From after the last firing.
Our system relies on oversight. On checks and bslances.
I promise you not one is a “deep state” operative...except that I know that means essentially “someone who doesn’t sacrifice his integrity in exchange for blind loyalty to our unfit president.”
Link: https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/an-attack-on-inspector-general-signals-something-much-bigger/
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
anyone in Trump’s shoes would do otherwise.
Without looking, I am sure you were all over government accountability then. Better late then never though.
It's doubtful, but maybe the result of Trump will wake up the electorate. Doubtful because guys like Yang and third party candidates have been universally rejected.
Link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-stonewalled-inspectors-general/
And it is worth noting that ALL presidents will come into conflict with IGs.
That's why they are so important.
Where I think we disagree is that the next Democrat president will advance the ball further from the constitution and then the next Republican president after that and on and on it goes. Congress and to a lesser degree the SC are also complicit in this march. Trump hasn't been a glaring outlier here, yet.
But you're right that it has been a bipartisan expansion of presidential powers.
We need the next guy to rein them in, or at least stop the bleeding. Biden just might.
Mostly because he's not at all there, just look at already elevating the AOCs of your party.
Our desperate need for an outsider resulted in Trump, which isn't good, but I still think better than Hillary if for no other reason to break up party in control.
You mocked Yang, but he's exactly what we need.
diminishment of oversight like this crowd. And that’s saying something following Obama.
Chris and you will have far less concerns when Biden's admin goes further, or more likely you'll just blame it on Trump. Just like the Trumpies dismiss it as "your rules" or similar. But as the author also points out, Trump is/was an inevitability. Keep supporting 2 party politics and accept the inevitability.
Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/13/donald-trump-executive-power-president-war-democracy-constitution-cult-column/2065368002/
Each side bemoans the abuses by the other, but then takes advantage of them when they are in power, and ratchet continues on. Wash; Rinse; Repeat...only we just yell back and forth about the rinse.
This is why we need strong systemic protections, and why a "living, breathing Constitution" sets up a Republic that is destined to fail. The "solution" of just making sure the right people win the election is no solution at all.
But, we won't have third parties until we either eliminate first-past-the-post elections for president, or the president is selected by Congress like the prime minister is selected by parliament. This is one thing we have locked into the system: 2 parties.
here who were also doing it are completely silent about Orange, or deflect like you are doing here. He’s much worse than Obama, not even close.
Biden may be as bad although I doubt it. He won’t be worse.
What Biden will do will also just be incremental.
way worse than others.
An extreme example is the incremental rise of the Nazis in Germany. Contrast that to the revolution that put the Soviets in power.
(no message)
We argue about whether Trump's behavior is far worse than others, or only incrementally worse.
1. Lying? Far worse
2. Morality? Incrementally worse than Clinton, who was far worse than just about the rest.
3. Self-dealing? Far worse
4. Authoritarian vengefulness? Far worse (You make the argument for incrementally worse, which is fair).
5. Divisiveness? I'll go with far worse. No president has ever communicated so much open hate for the other party. Not by a long shot.
6. Economy? Meh. Not worse at all.
7. Judicial appointments? Meh Not worse at all.
8. Foreign policy? That could be anywhere from far worse to far better, I guess, depending on your point of view.
9. Personal character? Just far worse.
The topic I have been talking about is narrowly scoped to executive power.
that a promise or a wish? You have less credibility than Baghdad Bob.
(no message)
It's like trying to teach a monkey how to do long division.
But that would be less frustrating, because hey, it's a chimp.
(no message)
You start more TDS threads than anyone else here.
(no message)
(no message)
role on this board. Name me anyone that has posted more than you. Better you change the subject.
(no message)
In another word, there was no permanent oversight in Obama's state of department in his first 4+ years. At least Trump has had permanent IG in state of dept his first 3+ years' presidency.
(no message)
Obama didn't even consider nominating anyone to be IG when Hillary was in charge of state of department.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_General_of_the_Department_of_State#List_of_Inspectors_General_of_the_Department_of_State_and_the_Foreign_Service
(no message)