"Democrats have been arguing for years that President Obama should have the power to get a lot done on his own, without going through Congress: executive orders, going to war, etc. If President Trump exercises similarly broad powers, remember: Trump didn't build that!"
Quips my son John.
November 9, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
63 comments:
Said for a while...you won't be in charge forever and you really won't like it when people you don't like abuse the power in the way Obama has.
Aye. Shoes: They go on other feet sometimes.
The best Trump can do quickly is cancel all Obama's Executive Orders. All of them.
Then he can appoint someone to go through all existing EOs from prior administrations, like Kennedy's that allowed Federal employee unions, and cancel the worst,
That would do a lot and the bureaucracy that will fight him tooth and nails will get something else to think about.
All Trump needs to pull off using Obama orders is a DNA test proving he is also a popular black President and therefore he also has the total immunity to impeachment.
The double-edge scalpel of precedent.
That said, hopefully we'll let sincere Asses lie (a generic Ass, not German, or anything), and direct our attention to Revitalization, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation.
Actually, he did. Against a hostile media, a powerful and vicious opponent, and much of his own party's establishment.
He built that win.
I hate to point out the obvious so early in the thread, since y'all are so eager to lay down a lot of paint before considering an exit. But, don't these double-edge/shoe-foot things have another side that is just as likely to flip?
Anywho, are we sure that this is some new circumstance supposedly originating w/ Ds--BHO Ds in particular?
Carry on.
But, don't these double-edge/shoe-foot things have another side that is just as likely to flip?
Umm, this is the other shoe dropping. Trump has a pen and a phone too, and the Republicans can do a reconciliation too. Too bad the Roberts court didn't save Obama's bacon by striking down the law, and too bad Obama didn't save the Democrats' bacon by indicting Hillary. Too bad so sad.
But, don't these double-edge/shoe-foot things have another side that is just as likely to flip?
Yes, but the advantage here is the action has positive consequences for those affected by the action.
Maybe PB&J can cite another law as far reaching as Obamacare that was passed over the strenuous objections of the other side through reconciliation? That would be the way to demonstrate that this is not some new circumstance, just initiated by the D's.
"If Trump is elected," [Gingrich] said, "it will just be like Madison, Wisconsin, with (Gov.) Scott Walker. The opposition of the government employee unions will be so hostile and so direct and so immediate, there will be a continuing fight over who controls the country."
If the end result turns out to also be equivalent, I say: Let's do it.
Strange new respect for Constitutional constraints in 3..2..1...
(Pen and a phone? Whatever could that mean?!)
That's the thing about unchecked executive power. Sometimes the holder of that power will be an ignorant asshole who insists on letting his ego write checks that the rest of us can't cash. So next time some self-indulgent power hungry politician talks about having a phone and a pen, we might just want to tell him/her to STFU, like we should have the first time.
Here's the thing.
The only way to get the Democrats on board is to give them a taste of their own medicine. I sincerely hate the power of the executive branch. I also hate the idea that one team plays by the rules and the other team gets to change the rules whenever they get the ball.
So, which principle wins? The one of fairness. If you get 21 points just for having control of the ball, then, give us our 21 points. Because we have the ball now.
I plan to sympathize with democrats as they bemoan the power of Trump. And I plan to remind them about the goose and the gander.
And maybe, just maybe, the next time they have power theyll be more aware of what it means to steal power that doesn't belong to you.
A thorough cleansing of executive orders should be the first priority on entering office.
Also, one of the very first things I would do as a new AG would be to collect all the e-mails to and from senior IRS management to the previous White House, and among each other. In my opinion, that was the most egregious crime in the Obama Administration. I would imagine there are great efforts under way right now to delete everything incriminating.
Obama will ask Trump to keep executive orders in place
Wiki on Executive Orders shows Obama not excessive
Here is listing all of
Iran EO page 4.
It's annoying to have to follow a link to Facebook, the NYT, the WaPo or any other firewalled site. I just installed Chrome's "Blacklist" extension and it works like a charm. I was able to blacklist John Cohen's Facebook link, the NYT and WaPo so that I now don't waste time at their firewalls.
Mr. Earnest said the Affordable Care Act, which Mr. Trump has vowed to repeal, “is a policy priority that benefits the American people enormously.”
HAHAHAHAHA
The stock market finish the day up 255 points.
Just last month Harry Reid promised "Democrats Are Ready to End the Filibuster on Supreme Court Nominees." Wonder if he still thinks thats a great plan. Hope Republicans follow Reid's plan, he sure would if in charge Fight fire with fire. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/dems-ready-to-end-the-filibuster-on-supreme-court-nominees.html
One very simple message to Josh Earnest and BO about executive orders from Trump: "I won!"
I just watched Neil Cavuto interview Jack Welch. Pretty interesting. Welch knows Trump and has talked to him but doesn't want a job. He will be a good source of advice.
Capital gains and corporate taxes will go down and prosperity will respond.
Yes, I suspect the filibuster is about to die for all presidential appointments. In my opinion, it should die. You want to keep someone out of office, vote it down straight majority vote. If you can't make the case for that, then you shouldn't be allowed to block it.
It should be a Senate rule to bring appointments up for a vote, too, in a timely manner.
There were folks who warned them that they were destroying the restraints - the laws and procedures - which they would desperately want if the "wrong" person got into power, but they didn't listen.
Now they're gonna go all "separation of powers" on us.
You have to admit, the simplicity of their justifying argument perfectly meshes with their myopic self-righteousness: Its OK to do when you are doing good things. Its not OK to do when you are doing bad things.
PBandJ_Ombudsman: "I hate to point out the obvious so early in the thread, since y'all are so eager to lay down a lot of paint before considering an exit. But, don't these double-edge/shoe-foot things have another side that is just as likely to flip?
Anywho, are we sure that this is some new circumstance supposedly originating w/ Ds--BHO Ds in particular?"
Oh, right.
This is the part where we all pretend obambi and the dems haven't done all the things they've done so we can pretend the republicans will be doing #brandnewunprecedentedthings!
The dems really do believe that the "rules" they establish really are just for the other side and not for themselves.
Fen's Law. Over and over and over.
True. lets not hear any caterwauling if/when Trump uses executive action to pass an agenda.
"The dems really do believe that the "rules" they establish really are just for the other side and not for themselves."
Drago, I'm convinced your missing the true situation.
The Dem's rule is consistent. The rule is "Doing those things is OK when you are in pursuit of doing good. Doing those things is not OK when you are in pursuit of doing bad."
That is how they see it, and they believe it is consistent and that they consistently apply it.
The fact they deem anything done by anyone who disagrees with them as being in pursuit of doing bad - well, that's another issue.
But their rule is indeed consistent.
the filibuster is about to die for all presidential appointments.
First, it should only be for legislation and second, it should be by the old rule. 2/3 vote to end debate. Let the filibusterer stand there for 24 hours like they used to do.
If the end result turns out to also be equivalent, I say: Let's do it.
Yeah, that's a fight that needs to happen. DC voted 93-4 for Clinton for a reason.
Meade said...
"If Trump is elected," [Gingrich] said, "it will just be like Madison, Wisconsin, with (Gov.) Scott Walker. The opposition of the government employee unions will be so hostile and so direct and so immediate, there will be a continuing fight over who controls the country."
If the end result turns out to also be equivalent, I say: Let's do it.
Agreed, that's the thing, if Trump wants to, he can break the public sector unions. See; Reagan and the PATCO strike. For that matter, he can repeal JFK's executive order allowing federal workers to unionize. Our hostess might correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no judicial relief for the repeal of an executive order in this case.
Trump should undo what Obama did with executive orders on his own but put his own stuff through with Congress.
One other thing that struck me. Trump certainly has a lot of experience in negotiating with labor unions, since all his building projects (casinos, Trump tower, etc etc) would have required negotiations with the construction unions. This was before he gained the ability to have the ultimate trump card in such a negotiation with the public sector unions in his pocket. Namely this 'If you don't play ball I can write an executive order that Executive Order 10988 no longer applies to your workforce/office and you are disbanded. Good luck getting a Republican congress to reinstate you over my veto. Now, are we going to come to a deal or do I need to get out my pen and phone?'
A survey done bf the election claimed that 9% of Federal Union workers would quit if Trump was elected. I say that'll be a good starting point.
Then he can appoint someone to go through all existing EOs from prior administrations, like Kennedy's that allowed Federal employee unions, and cancel the worst,
I say cancel all the active ones. If they were a good idea, congress can pass a bill making them law.
Trump probably understands better than most Republicans that all the wailing about broad executive power we'll be hearing from Democrats and the media at least the next 4 years is complete bull, since the second they get back into power, they'll pick right up from where Obama left off.
Giving them a taste of their own medicine would be delicious, but the best revenge against the Democrats is to do a good job and make all the people losing their minds over the result look like complete fools.
"Giving them a taste of their own medicine would be delicious, but the best revenge against the Democrats is to do a good job and make all the people losing their minds over the result look like complete fools."
Can't happen. If Trump cured cancer, the headline the next day would be "Trump directly responsible for increased unemployment among medical specialists."
Then he can appoint someone to go through all existing EOs from prior administrations, like Kennedy's that allowed Federal employee unions, and cancel the worst,
Day 1 after the inauguration.....Trump announces that all executive orders signed by President Obama are rescinded.
Day 8.....Trump announces that he is rescinding ten more executive orders, and has given each of his cabinet secretaries the task of rescinding ten regulations from their agencies.....every week. The White House sets up a web site where each rescinded order and regulation is listed, explained and the reason for the rescission given.
That would be a good start.
By the way, I am a government employee, and a member of a labor union, and I agree that government employees should not be allowed to unionize.
Blogger PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
I hate to point out the obvious so early in the thread, since y'all are so eager to lay down a lot of paint before considering an exit. But, don't these double-edge/shoe-foot things have another side that is just as likely to flip?
We fully expect the democrats to go right back at us if they get power. You never stop using and abusing the system. The only logical thing to do is fire it right back at you.
Remember when I said Trump was a better candidate than Romney?
Trump would have beat Obama in 2012.
How you ask? Read the article. It is simple math. This article is in NRO. Hardly Trump friendly. For every GOPe whiner we lost to Johnson or mcmuffin we picked up someone who used to vote for democrats and someone who didn't vote.
Another prediction was trump would outperform Romney in every demographic. I was almost completely right.
Romney did better among white voters.
Trump outperformed Romney with, black voters, Hispanic voters, young voters, women, and others. It was college educated while men who left for other candidates. Neocons, WASPs, and various other jerks who shit strawberry ice cream.
Now they realize they have to suck up to Trump to get their rice bowl back. Medved is a particularly galling example.
John Kasich and Mitt Romney suck.
Kasich endorsed Romney in 2012 and supported Romney with his state organization. Kasich publicly wrote in McCain and refused to help in 2016. 2012 Obama 51% Romney 48% 2016 Trump 52% Hillary 44%.
Can it be any more plain that John Kasich is a complete loser and really a false flag operation to trick republican voters into thinking they are electing a republican? This is the same guy that wrote the budgets for Newt in 94-98. These people have been politicians for far too long and have completely lost touch with republican voters.
Ryan grovels.
The tell is when he stumbles over the word principles. He doesn't have any. Obama is president he gets whatever he wants Trump is president he will say "we are unified." Yeah after we won without you now we are unified.
Gross.
We should note that this election had both versions of Sarah Palin! She could have been the first woman president. Oh my God Republicans loved Sarah Palin. And she could have been the low class, populist version of Donald Trump. I think if Palin charged ahead in 2012, and fought and fought and fought, she could have taken the nomination from Mitt Romney. Would she have defeated Barack Obama? I don't know.
I think Sarah Palin is a much better person than Donald Trump is, or Hillary Clinton. Sarah Palin elected not to run for the White House to protect her husband and her kids from all the shit that would rain down on them. She loved her family, so she put aside her own desire to help the country. It was a beautiful sacrifice. In many ways, Palin is a traditional woman, a person who puts her man and her children ahead of her own desires and ambitions. What a powerful Christian she is. I remain very impressed with Sarah Palin.
Sarah Palin did all she could to help Donald Trump get into the White House. She was an early proponent of Trump and pushed hard to get him in. Now let's see if Donald Trump remembers her and rewards her. Or if she's dumped aside as some useless woman who is unnecessary.
Should Sarah Palin be Secretary of State? National Security Advisor?
One thing I am paying attention to is how sexist Donald Trump is. If he gives Chris Christie a cushy gig, while dismissing the contributions of Sarah Palin, I will know a lot about his character and what he thinks about women. I am not at all convinced that Chris Christie is a better politician than Palin, a smarter person than Palin, or a better leader than Palin. I've heard Chris Christie's name floated as a possibility in a Trump administration.
Why the fuck is Chris Christie more important to Trump's election than Sarah Palin, who was a vocal and very important woman who supported him when he was desperate for women's votes?
A lot of women voted for Donald Trump. A tremendous number of women swallowed their pride and their suspicion and took a leap of faith that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton. A lot of women rejected feminism--or at least the shallow, she-has-boobies version of feminism that says that women are better than men--and voted for the Republican ticket.
I would expect Sarah Palin to have a prominent role in the Trump administration. Make her the head of the state department. I would very much like Sarah Palin to have Hillary Clinton's gig, so we can compare and contrast these two female leaders.
Also Donald Trump might consider giving his daughter a prominent role in his cabinet. If John Kennedy can give his brother the AG job because he trusts his brother, Donald Trump can give his daughter an important job because he trusts his daughter. I encourage him to put Ivanka Trump somewhere in his cabinet.
But of course the media will shit all over any woman in his cabinet, so be ready for that.
Huh, I wonder if the Democrats are suddenly going to turn about face when it comes to NSA surveillance or prosecuting whistleblowers. Ya think?
Note this Politico article.
He's also expected to reward his band of surrogates who stood by him during the bruising presidential campaign, including Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie
I would not take hiring tips from Politico!
Sarah Palin - state department
Ben Carson - health and human services
I would expect Sarah Palin to have a prominent role in the Trump administration.
Put her in charge of the Bureau of Land Management. Or dismantling it.
Christie will end up chief of staff is what he seems to be trending towards. That would put Rudy at AG.
If only they would nominate Ron Paul for Fed Chairman...
Put her in charge of the Bureau of Land Management. Or dismantling it.
That was a joke she made.
The media attempted to destroy Sarah Palin. They hate her so much! And it was so vile, particularly her sexual history, that it chased her from running for president. But I think Republicans should not take their cues from the media about the status of Sarah Palin. This is a former governor and a former vice-presidential nominee. My own opinion is that she outshone John McCain. He pretended to be a maverick, she really is one. She got (and continues to get) huge crowds. Very, very popular Republican. Trump's people are her people and her people are Trump people.
So as losers like Hillary "married to the boss" Clinton and John "I married money" Kerry are deemed appropriate for state department head, why not Sarah "I did it my way" Palin?
former governor, has executive experience
former vice president nominee, can handle the spotlight (and there will be a spotlight)
early and vocal supporter of Donald Trump, even before Iowa. Saturday Night Live did a skit on it!
piss off the media
excite Trump's base and his support
or he could go the boring route and bring in a diplomat for the state department. Washington is filled with diplomatic people, I'm sure he can find a quiet boring diplomat to head up the state department. But if you want to shake things up, and put our allies and enemies on notice that there's a new sheriff in town? Sarah Palin is an excellent choice.
dreams said...
The stock market finish the day up 255 points.
They know one of their own.
Michael Flynn - NSA
Rudy Giuliani - AG
Sarah Palin - State
Ben Carson - Health and Human Services
Reince Priebus - Chief of Staff
Ann Coulter for the Supreme Court.
FBI - James Comey
Press Secretary - Kellyanne Conway
Saint Croix,
I was thinking John Bolton for SoS, Palin for DOE maybe. I agree the is a valuable resource. I believe Joni Ernst should also be looked at.
Don't you think Priebus is needed as a Congressional/party liaison, IOW right where he is? If it is suitable to have him in the Administration, very well, but he did a helluva job herding cats and busting heads to maintain unity.
But I understood COS is a BFD and a job that is very close to the Presidency, so from their warmth in stage, that seems credible.
Who for Defense?
Someone suggested Walker for Labor, I liked that.
Make Christie Transportation. Let him sort out the ARC/Gateway/successor deal among other things.
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap." -- a lesson the Left has a hard time learning. This is also a good place for my favorite passage from "A Man for All Seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Trump should use his executive orders by the hundreds to overturn all the dubious ones issued by Obama. And do it all at once and early on, so the media won't be able to fake sufficient outrage.
Obama didn't build it either. He extended it. If Trump is gong to be a great President then he is going to have to do things outside the law. At least, historically speaking that has been the case. Has The Presidency Become A Dictatorship?
I'll be just as pissed at Trump if he goes the EO route as I am at Obama for doing so. But if it happens, the Left has no real right to bitch about it because their hero laid the groundwork. Sauce for the goose etc
Someone suggested Walker for Labor, I liked that.
Ditto!
We won. You lost. Get over it. We have the pen and the phone. And the DoJ. And the IRS. and the FBI. As your president taught us, it's time to punish your enemies. That's the New America you made. Live with it. You are in so much trouble.
"We have the pen and the phone. And the DoJ. And the IRS. and the FBI."
And, most importantly, both houses of Congress.
Post a Comment