixes" to the A.C.A.?

reply to post by charles1952


charles1952, thank you for the links! I had forgotten the state issue completely.

No, no headaches. I felt I had a valid point, but had forgotten the details of it-1950- LOL.

Obviously, the "decision" lies with the Judicial Branch-Obama's people well know this-and by the time they get around to making that decision, Obama will have gotten away with it. He knows it. Perhaps that's why he felt confident enough to announce his intent to use E.O.s to get his way.

I will be following your posts and threads from now on....

nwtrucker
reply to post by interupt42

 

Now answer mine. Do you have any concern or see any downsides to Obama State of the Union Address and intended use of E.O.s to bypass congress. Do you see any downside to the manner Obama has added "fixes" to the A.C.A.?

Star for the honest reply.

However it appeared to me that you are only blaming Obama and the democrats while overlooking the Republicans doing the same thing.

Now to answer your question: Yes I have lots of the same concerns with Obama but no more than I did with Bush, I'm more concerned with congress who have limitless terms. I also don't see why lobbyist would gamble billions on 50/50 odds on who is in power when they don't have to. There is no politics that goes on in DC only Business and politicians are business man no matter what side of the virtual political fence they claim to be from.

reply to post by interupt42

I am largely disaffected with both parties and squeeze into the Tea Party cubbyhole with the least bodily damage.

Perhaps I should have "preambled" the thread with that fact.

I was honestly looking at those two issues, The A.C.A. fixes and the State of the Union address, only, and should have realized it would be viewed as a partisan thread. I am "partisan" but attempted to single out those two for objective opinion. My bad.

I deliberately didn't rebut the partisan left posts in an attempt to keep it on thread and safe for those on the left who might agree with my "reservations".

That agreement has been few and far between.

IMO, it speaks ill for our future.

reply to post by nwtrucker


IMO the bigger issue is "partisan" and picking a side and defending it no matter what.

I also think the worst thing a partisan political party member can do is worry about the other party while overlooking their own party mess. Instead of blaming or worrying about the Democrats the Republicans should be more worried about the blatant anti republicans they have elected for office.

Note I'm not saying you are doing that and I pick on the Republicans because they make it easy to show how political ideals don't mean nothing to people as long as their party is in office.

After all the Democrats are getting what they want for the most part , even when republicans are in office: we get Bigger gov't , less personal freedoms, stronger regulations in favor of the Oligopolies (Telecom,Healthcare,Oil,etc) , more taxes , and a heavier burden on the middleclass to help the lowerclass.

For the most part the only thing the Democrats have done that is anti Democrat ideals is continuing to expand on the war mongering.

The republicans on the other hand have done the exact opposite to their ideals and in essence have acted like Democrats as the examples I posted earlier.

So it would seem to me that the republicans best efforts should be spent in getting their own party under control instead of worrying about the Democrats. After all the Democrats are sticking to their bigger gov't ideals and even when Republicans get elected they still win (When was the last time a Republican un regulated something, cut significant taxes, or killed gov't programs?).

Now there is a reason why democratic big gov ideals are winning and Republicans are acting like Democrats, but political ideals has nothing to do with it.

Yes, but Reagan was a president of the working citizen. Obama is a president of the non-working...citizen, illegal and multiple voter.

OK...I'm usually one to express his emotions with his politics. I will hold off here and go with the mood expressed by the OP. Here is my belief from the right. Obama and his administration act as though they will be in office forever. It isn't going to happen. And they have twisted the rules, laws and the power of their positions. So when "the other side" gets in office...guess what. Status-quo. A republican would be an idiot not to use the same power and tricks to "right the wrongs". Then comes the next democrat...same thing.

What we have effectively allowed is the end of anything getting done in Washington except for laws being made, repealed and then made again. What we have lost as a society is compromise. We have lost it individually and we have lost it in government even worse. You rake your yard and throw the leafs on mine, I come out the next day and do the same. And how does that end up? A fight. In the case of government...maybe a war.

If we as a society can not force our government to represent ALL THE PEOPLE...even the smaller percentages...we have lost. If we were to change the colors of the flag today, and the left wanted blue, the right wanted red and everyone else wanted white...our current government would make a solid blue flag. But if we compromise, we end up with the same flag we have.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


More good posts!

Let throw a developing thought out and see if it sticks to the walls: compromise is the concept that keeps coming up.

We seem to lost that ability. There may be a more fundamental explanation to that loss.

Perhaps we've lost the "means" to compromise. The "tool", so to speak.

Undercutting the Constitution was good will, for the most part. Trust, at least to a higher degree. We had a moral code. It was, for all intents and purposes, the Judeo-Christian moral code. (I'm NOT talking the religion here, just the moral code).

Groups, families, almost all subscribed to it. Gave lip-service to it. Some even lived it!

That "code" is gone for a large portion of this nation, either due to it's source, Christianity and the marginalization or it, rightly or wrongly. We, for the most part, were European in origin. We were raised with that code, be it when still in Europe or by the following generations while on this side of the pond.

Those that haven't been educated into that code have found others to base their lives on.

I'm putting no right or wrong here, just posing a thought.

The next level of broad agreement was the Constitution. Despite the violations of it all the way back, it remains that the majority took comfort and believed in the value of that document.(A governmental moral code?).

We now see pretty well both "side" consider their view of things (senior?) to that document as well.

So what's left to agree on? Where is the means for that compromise? Does this make any sense at all or should I take my afternoon nap?....

reply to post by nwtrucker


OK, I will scrape it and take a nap..LOL.

It was the commonality of it as much anything...But, so be it.