Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Trump is not fit to be president thread
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.
  • Alienating most of our allies.
  • Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
  • Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
  • Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
  • Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
  • Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
  • Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
  • Ending subsidies for ACA

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

some of your points are better than others. I will just concentrate on one - tax reform.


yep, tax reform will benefit the rich(er) more - since they pay the majority of taxes. Hard to give a tax break to people who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.

But I think the idea that the extra money will just sit on their dressers gathering dust is overblown. if there is one thing rich people want, it is to get richer. If there is one thing corporations want, it is to grow. So the money will be put to work.

So I see the tax reforms as a stimulus for the economy. I do not see that as a bad thing.

I'll take a stab at another 2:

---------------

[*]Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.

I guess you are unaware of the 5th Circuit ruling that gutted DAPA (btw, created by Presidential fiat) as an unconstitutional encroachment of executive power on the legislature given the legislature had passed a law that stated almost precisely the opposite of some points that DAPA tried to put into place.

Interestingly enough, the executive order DACA has much of the same problems in its structure and implementation. I guess that it is 'terrible' and 'uncalled for' that, if we as a country truly wish the results of DACA, that we actually pass a fing law for it (instead of executive fiat decree)?

Look, I am actually in favor of the goal of DACA. But the means by which it is put into place was fing grotesque.

As for 'a wall', well, I guess call me a snaggle tooth racist, but I have no problem with the US *actually* controlling and being in control of its borders; that is one of the main functions of a sovereign nation.

--------------------

[*]Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.

First, I have no problems with legalization of the use of marijuana at all levels, and am in fact a proponent of that. The solution to the question and goal I seek is *exactly* what California and Colorado have implemented.

*If* we as a nation wish to do that, then we should undoubtedly enact legislation to make sure that cannabis is not included as a DEA Schedule 1 drug. It is far more grotesque to have laws on the books and not just overlook them, but to *selectively* overlook them by geography, such as what Obama implemented with his policy on marijuana.

As for 'crackdown', I think you really mean 'enforce the law as written', which is an exceptionally odd view or the term 'crackdown', imo.

But, I guess for some the ignorance or creation of new legal regimes at a whim is fine and dandy when done by presidential fiat. To me, that is an amazingly scary thing to buy into.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 12:59 PM by tanqtonic.)
01-12-2018 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.
  • Alienating most of our allies.
  • Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
  • Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
  • Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
  • Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
  • Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
  • Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
  • Ending subsidies for ACA

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

some of your points are better than others. I will just concentrate on one - tax reform.


yep, tax reform will benefit the rich(er) more - since they pay the majority of taxes. Hard to give a tax break to people who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.

But I think the idea that the extra money will just sit on their dressers gathering dust is overblown. if there is one thing rich people want, it is to get richer. If there is one thing corporations want, it is to grow. So the money will be put to work.

So I see the tax reforms as a stimulus for the economy. I do not see that as a bad thing.

I'll take a stab at another 2:

---------------

[*]Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.

I guess you are unaware of the 5th Circuit ruling that gutted DAPA (btw, created by Presidential fiat) as an unconstitutional encroachment of executive power on the legislature given the legislature had passed a law that stated almost precisely the opposite of some points that DAPA tried to put into place.

Interestingly enough, the executive order DACA has much of the same problems in its structure and implementation. I guess that it is 'terrible' and 'uncalled for' that, if we as a country truly wish the results of DACA, that we actually pass a fing law for it (instead of executive fiat decree)?

Look, I am actually in favor of the goal of DACA. But the means by which it is put into place was fing grotesque.

As for 'a wall', well, I guess call me a snaggle tooth racist, but I have no problem with the US *actually* controlling and being in control of its borders; that is one of the main functions of a sovereign nation.

--------------------

[*]Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.

First, I have no problems with legalization of the use of marijuana at all levels, and am in fact a proponent of that. The solution to the question and goal I seek is *exactly* what California and Colorado have implemented.

*If* we as a nation wish to do that, then we should undoubtedly enact legislation to make sure that cannabis is not included as a DEA Schedule 1 drug. It is far more grotesque to have laws on the books and not just overlook them, but to *selectively* overlook them by geography, such as what Obama implemented with his policy on marijuana.

As for 'crackdown', I think you really mean 'enforce the law as written', which is an exceptionally odd view or the term 'crackdown', imo.

But, I guess for some the ignorance or creation of new legal regimes at a whim is fine and dandy when done by presidential fiat. To me, that is an amazingly scary thing to buy into.

Agree with Tanq and OO on all fours.
01-12-2018 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  
  • Alienating most of our allies.
  • Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
  • Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
  • Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
  • Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
  • Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
  • Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
  • Ending subsidies for ACA

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

I know what you were commenting on. I was rebuking the idea that Trump is intentionally trying to push power back to the legislature and is intentionally enforcing existing legislation (e.g. marijuana regs) because he disagreed with the process of how they were being implemented. Trump hasn’t shown any signs of wanting to reduce the accumulation of power in the executive branch - in fact, he has almost certainly expressing the opposite wishes.
Wanting Congress to do its job is not the antithesis of wanting to preserve his own power. He'd be happy for Congress to vote him the authority and funding to build a wall along the border, for example.

He went to Congress to get the Affordable Care Act repealed, rather than negating it by executive fiat. Congress refused, so the ACA remains. It's telling how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that this is regarded that this is somehow his failure and not that of his party members in Congress, even though he adhered to the constitutional process for getting a law repealed in favor of just ignoring the law.

I don't understand your comment about intentionally enforcing existing legislation - he is in fact doing that. He reversed his predecessor's instructions to ignore the law.
01-12-2018 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #44
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 04:40 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Reversing/not renewing the executive overreach of previous administrations (and thereby putting the responsibility for this legislation back on gutless congress), enforcing existing federal law which said Congress is too gutless to change, being an ass, and signing tax legislation passed by Congress - no, that isn't doing much.

I wholeheartedly approve of him refusing to arrogate legislative powers to himself on the grounds that Congress won't do its job.

Arguing that he's a bad executive for interpreting and enforcing existing legislation as written is just Orwellian.

Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

I know what you were commenting on. I was rebuking the idea that Trump is intentionally trying to push power back to the legislature and is intentionally enforcing existing legislation (e.g. marijuana regs) because he disagreed with the process of how they were being implemented. Trump hasn’t shown any signs of wanting to reduce the accumulation of power in the executive branch - in fact, he has almost certainly expressing the opposite wishes.
Wanting Congress to do its job is not the antithesis of wanting to preserve his own power. He'd be happy for Congress to vote him the authority and funding to build a wall along the border, for example.

He went to Congress to get the Affordable Care Act repealed, rather than negating it by executive fiat. Congress refused, so the ACA remains. It's telling how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that this is regarded that this is somehow his failure and not that of his party members in Congress, even though he adhered to the constitutional process for getting a law repealed in favor of just ignoring the law.

I don't understand your comment about intentionally enforcing existing legislation - he is in fact doing that. He reversed his predecessor's instructions to ignore the law.

Ill try to be more precise: Trump’s actions have not been predicated on reducing executive power, that has been happenstance.
01-12-2018 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #45
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 04:40 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Has Trump actually said he is intentionally trying to reverse the swing of power to the executive? He constantly complains that he doesn’t have enough. I think this is just a project - all he is doing reversing Obama’s executives orders, as he hasn’t shied from using them himself.

I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

I know what you were commenting on. I was rebuking the idea that Trump is intentionally trying to push power back to the legislature and is intentionally enforcing existing legislation (e.g. marijuana regs) because he disagreed with the process of how they were being implemented. Trump hasn’t shown any signs of wanting to reduce the accumulation of power in the executive branch - in fact, he has almost certainly expressing the opposite wishes.
Wanting Congress to do its job is not the antithesis of wanting to preserve his own power. He'd be happy for Congress to vote him the authority and funding to build a wall along the border, for example.

He went to Congress to get the Affordable Care Act repealed, rather than negating it by executive fiat. Congress refused, so the ACA remains. It's telling how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that this is regarded that this is somehow his failure and not that of his party members in Congress, even though he adhered to the constitutional process for getting a law repealed in favor of just ignoring the law.

I don't understand your comment about intentionally enforcing existing legislation - he is in fact doing that. He reversed his predecessor's instructions to ignore the law.

Ill try to be more precise: Trump’s actions have not been predicated on reducing executive power, that has been happenstance.

His campaign promises included rolling back some of Obama's executive orders. If you're going to insist on technical precision, then yes, his stated intention was not to reduce his own power but to negate uses of Obama's power. Also, enforcing previously unenforced federal law is not intentionally increasing executive power.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 05:07 PM by Frizzy Owl.)
01-12-2018 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #46
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.
01-12-2018 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #47
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

A prime example, one I wish I had thought of myself. He has stated more than once that he will sign a comprehensive immigration bill if Congress sends him one, even if he doesn't completely agree with it.

Again, we are so far down the rabbit hole that he's vilified for asking for legislative definition and authorization of executive powers over immigration, in place of a hodgepodge of regulations and executive orders that reflect political whim and emotional response to news stories.
01-12-2018 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #48
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

Source where Trump has said he wants to get rid of the executive DACA because it isn’t an executive order? It appears he is using it as leverage to get his wall, and nothing more.

Trump has issued executive order, after executive order nice he took office. There is more evidence that he wants to continue using executive orders and expanding presidential power, than the latter.
01-12-2018 05:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #49
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:05 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 04:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 04:40 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:20 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I was commenting on your (ETA: not yours, actually) bullet items. Do you have more examples?

As for what Trump has said - well, he says all kinds of crazy things. I tend to base conclusions on actions, not words.

I know what you were commenting on. I was rebuking the idea that Trump is intentionally trying to push power back to the legislature and is intentionally enforcing existing legislation (e.g. marijuana regs) because he disagreed with the process of how they were being implemented. Trump hasn’t shown any signs of wanting to reduce the accumulation of power in the executive branch - in fact, he has almost certainly expressing the opposite wishes.
Wanting Congress to do its job is not the antithesis of wanting to preserve his own power. He'd be happy for Congress to vote him the authority and funding to build a wall along the border, for example.

He went to Congress to get the Affordable Care Act repealed, rather than negating it by executive fiat. Congress refused, so the ACA remains. It's telling how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that this is regarded that this is somehow his failure and not that of his party members in Congress, even though he adhered to the constitutional process for getting a law repealed in favor of just ignoring the law.

I don't understand your comment about intentionally enforcing existing legislation - he is in fact doing that. He reversed his predecessor's instructions to ignore the law.

Ill try to be more precise: Trump’s actions have not been predicated on reducing executive power, that has been happenstance.

His campaign promises included rolling back some of Obama's executive orders. If you're going to insist on technical precision, then yes, his stated intention was not to reduce his own power but to negate uses of Obama's power. Also, enforcing previously unenforced federal law is not intentionally increasing executive power.

All he has wanted to do is reverse OBAMA’s rules, not roll back the expansion of the executive branch. Again, he has issued a ton or EOs himself.
01-12-2018 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #50
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

Source where Trump has said he wants to get rid of the executive DACA because it isn’t an executive order? It appears he is using it as leverage to get his wall, and nothing more.

Trump has issued executive order, after executive order nice he took office. There is more evidence that he wants to continue using executive orders and expanding presidential power, than the latter.

Such as...
01-12-2018 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #51
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

Source where Trump has said he wants to get rid of the executive DACA because it isn’t an executive order? It appears he is using it as leverage to get his wall, and nothing more.

Trump has issued executive order, after executive order nice he took office. There is more evidence that he wants to continue using executive orders and expanding presidential power, than the latter.

Such as...

Are you kidding me? You need me to provide examples of EOs?

How about the failed immigration ban for starters? Or the EO associated with Obamacare?

As of Oct, Trump had issued more than anyone in that same period since Johnson. As of today he has signed 58 EOs.

I don’t really care too much, but he has been very liberal in continuing the trend ignoring using EOs when desired, and to act like Trump is intentionally trying to, across the board, restore order to the government and how legislation is passed/carried out doesn’t hold water. Again, there’s minimal evidence he actually cares about that, and a lot more that he doesn’t.
01-12-2018 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #52
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job

So, one down
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018 09:22 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
01-12-2018 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #53
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

You haven’t been asking for me to refined fitness, you’ve been asking to define a test to judge fitness. Ive responded to the latter.

Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job (speak abover a 3rd grade level, be able to communicate effectively, be able to read, digest, and respond to briefing material), have a temperament that allows for one to receive criticism, speak carefully and intentionally, understand how government works and functions, don’t be racist, don’t mock people with disabilities, be abovr the fray and have class when interacting with others. And literally be healthy enough to carry out the duties with full cognition.

Like I said, too difficult and too many issues with a fitness test, so eligibility will have to do. I mean, technically the voters could literally elect a brain dead person, right? I think that being the case is better than the slippery slopes of having fitness tests. But that doesn’t mean I can’t Dayne trump isn’t fit to be president.

so, in your opinion, most fourth graders are fit to be president?

Only if they started school late or flunked a lot.
01-12-2018 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #54
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

You haven’t been asking for me to refined fitness, you’ve been asking to define a test to judge fitness. Ive responded to the latter.

Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job (speak abover a 3rd grade level, be able to communicate effectively, be able to read, digest, and respond to briefing material), have a temperament that allows for one to receive criticism, speak carefully and intentionally, understand how government works and functions, don’t be racist, don’t mock people with disabilities, be abovr the fray and have class when interacting with others. And literally be healthy enough to carry out the duties with full cognition.

Like I said, too difficult and too many issues with a fitness test, so eligibility will have to do. I mean, technically the voters could literally elect a brain dead person, right? I think that being the case is better than the slippery slopes of having fitness tests. But that doesn’t mean I can’t Dayne trump isn’t fit to be president.

so, in your opinion, most fourth graders are fit to be president?

If they can meet the other requirements, then sure, they wouldn’t be fit, however that’s would be a tough task, especially with the reading comprehension portion. Looks like we agree on something, since you don’t have an idea of fitness, and therefore everyone must qualify?

I will note, age requirements almost certainly render this person ineligible.
01-12-2018 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #55
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

You haven’t been asking for me to refined fitness, you’ve been asking to define a test to judge fitness. Ive responded to the latter.

Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job (speak abover a 3rd grade level, be able to communicate effectively, be able to read, digest, and respond to briefing material), have a temperament that allows for one to receive criticism, speak carefully and intentionally, understand how government works and functions, don’t be racist, don’t mock people with disabilities, be abovr the fray and have class when interacting with others. And literally be healthy enough to carry out the duties with full cognition.

Like I said, too difficult and too many issues with a fitness test, so eligibility will have to do. I mean, technically the voters could literally elect a brain dead person, right? I think that being the case is better than the slippery slopes of having fitness tests. But that doesn’t mean I can’t Dayne trump isn’t fit to be president.

so, in your opinion, most fourth graders are fit to be president?

Only if they started school late or flunked a lot.

You have to be this tall to work in the Oval Office.

sounds to me like Lads list of what makes a person fit is a litany of all the things some people are told not to like about him.

FWIW, in third grade i was reading at a ninth grade level. I would have made a great President.

Was Hillary communicating effectively when she made her "deplorables" comment? Was she speaking carefully and intentionally? How about when she made he "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement? How about when she had things to say about Bill's accusers? Was it a good thing to say she would joint the Resistance?

We are really going to have to be careful who we nominate if these are the standards. I pick Condy Rice.
01-12-2018 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,599
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3189
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
I think one big problem is that we have become too president-oriented, and not the congress-oriented nation that the founders envisioned when they made Article I the legislative branch. I think a large part of that problem is that during the 20th century congress punted a lot of power to an alphabet soup of executive agencies. I mean, common everyday language includes comments like "Obama passed Obamacare" or "Bush passed tax cuts" when in reality neither did those things, congress did. I would like to see power swing back to congress, and the president become more of an executive carrying out policy than a policy driver. I think congress is pretty happy to cede power because all they care about is getting re-elected to their cushy sinecures, and being able to blame things on this or that agency instead of being personally accountable avoids nasty re-election issues.

One thing I think should happen is a transfer of power from unaccountable bureaucratic alphabet soup executive agencies. I would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to 1) make all agency rule-making subject to congressional review and consent, 2) require a sunset review of each agency and all its regulations every 10 years, and 3) move adjudication of regulatory disputes from ALJs who work for the agency to Article III administrative law courts.
01-12-2018 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #57
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

Source where Trump has said he wants to get rid of the executive DACA because it isn’t an executive order? It appears he is using it as leverage to get his wall, and nothing more.

Trump has issued executive order, after executive order nice he took office. There is more evidence that he wants to continue using executive orders and expanding presidential power, than the latter.

Such as...

Are you kidding me? You need me to provide examples of EOs?

How about the failed immigration ban for starters? Or the EO associated with Obamacare?

As of Oct, Trump had issued more than anyone in that same period since Johnson. As of today he has signed 58 EOs.

I don’t really care too much, but he has been very liberal in continuing the trend ignoring using EOs when desired, and to act like Trump is intentionally trying to, across the board, restore order to the government and how legislation is passed/carried out doesn’t hold water. Again, there’s minimal evidence he actually cares about that, and a lot more that he doesn’t.

I flipped through those 58. Most of them are routine and in no way add to his existing authority - he seems to use executive orders interchangeably with memorandums and directives (not a good thing).

Many of them are executive orders repealing or amending previous executive orders - some rescinding Obama's orders and some a consequence of his own messiness and impulsiveness.

A few of them are related to the immigration ban and his subsequent revisions - and most of the ban was eventually upheld by the courts, by the way, ultimately not a failure. He wants Congress to define the law on this subject and has said as much.

Two, IIRC, relate to Obamacare. One rescinds the tax penalty provision, but ironically the courts opened the door here when they sidestepped the constitutional question of mandatory participation by ruling the penalty a subset of federal income tax. He would like both of these orders mooted by Congress.

I do not claim that he's trying to restore order to government. On the contrary, he deliberately creates chaos in which to thrive by divide and rule.
01-12-2018 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #58
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:55 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:17 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, I would disagree.

He has stated support for DACA-type legislation. That in and of itself shows his stance on the use of executive power to 'create law', especially where in conflict with existing law.

Kind of odd to 'get rid' of executive order DACA and in the almost same breath call on Congress to pass such legislation.

Shows he is very aware of the process and methodology.

Source where Trump has said he wants to get rid of the executive DACA because it isn’t an executive order? It appears he is using it as leverage to get his wall, and nothing more.

Trump has issued executive order, after executive order nice he took office. There is more evidence that he wants to continue using executive orders and expanding presidential power, than the latter.

Such as...

Are you kidding me? You need me to provide examples of EOs?

How about the failed immigration ban for starters? Or the EO associated with Obamacare?

As of Oct, Trump had issued more than anyone in that same period since Johnson. As of today he has signed 58 EOs.

I don’t really care too much, but he has been very liberal in continuing the trend ignoring using EOs when desired, and to act like Trump is intentionally trying to, across the board, restore order to the government and how legislation is passed/carried out doesn’t hold water. Again, there’s minimal evidence he actually cares about that, and a lot more that he doesn’t.

I flipped through those 58. Most of them are routine and in no way add to his existing authority - he seems to use executive orders interchangeably with memorandums and directives (not a good thing).

Many of them are executive orders repealing or amending previous executive orders - some rescinding Obama's orders and some a consequence of his own messiness and impulsiveness.

A few of them are related to the immigration ban and his subsequent revisions - and most of the ban was eventually upheld by the courts, by the way, ultimately not a failure. He wants Congress to define the law on this subject and has said as much.

Two, IIRC, relate to Obamacare. One rescinds the tax penalty provision, but ironically the courts opened the door here when they sidestepped the constitutional question of mandatory participation by ruling the penalty a subset of federal income tax. He would like both of these orders mooted by Congress.

I do not claim that he's trying to restore order to government. On the contrary, he deliberately creates chaos in which to thrive by divide and rule.

My comment comment about expanding executive power was in relation to the number of EOs signed, and not necessarily the powers that those EOs gave his branch specifically. The point being that, by continuing to rely heavily on EOs, he is expanding the power of the executive branch, much in the same way Obama did.

It had appeared as if you were claiming that Trump's reversal of Obama's EOs as well as his DOJ's decision to no longer follow guidance documents, were signs that Trump was looking to no longer arrogate powers that belong to Congress (e.g. restore order to the government). I don't believe that Trump really cares about that (Sessions, on the other hand, might), and it looks like we are in agreement there, based on your chaos comment. Trump just does what Trump wants to do in the heat of the moment.
01-12-2018 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #59
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
Lad -- a *big* differentiator are looking at *what* the EOs do. Many of Trump's specifically rollback previous EOs, or, rollback rulemaking authority.

Many of Obama's EOs had the effect of 'creating' law (see for example the incessant number of exemptions in Obamacare), or 'creating action' contrary to existing law (see for example DAPA and DACA, DAPA which has been found explicitly unconstitutional and DACA which has the same underlying problems.)

To a massive extent Obama used EOs as 'personal whim' devices, and to a great extent Obama used them *even* when they seemingly contradicted existing law.

Under Obamacare, Obama performed numerous 'personal regal decisions, regardless of what the f-ck the law said. Examples include

The Obama administration decided not to enforce the law’s employer mandate until 2015, and then delayed its enforcement a second time. (nowhere in the law)

After millions of Americans complained that their insurance plans had been canceled—contrary to Obama’s promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan”—Obama declined to enforce aspects of the law that required those plans to shut down—until he was reelected. (again nowhere in the law)

The Obama administration decided—unilaterally—to waive Obamacare’s individual mandate, by granting a “hardship exemption” to anyone for whom Obamacare’s offerings were “unaffordable.” (again, nowhere in the law)

The Affordable Care Act forced insurers to offer plans with reduced co-pays and deductibles for those with very low-incomes, but didn’t appropriate the cost-sharing subsidies needed to pay for them. Facing a rebellion from insurers, who were being forced to cover these individuals at a loss, the Obama administration decided to spend the money anyway, even though they had *no legal authority* to do so.

You cite Trump's EO on the travel ban, but you neglect to cite the relevant portion of the statute where the legislature explicitly *gives* the power to stop travel under the immigration laws to the President. The courts have stretched the crap out the rubric to find that Trump's use was an unconstitutional discrimination on religion and race..... but again, the SCOTUS overturned the restraining orders.

Sorry, your line just doesnt hold water when you actually: a) compare the extralegal activities that Obama put into action using EOs; and b) look at the *what* *many* of Trump's EOs are actual rollbacks of Obama's extra-legal playground romp.

So yes, Obama stretched the f-ck out of executive power. Trump is mainly using executive power to curtail what the supposed Con law professor did with executive power.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 06:24 PM by tanqtonic.)
01-12-2018 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #60
RE: The Trump is not fit to be president thread
(01-12-2018 05:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

You haven’t been asking for me to refined fitness, you’ve been asking to define a test to judge fitness. Ive responded to the latter.

Since you’re now asking for the former: have mental cognition fit for the job (speak abover a 3rd grade level, be able to communicate effectively, be able to read, digest, and respond to briefing material), have a temperament that allows for one to receive criticism, speak carefully and intentionally, understand how government works and functions, don’t be racist, don’t mock people with disabilities, be abovr the fray and have class when interacting with others. And literally be healthy enough to carry out the duties with full cognition.

Like I said, too difficult and too many issues with a fitness test, so eligibility will have to do. I mean, technically the voters could literally elect a brain dead person, right? I think that being the case is better than the slippery slopes of having fitness tests. But that doesn’t mean I can’t Dayne trump isn’t fit to be president.

so, in your opinion, most fourth graders are fit to be president?

Only if they started school late or flunked a lot.

You have to be this tall to work in the Oval Office.

sounds to me like Lads list of what makes a person fit is a litany of all the things some people are told not to like about him.

FWIW, in third grade i was reading at a ninth grade level. I would have made a great President.

Was Hillary communicating effectively when she made her "deplorables" comment? Was she speaking carefully and intentionally? How about when she made he "vast right-wing conspiracy" statement? How about when she had things to say about Bill's accusers? Was it a good thing to say she would joint the Resistance?

We are really going to have to be careful who we nominate if these are the standards. I pick Condy Rice.

OO, what is your point?

I've stated a few times that I think a fitness test, even one that hinges on medical evaluations alone, would not practically be a good idea. That the judgement of fitness is a qualitative measure, akin to thinking the president is doing a "good" or "bad" job. Your question of what makes someone fit is the same as what makes someone a good president.
01-12-2018 06:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.