End of the American Republic?

13»

Comments

  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Mar-A-Lago Posts: 20,645
    battle1 said:
    Continued from previous post:

    Curbing independent agencies. Starting in the 1880s, Congress established certain government offices as independent agencies, run generally by multimember commissions whose members serve fixed terms, possess particular expertise and are left free to operate outside direct executive control. But conservatives have long chafed at the agencies’ existence, which they consider an unconstitutional “headless fourth branch of government.” They want the president to have power to fire commissioners for any reason — not only for cause, as is the case under current law — and to review their proposed regulations.

    Trump is on board. “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands,” he said in an April 2023 video, referring to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.”

    What would this mean for such agencies, which also include the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

    “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration and has been tapped to lead it again in the second, toldthe New York Times last year. Specifically, Vought said, “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution.”

    Eliminating the independence of these agencies would reflect a dramatic tilt in favor of presidential authority. There are any number of ways Trump could force the issue. He could attempt to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, who said tersely at a post-election news conference that such a move was “not permitted under the law.” (Powell can only be fired for cause.) The Post reported that Trump is considering taking the extraordinary step of firing Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board; because of the way the labor agency is set up, Democrats are poised to retain majority control until 2026, if the Senate reconfirms the current chair to another term before it leaves town.

    In any event, the issue of the constitutionality of independent agencies appears destined to return to the high court — with or without presidential action.

    In a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to fire William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, and Roosevelt’s argument that being limited to firing commissioners only “for cause” was an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

    But Humphrey’s Executor has long been in conservatives’ crosshairs. More than 20 cases raising constitutional challenges to the independent structure of agencies are making their way through the lower federal courts. The justices just declined to hear one such case, but that reticence might not last.

    Bottom line: Don’t bet on independent agencies’ continued insulation from presidential interference.

    Politicizing the civil service. A second term will give Trump the chance for a do-over in his bid to gain authority to remove tens of thousands of “rogue bureaucrats” who currently enjoy protections against being fired for political reasons. He has declared a “Day One” plan to reissue his October 2020 executive order to create a new Schedule F under which the president would have full power to remove any employee “whose position has been determined to be of confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

    This change would upend the civil service system, put in place in 1883 to end the spoils system. Currently, there are about 4,000 political appointees atop a federal workforce of 2.2 million. Trump, in his zeal to root out what he calls the “deep state,” would expand presidential power to fire at will an estimated 50,000 or more federal employees, depending on how broadly the exemption is interpreted.

    “I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats,” Trump announced in a March 2023 video. “And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

    One sign of how sweeping the change could be: After Trump left office, the National Treasury Employees Union unearthed documents that it said showed how the Office of Management and Budget “stretched the definition of policy work to cover the vast majority of the OMB workforce, from attorneys to GS-09 assistants and specialists who have nothing to do with setting government policy.”

    Trump might find it difficult to institute these changes right away. President Joe Biden not only revoked Trump’s Schedule F order but also adopted a new rule to shield federal workers against having their civil service protections removed. Undoing that and issuing new regulations is a cumbersome, time-consuming process.

    The incoming administration might be tempted to act without going through these procedural hoops. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy suggested as much in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing that the civil service law leaves Trump room to quickly “implement any number of ‘rules governing the competitive service’ that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area.”

    But moving so fast would be risky, as shown by the Trump administration’s loss at the Supreme Court when it did a sloppy legal job of trying to revoke protections, from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, for immigrant “dreamers.”

    It’s harder to predict how the court would deal with a revived Schedule F on the merits. The Treasury employees union, in a lawsuitchallenging the original Trump order, called it “a textbook example of the President acting contrary to Congress’s express and limited delegation of authority to the President.” Still, a court inclined to a broad reading of executive powers might give the president more authority over firing federal workers.

    In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, previously FDR’s attorney general, warned of the consequences of untrammeled presidential power in concluding that President Harry S. Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize control of steel plants during the Korean War. “The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic,” Jackson wrote.

    In Jackson’s formulation, a president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” — the same sort of measures discussed here. “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,” Jackson admonished, “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

    The examples outlined above aren’t the worst of what Trump could do — or the cruelest or the most extreme. Actions such as separating families, deporting dreamers and using the Justice Department to punish political enemies fall into those two categories. Yet these threatened moves represent assaults on the very architecture of democracy — assaults that must be repelled, as Jackson instructed us, lest they permanently warp the constitutional structure.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/22/trump-congress-takeover-power/


    continued from previous novel-

    Yo Max, wake up!  Are we going to brunch or what? 
    Whenever I hear brunch I automatically think of eggs benedict. Now I'm hungry.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,901
    battle1 said:
    Continued from previous post:

    Curbing independent agencies. Starting in the 1880s, Congress established certain government offices as independent agencies, run generally by multimember commissions whose members serve fixed terms, possess particular expertise and are left free to operate outside direct executive control. But conservatives have long chafed at the agencies’ existence, which they consider an unconstitutional “headless fourth branch of government.” They want the president to have power to fire commissioners for any reason — not only for cause, as is the case under current law — and to review their proposed regulations.

    Trump is on board. “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands,” he said in an April 2023 video, referring to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.”

    What would this mean for such agencies, which also include the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

    “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration and has been tapped to lead it again in the second, toldthe New York Times last year. Specifically, Vought said, “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution.”

    Eliminating the independence of these agencies would reflect a dramatic tilt in favor of presidential authority. There are any number of ways Trump could force the issue. He could attempt to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, who said tersely at a post-election news conference that such a move was “not permitted under the law.” (Powell can only be fired for cause.) The Post reported that Trump is considering taking the extraordinary step of firing Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board; because of the way the labor agency is set up, Democrats are poised to retain majority control until 2026, if the Senate reconfirms the current chair to another term before it leaves town.

    In any event, the issue of the constitutionality of independent agencies appears destined to return to the high court — with or without presidential action.

    In a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to fire William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, and Roosevelt’s argument that being limited to firing commissioners only “for cause” was an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

    But Humphrey’s Executor has long been in conservatives’ crosshairs. More than 20 cases raising constitutional challenges to the independent structure of agencies are making their way through the lower federal courts. The justices just declined to hear one such case, but that reticence might not last.

    Bottom line: Don’t bet on independent agencies’ continued insulation from presidential interference.

    Politicizing the civil service. A second term will give Trump the chance for a do-over in his bid to gain authority to remove tens of thousands of “rogue bureaucrats” who currently enjoy protections against being fired for political reasons. He has declared a “Day One” plan to reissue his October 2020 executive order to create a new Schedule F under which the president would have full power to remove any employee “whose position has been determined to be of confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

    This change would upend the civil service system, put in place in 1883 to end the spoils system. Currently, there are about 4,000 political appointees atop a federal workforce of 2.2 million. Trump, in his zeal to root out what he calls the “deep state,” would expand presidential power to fire at will an estimated 50,000 or more federal employees, depending on how broadly the exemption is interpreted.

    “I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats,” Trump announced in a March 2023 video. “And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

    One sign of how sweeping the change could be: After Trump left office, the National Treasury Employees Union unearthed documents that it said showed how the Office of Management and Budget “stretched the definition of policy work to cover the vast majority of the OMB workforce, from attorneys to GS-09 assistants and specialists who have nothing to do with setting government policy.”

    Trump might find it difficult to institute these changes right away. President Joe Biden not only revoked Trump’s Schedule F order but also adopted a new rule to shield federal workers against having their civil service protections removed. Undoing that and issuing new regulations is a cumbersome, time-consuming process.

    The incoming administration might be tempted to act without going through these procedural hoops. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy suggested as much in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing that the civil service law leaves Trump room to quickly “implement any number of ‘rules governing the competitive service’ that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area.”

    But moving so fast would be risky, as shown by the Trump administration’s loss at the Supreme Court when it did a sloppy legal job of trying to revoke protections, from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, for immigrant “dreamers.”

    It’s harder to predict how the court would deal with a revived Schedule F on the merits. The Treasury employees union, in a lawsuitchallenging the original Trump order, called it “a textbook example of the President acting contrary to Congress’s express and limited delegation of authority to the President.” Still, a court inclined to a broad reading of executive powers might give the president more authority over firing federal workers.

    In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, previously FDR’s attorney general, warned of the consequences of untrammeled presidential power in concluding that President Harry S. Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize control of steel plants during the Korean War. “The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic,” Jackson wrote.

    In Jackson’s formulation, a president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” — the same sort of measures discussed here. “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,” Jackson admonished, “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

    The examples outlined above aren’t the worst of what Trump could do — or the cruelest or the most extreme. Actions such as separating families, deporting dreamers and using the Justice Department to punish political enemies fall into those two categories. Yet these threatened moves represent assaults on the very architecture of democracy — assaults that must be repelled, as Jackson instructed us, lest they permanently warp the constitutional structure.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/22/trump-congress-takeover-power/


    continued from previous novel-

    Yo Max, wake up!  Are we going to brunch or what? 
    Whenever I hear brunch I automatically think of eggs benedict. Now I'm hungry.
    Bloody’s or mimosa’s comes to mind 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ON Posts: 9,169
    battle1 said:
    Continued from previous post:

    Curbing independent agencies. Starting in the 1880s, Congress established certain government offices as independent agencies, run generally by multimember commissions whose members serve fixed terms, possess particular expertise and are left free to operate outside direct executive control. But conservatives have long chafed at the agencies’ existence, which they consider an unconstitutional “headless fourth branch of government.” They want the president to have power to fire commissioners for any reason — not only for cause, as is the case under current law — and to review their proposed regulations.

    Trump is on board. “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands,” he said in an April 2023 video, referring to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.”

    What would this mean for such agencies, which also include the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

    “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration and has been tapped to lead it again in the second, toldthe New York Times last year. Specifically, Vought said, “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution.”

    Eliminating the independence of these agencies would reflect a dramatic tilt in favor of presidential authority. There are any number of ways Trump could force the issue. He could attempt to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, who said tersely at a post-election news conference that such a move was “not permitted under the law.” (Powell can only be fired for cause.) The Post reported that Trump is considering taking the extraordinary step of firing Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board; because of the way the labor agency is set up, Democrats are poised to retain majority control until 2026, if the Senate reconfirms the current chair to another term before it leaves town.

    In any event, the issue of the constitutionality of independent agencies appears destined to return to the high court — with or without presidential action.

    In a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to fire William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, and Roosevelt’s argument that being limited to firing commissioners only “for cause” was an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

    But Humphrey’s Executor has long been in conservatives’ crosshairs. More than 20 cases raising constitutional challenges to the independent structure of agencies are making their way through the lower federal courts. The justices just declined to hear one such case, but that reticence might not last.

    Bottom line: Don’t bet on independent agencies’ continued insulation from presidential interference.

    Politicizing the civil service. A second term will give Trump the chance for a do-over in his bid to gain authority to remove tens of thousands of “rogue bureaucrats” who currently enjoy protections against being fired for political reasons. He has declared a “Day One” plan to reissue his October 2020 executive order to create a new Schedule F under which the president would have full power to remove any employee “whose position has been determined to be of confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

    This change would upend the civil service system, put in place in 1883 to end the spoils system. Currently, there are about 4,000 political appointees atop a federal workforce of 2.2 million. Trump, in his zeal to root out what he calls the “deep state,” would expand presidential power to fire at will an estimated 50,000 or more federal employees, depending on how broadly the exemption is interpreted.

    “I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats,” Trump announced in a March 2023 video. “And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

    One sign of how sweeping the change could be: After Trump left office, the National Treasury Employees Union unearthed documents that it said showed how the Office of Management and Budget “stretched the definition of policy work to cover the vast majority of the OMB workforce, from attorneys to GS-09 assistants and specialists who have nothing to do with setting government policy.”

    Trump might find it difficult to institute these changes right away. President Joe Biden not only revoked Trump’s Schedule F order but also adopted a new rule to shield federal workers against having their civil service protections removed. Undoing that and issuing new regulations is a cumbersome, time-consuming process.

    The incoming administration might be tempted to act without going through these procedural hoops. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy suggested as much in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing that the civil service law leaves Trump room to quickly “implement any number of ‘rules governing the competitive service’ that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area.”

    But moving so fast would be risky, as shown by the Trump administration’s loss at the Supreme Court when it did a sloppy legal job of trying to revoke protections, from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, for immigrant “dreamers.”

    It’s harder to predict how the court would deal with a revived Schedule F on the merits. The Treasury employees union, in a lawsuitchallenging the original Trump order, called it “a textbook example of the President acting contrary to Congress’s express and limited delegation of authority to the President.” Still, a court inclined to a broad reading of executive powers might give the president more authority over firing federal workers.

    In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, previously FDR’s attorney general, warned of the consequences of untrammeled presidential power in concluding that President Harry S. Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize control of steel plants during the Korean War. “The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic,” Jackson wrote.

    In Jackson’s formulation, a president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” — the same sort of measures discussed here. “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,” Jackson admonished, “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

    The examples outlined above aren’t the worst of what Trump could do — or the cruelest or the most extreme. Actions such as separating families, deporting dreamers and using the Justice Department to punish political enemies fall into those two categories. Yet these threatened moves represent assaults on the very architecture of democracy — assaults that must be repelled, as Jackson instructed us, lest they permanently warp the constitutional structure.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/22/trump-congress-takeover-power/


    continued from previous novel-

    Yo Max, wake up!  Are we going to brunch or what? 
    Whenever I hear brunch I automatically think of eggs benedict. Now I'm hungry.
    Agreed. There’s a cheap brunch place down the block from me. Hm.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,305
    battle1 said:
    Continued from previous post:

    Curbing independent agencies. Starting in the 1880s, Congress established certain government offices as independent agencies, run generally by multimember commissions whose members serve fixed terms, possess particular expertise and are left free to operate outside direct executive control. But conservatives have long chafed at the agencies’ existence, which they consider an unconstitutional “headless fourth branch of government.” They want the president to have power to fire commissioners for any reason — not only for cause, as is the case under current law — and to review their proposed regulations.

    Trump is on board. “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands,” he said in an April 2023 video, referring to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.”

    What would this mean for such agencies, which also include the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

    “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration and has been tapped to lead it again in the second, toldthe New York Times last year. Specifically, Vought said, “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution.”

    Eliminating the independence of these agencies would reflect a dramatic tilt in favor of presidential authority. There are any number of ways Trump could force the issue. He could attempt to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, who said tersely at a post-election news conference that such a move was “not permitted under the law.” (Powell can only be fired for cause.) The Post reported that Trump is considering taking the extraordinary step of firing Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board; because of the way the labor agency is set up, Democrats are poised to retain majority control until 2026, if the Senate reconfirms the current chair to another term before it leaves town.

    In any event, the issue of the constitutionality of independent agencies appears destined to return to the high court — with or without presidential action.

    In a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to fire William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, and Roosevelt’s argument that being limited to firing commissioners only “for cause” was an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

    But Humphrey’s Executor has long been in conservatives’ crosshairs. More than 20 cases raising constitutional challenges to the independent structure of agencies are making their way through the lower federal courts. The justices just declined to hear one such case, but that reticence might not last.

    Bottom line: Don’t bet on independent agencies’ continued insulation from presidential interference.

    Politicizing the civil service. A second term will give Trump the chance for a do-over in his bid to gain authority to remove tens of thousands of “rogue bureaucrats” who currently enjoy protections against being fired for political reasons. He has declared a “Day One” plan to reissue his October 2020 executive order to create a new Schedule F under which the president would have full power to remove any employee “whose position has been determined to be of confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

    This change would upend the civil service system, put in place in 1883 to end the spoils system. Currently, there are about 4,000 political appointees atop a federal workforce of 2.2 million. Trump, in his zeal to root out what he calls the “deep state,” would expand presidential power to fire at will an estimated 50,000 or more federal employees, depending on how broadly the exemption is interpreted.

    “I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats,” Trump announced in a March 2023 video. “And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

    One sign of how sweeping the change could be: After Trump left office, the National Treasury Employees Union unearthed documents that it said showed how the Office of Management and Budget “stretched the definition of policy work to cover the vast majority of the OMB workforce, from attorneys to GS-09 assistants and specialists who have nothing to do with setting government policy.”

    Trump might find it difficult to institute these changes right away. President Joe Biden not only revoked Trump’s Schedule F order but also adopted a new rule to shield federal workers against having their civil service protections removed. Undoing that and issuing new regulations is a cumbersome, time-consuming process.

    The incoming administration might be tempted to act without going through these procedural hoops. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy suggested as much in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing that the civil service law leaves Trump room to quickly “implement any number of ‘rules governing the competitive service’ that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area.”

    But moving so fast would be risky, as shown by the Trump administration’s loss at the Supreme Court when it did a sloppy legal job of trying to revoke protections, from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, for immigrant “dreamers.”

    It’s harder to predict how the court would deal with a revived Schedule F on the merits. The Treasury employees union, in a lawsuitchallenging the original Trump order, called it “a textbook example of the President acting contrary to Congress’s express and limited delegation of authority to the President.” Still, a court inclined to a broad reading of executive powers might give the president more authority over firing federal workers.

    In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, previously FDR’s attorney general, warned of the consequences of untrammeled presidential power in concluding that President Harry S. Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize control of steel plants during the Korean War. “The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic,” Jackson wrote.

    In Jackson’s formulation, a president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” — the same sort of measures discussed here. “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,” Jackson admonished, “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

    The examples outlined above aren’t the worst of what Trump could do — or the cruelest or the most extreme. Actions such as separating families, deporting dreamers and using the Justice Department to punish political enemies fall into those two categories. Yet these threatened moves represent assaults on the very architecture of democracy — assaults that must be repelled, as Jackson instructed us, lest they permanently warp the constitutional structure.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/22/trump-congress-takeover-power/


    continued from previous novel-

    Yo Max, wake up!  Are we going to brunch or what? 
    Awful long quote to ask me out on a date. Coulda just pm’ed me.

    If the venue serves Alexander Keith’s, I’m in.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • battle1battle1 PHI Posts: 301
    battle1 said:
    Continued from previous post:

    Curbing independent agencies. Starting in the 1880s, Congress established certain government offices as independent agencies, run generally by multimember commissions whose members serve fixed terms, possess particular expertise and are left free to operate outside direct executive control. But conservatives have long chafed at the agencies’ existence, which they consider an unconstitutional “headless fourth branch of government.” They want the president to have power to fire commissioners for any reason — not only for cause, as is the case under current law — and to review their proposed regulations.

    Trump is on board. “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands,” he said in an April 2023 video, referring to the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. “These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.”

    What would this mean for such agencies, which also include the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

    “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” Russell Vought, who headed the Office of Management and Budget during the first Trump administration and has been tapped to lead it again in the second, toldthe New York Times last year. Specifically, Vought said, “It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution.”

    Eliminating the independence of these agencies would reflect a dramatic tilt in favor of presidential authority. There are any number of ways Trump could force the issue. He could attempt to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell, who said tersely at a post-election news conference that such a move was “not permitted under the law.” (Powell can only be fired for cause.) The Post reported that Trump is considering taking the extraordinary step of firing Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board; because of the way the labor agency is set up, Democrats are poised to retain majority control until 2026, if the Senate reconfirms the current chair to another term before it leaves town.

    In any event, the issue of the constitutionality of independent agencies appears destined to return to the high court — with or without presidential action.

    In a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court rejected President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to fire William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, and Roosevelt’s argument that being limited to firing commissioners only “for cause” was an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

    But Humphrey’s Executor has long been in conservatives’ crosshairs. More than 20 cases raising constitutional challenges to the independent structure of agencies are making their way through the lower federal courts. The justices just declined to hear one such case, but that reticence might not last.

    Bottom line: Don’t bet on independent agencies’ continued insulation from presidential interference.

    Politicizing the civil service. A second term will give Trump the chance for a do-over in his bid to gain authority to remove tens of thousands of “rogue bureaucrats” who currently enjoy protections against being fired for political reasons. He has declared a “Day One” plan to reissue his October 2020 executive order to create a new Schedule F under which the president would have full power to remove any employee “whose position has been determined to be of confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

    This change would upend the civil service system, put in place in 1883 to end the spoils system. Currently, there are about 4,000 political appointees atop a federal workforce of 2.2 million. Trump, in his zeal to root out what he calls the “deep state,” would expand presidential power to fire at will an estimated 50,000 or more federal employees, depending on how broadly the exemption is interpreted.

    “I will immediately re-issue my 2020 Executive Order restoring the President’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats,” Trump announced in a March 2023 video. “And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

    One sign of how sweeping the change could be: After Trump left office, the National Treasury Employees Union unearthed documents that it said showed how the Office of Management and Budget “stretched the definition of policy work to cover the vast majority of the OMB workforce, from attorneys to GS-09 assistants and specialists who have nothing to do with setting government policy.”

    Trump might find it difficult to institute these changes right away. President Joe Biden not only revoked Trump’s Schedule F order but also adopted a new rule to shield federal workers against having their civil service protections removed. Undoing that and issuing new regulations is a cumbersome, time-consuming process.

    The incoming administration might be tempted to act without going through these procedural hoops. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy suggested as much in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, writing that the civil service law leaves Trump room to quickly “implement any number of ‘rules governing the competitive service’ that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area.”

    But moving so fast would be risky, as shown by the Trump administration’s loss at the Supreme Court when it did a sloppy legal job of trying to revoke protections, from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, for immigrant “dreamers.”

    It’s harder to predict how the court would deal with a revived Schedule F on the merits. The Treasury employees union, in a lawsuitchallenging the original Trump order, called it “a textbook example of the President acting contrary to Congress’s express and limited delegation of authority to the President.” Still, a court inclined to a broad reading of executive powers might give the president more authority over firing federal workers.

    In 1952, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, previously FDR’s attorney general, warned of the consequences of untrammeled presidential power in concluding that President Harry S. Truman lacked constitutional authority to seize control of steel plants during the Korean War. “The tendency is strong to emphasize transient results upon policies … and lose sight of enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic,” Jackson wrote.

    In Jackson’s formulation, a president’s power is “at its lowest ebb” when he “takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress” — the same sort of measures discussed here. “Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,” Jackson admonished, “for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”

    The examples outlined above aren’t the worst of what Trump could do — or the cruelest or the most extreme. Actions such as separating families, deporting dreamers and using the Justice Department to punish political enemies fall into those two categories. Yet these threatened moves represent assaults on the very architecture of democracy — assaults that must be repelled, as Jackson instructed us, lest they permanently warp the constitutional structure.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/22/trump-congress-takeover-power/


    continued from previous novel-

    Yo Max, wake up!  Are we going to brunch or what? 
    Awful long quote to ask me out on a date. Coulda just pm’ed me.

    If the venue serves Alexander Keith’s, I’m in.

    Well Max, as Mark Twain once said, "Awful long posts make for awful long quotes."



  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 39,230
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 39,230
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 39,305
    mickeyrat said:
    Good luck with that. There is no US outside of the military. No collective good. At least by their definition or standards. It’s too late, way too late

    TikTok killed the radio star.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,901
    mickeyrat said:
    Good luck with that. There is no US outside of the military. No collective good. At least by their definition or standards. It’s too late, way too late

    TikTok killed the radio star.
    Agreed these kinds of general’s will be ousted they are not loyal enough to the incoming King! 
    Let it burn all the way down 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • ChoccoloccotideChoccoloccotide A grass shack nailed to a pinewood floor Posts: 1,077
    When the govt begins to persecute a group of citizens for their political beliefs, than yeah I’d say the end of the republic is near.  People need to wake up to just how evil our govt is.  Fortunately that changes on Jan. 20th.

  • ChoccoloccotideChoccoloccotide A grass shack nailed to a pinewood floor Posts: 1,077
    When the govt turns it back on its own people in need is another sign of the end of the republic.  Disgusting 

    https://x.com/amuse/status/1862833489298563182
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,901
    When the govt begins to persecute a group of citizens for their political beliefs, than yeah I’d say the end of the republic is near.  People need to wake up to just how evil our govt is.  Fortunately that changes on Jan. 20th.

    He has literally said he wants to persecute anyone that doesn’t agree with him! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • ChoccoloccotideChoccoloccotide A grass shack nailed to a pinewood floor Posts: 1,077
  • sheckyshecky San Francisco Posts: 2,037
    When the govt turns it back on its own people in need is another sign of the end of the republic.  Disgusting 

    https://x.com/amuse/status/1862833489298563182
    She must've been a Trump supporter.

    A Federal Emergency Management Agency employee has been fired after they advised their disaster relief team to avoid homes with signs supporting former President Donald Trump while canvassing in Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, the agency’s administrator said Saturday.

    FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell called the actions of the employee “reprehensible” and said they have been terminated from their role.

    “More than 22,000 FEMA employees every day adhere to FEMA’s core values and are dedicated to helping people before, during and after disasters, often sacrificing time with their own families to help disaster survivors,” Criswell wrote in a post on X before describing the employee’s actions. “This is a clear violation of FEMA’s core values & principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation.”

    “This was reprehensible. I want to be clear to all of my employees and the American people, this type of behavior and action will not be tolerated at FEMA and we will hold people accountable if they violate these standards of conduct,” she added.

    House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer invited Criswell to testify at a hearing on November 19 to discuss the incident and FEMA’s recent response to natural disasters, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton, he said in a Saturday letter to Criswell.

    “In the wake of the recent major disasters that impacted Americans of all political persuasions, it is critical that FEMA adheres to its disaster relief mission,” the Kentucky Republican wrote.

    CNN reported Friday that the employee had been removed from their role and that the incident was under investigation. The agency did not identify the employee and said it believed it was “an isolated incident.”

    The Daily Wire first reported on the incident, citing internal correspondence between the employee and workers canvassing homes in Lake Placid, Florida, in which the employee instructed them to “avoid homes advertising Trump.”

    The agency is investigating how many houses were passed over by the canvassing team as part of the incident on October 27, the spokesperson told CNN. The agency on Friday deployed a new team to knock on doors in the affected area to contact those who may not have been previously reached.

    The spokesperson declined to provide additional information on the incident or detail how agency officials were notified of it, citing the investigation, but said in the statement that FEMA officials are “horrified that this took place and therefore have taken extreme actions to correct this situation and have ensured that the matter was addressed at all levels.”

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said following reports of the incident Friday that he had directed state officials to investigate the matter.

    “The blatant weaponization of government by partisan activists in the federal bureaucracy is yet another reason why the Biden-Harris administration is in its final days,” DeSantis, a Republican, wrote on X. “At my direction, the Division of Emergency Management is launching an investigation into the federal government’s targeted discrimination of Floridians who support Donald Trump.”

    FEMA, the spokesperson said in their statement, “helps all survivors regardless of their political preference or affiliation.”



  • ChoccoloccotideChoccoloccotide A grass shack nailed to a pinewood floor Posts: 1,077
    shecky said:
    When the govt turns it back on its own people in need is another sign of the end of the republic.  Disgusting 

    https://x.com/amuse/status/1862833489298563182
    She must've been a Trump supporter.

    A Federal Emergency Management Agency employee has been fired after they advised their disaster relief team to avoid homes with signs supporting former President Donald Trump while canvassing in Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, the agency’s administrator said Saturday.

    FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell called the actions of the employee “reprehensible” and said they have been terminated from their role.

    “More than 22,000 FEMA employees every day adhere to FEMA’s core values and are dedicated to helping people before, during and after disasters, often sacrificing time with their own families to help disaster survivors,” Criswell wrote in a post on X before describing the employee’s actions. “This is a clear violation of FEMA’s core values & principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation.”

    “This was reprehensible. I want to be clear to all of my employees and the American people, this type of behavior and action will not be tolerated at FEMA and we will hold people accountable if they violate these standards of conduct,” she added.

    House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer invited Criswell to testify at a hearing on November 19 to discuss the incident and FEMA’s recent response to natural disasters, including Hurricanes Helene and Milton, he said in a Saturday letter to Criswell.

    “In the wake of the recent major disasters that impacted Americans of all political persuasions, it is critical that FEMA adheres to its disaster relief mission,” the Kentucky Republican wrote.

    CNN reported Friday that the employee had been removed from their role and that the incident was under investigation. The agency did not identify the employee and said it believed it was “an isolated incident.”

    The Daily Wire first reported on the incident, citing internal correspondence between the employee and workers canvassing homes in Lake Placid, Florida, in which the employee instructed them to “avoid homes advertising Trump.”

    The agency is investigating how many houses were passed over by the canvassing team as part of the incident on October 27, the spokesperson told CNN. The agency on Friday deployed a new team to knock on doors in the affected area to contact those who may not have been previously reached.

    The spokesperson declined to provide additional information on the incident or detail how agency officials were notified of it, citing the investigation, but said in the statement that FEMA officials are “horrified that this took place and therefore have taken extreme actions to correct this situation and have ensured that the matter was addressed at all levels.”

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said following reports of the incident Friday that he had directed state officials to investigate the matter.

    “The blatant weaponization of government by partisan activists in the federal bureaucracy is yet another reason why the Biden-Harris administration is in its final days,” DeSantis, a Republican, wrote on X. “At my direction, the Division of Emergency Management is launching an investigation into the federal government’s targeted discrimination of Floridians who support Donald Trump.”

    FEMA, the spokesperson said in their statement, “helps all survivors regardless of their political preference or affiliation.”



    This Biden/Harris regime hates Americans.

    https://x.com/thinktankfranks/status/1862588600229274077
  • mookieblalockmookieblalock Posts: 3,351
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 37,335
    When the govt turns it back on its own people in need is another sign of the end of the republic.  Disgusting 

    https://x.com/amuse/status/1862833489298563182
    Trump denied disaster relief to blue leaning states. No prez in history has ever done, nor even suggested, doing anything so vile and sick. 
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,284
    When the govt begins to persecute a group of citizens for their political beliefs, than yeah I’d say the end of the republic is near.  People need to wake up to just how evil our govt is.  Fortunately that changes on Jan. 20th.

    He has literally said he wants to persecute anyone that doesn’t agree with him! 

    No kidding.  And everybody knows that by now.  We need to start ignoring people who say otherwise because they know it and we know they know it. 
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • seanwonseanwon Posts: 479
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 
    1996: 9/29 Randall's Island 2,  10/1 Buffalo                  2000: 8/27 Saratoga Springs
    2003: 4/29 Albany,  5/2 Buffalo,  7/9 MSG 2                   2006: 5/12 Albany,  6/3 East Rutherford 2
    2008: 6/27 Hartford                 2009: 10/27 Philadelphia 1              2010: 5/15 Hartford,   5/21 MSG 2
    2013: 10/15 Worcester 1,  10/25 Hartford                       2014: 10/1 Cincinnati
    2016: 5/2 MSG 2,   8/5 Fenway 1,  11/7 Temple of the Dog MSG
    2018: 9/2 Fenway 1
    2020: 3/30 MSG             2022: 9/11 MSG            2023: 9/10 Noblesville
    2024: 9/3 MSG 1, 9/4 MSG 2 , 9/15 Fenway 1, 9/17 Fenway 2
  • mookieblalockmookieblalock Posts: 3,351
    edited December 1
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 
    Us?

    are you radical because you voted for Kamala Harris? Are all democrats radical? Are you part of the regime?
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 37,335
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 
    1. HAHAHA
    "Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk"
    -EV  8/14/93




  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,284
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 

    I'm curious about a couple of things.  First, what are you so angry about?  Every post you make is filled with anger. I don't mean to get personal here, I'm just curious as to what it is about the election or other current events discussed here warrants so much anger.
    The other question is, what you mean by "radical left"?  I lived through the Vietnam war era and witnessed radical left actions. There was some really heavy shit going down in those days.   I think I have a fairly clear idea of what has previously been referred to as the radical left.  But your insistence that many people who post here fit that label makes no sense to me.  What is so radical about the left leaning people here?  And I don't mean just one or two, there are several left leaning people on this forum.  The band that hosts this forum itself is left leaning and I don't see anyone referring to them as "radical left".
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 39,230
    brianlux said:
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 

    I'm curious about a couple of things.  First, what are you so angry about?  Every post you make is filled with anger. I don't mean to get personal here, I'm just curious as to what it is about the election or other current events discussed here warrants so much anger.
    The other question is, what you mean by "radical left"?  I lived through the Vietnam war era and witnessed radical left actions. There was some really heavy shit going down in those days.   I think I have a fairly clear idea of what has previously been referred to as the radical left.  But your insistence that many people who post here fit that label makes no sense to me.  What is so radical about the left leaning people here?  And I don't mean just one or two, there are several left leaning people on this forum.  The band that hosts this forum itself is left leaning and I don't see anyone referring to them as "radical left".

    my take is the indoctrination campaign Newt put in place for the party that then bled into the likes of Rush Limbaugh and that ilk and subsequently on to fox "fair and balanced" news into newsmaxx and oann...
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,284
    mickeyrat said:
    brianlux said:
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 

    I'm curious about a couple of things.  First, what are you so angry about?  Every post you make is filled with anger. I don't mean to get personal here, I'm just curious as to what it is about the election or other current events discussed here warrants so much anger.
    The other question is, what you mean by "radical left"?  I lived through the Vietnam war era and witnessed radical left actions. There was some really heavy shit going down in those days.   I think I have a fairly clear idea of what has previously been referred to as the radical left.  But your insistence that many people who post here fit that label makes no sense to me.  What is so radical about the left leaning people here?  And I don't mean just one or two, there are several left leaning people on this forum.  The band that hosts this forum itself is left leaning and I don't see anyone referring to them as "radical left".

    my take is the indoctrination campaign Newt put in place for the party that then bled into the likes of Rush Limbaugh and that ilk and subsequently on to fox "fair and balanced" news into newsmaxx and oann...

    Hoping to hear what seanwon thinks.  I'm honestly curious.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,749
    brianlux said:
    mickeyrat said:
    brianlux said:
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 

    I'm curious about a couple of things.  First, what are you so angry about?  Every post you make is filled with anger. I don't mean to get personal here, I'm just curious as to what it is about the election or other current events discussed here warrants so much anger.
    The other question is, what you mean by "radical left"?  I lived through the Vietnam war era and witnessed radical left actions. There was some really heavy shit going down in those days.   I think I have a fairly clear idea of what has previously been referred to as the radical left.  But your insistence that many people who post here fit that label makes no sense to me.  What is so radical about the left leaning people here?  And I don't mean just one or two, there are several left leaning people on this forum.  The band that hosts this forum itself is left leaning and I don't see anyone referring to them as "radical left".

    my take is the indoctrination campaign Newt put in place for the party that then bled into the likes of Rush Limbaugh and that ilk and subsequently on to fox "fair and balanced" news into newsmaxx and oann...

    Hoping to hear what seanwon thinks.  I'm honestly curious.
    Setting yourself up for frustration Bri. They know maga won't do a damn thing for them, yet they support it anyway.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,284
    brianlux said:
    mickeyrat said:
    brianlux said:
    seanwon said:
    MAGA playbook

    1. Use the words radical and regime whenever someone disagrees with the supreme leader

    2. Refuse to denounce Sandy Hook deniers



    1. I voted for Kamala, and the Libs here are radical far left, and their ilk cost us the election.

    2. I denounce Sandy Hook deniers.

    Now, what is the next play? 

    I'm curious about a couple of things.  First, what are you so angry about?  Every post you make is filled with anger. I don't mean to get personal here, I'm just curious as to what it is about the election or other current events discussed here warrants so much anger.
    The other question is, what you mean by "radical left"?  I lived through the Vietnam war era and witnessed radical left actions. There was some really heavy shit going down in those days.   I think I have a fairly clear idea of what has previously been referred to as the radical left.  But your insistence that many people who post here fit that label makes no sense to me.  What is so radical about the left leaning people here?  And I don't mean just one or two, there are several left leaning people on this forum.  The band that hosts this forum itself is left leaning and I don't see anyone referring to them as "radical left".

    my take is the indoctrination campaign Newt put in place for the party that then bled into the likes of Rush Limbaugh and that ilk and subsequently on to fox "fair and balanced" news into newsmaxx and oann...

    Hoping to hear what seanwon thinks.  I'm honestly curious.
    Setting yourself up for frustration Bri. They know maga won't do a damn thing for them, yet they support it anyway.

    No frustration here, L.  I'm over, under, sideways, down, and beyond frustration.  All the angst has settled into a grey goo and I just glide.
    (but I still curious, Mr. Seanwon!)
    Frustration?  Naw... I just glide.

    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













Sign In or Register to comment.