Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

I wouldn't call Separation of Powers "semantics".

 

[Cackalacky]

I wouldn't call Separation of Powers "semantics".

Well, if it is not within his powers as the Executive, it will be struck down by the courts, cause someone is without a doubt going to sue him over it. The general provisions of EOs tend to specify the limitations of the EO. I doubt he will be "writing law" as decried by the right.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Well, if it is not within his powers as the Executive, it will be struck down by the courts, cause someone is without a doubt going to sue him over it. The general provisions of EOs tend to specify the limitations of the EO. I doubt he will be "writing law" as decried by the right.

Actually, that's somewhat unlikely. For example, in the case of the Employer Mandate delay, very few people/groups will have standing to sue in the first place.

"Standing" is a complicated doctrine that I won't get into, but suffice it to say a lot has to happen, to a discrete person or group, in order for a court to hear a case against a President exercising an EO.

Healthcare mandate delay may be illegal, but challenges unlikely -experts | Reuters

Legal experts said, however, they could not think of anyone who would have the standing to sue. At least two lawsuits have already been filed over delays to the employer coverage requirements, one of which was dismissed in January.

 

[Cackalacky]

I am interested in the justification to deny the suits. Seems like the Treasury and other departments would have to comment if it was a real issue. Also I would think that one of the massive corporations would be suing for this if it's a major issue, not just two libertarian-backed small entities.

 

[wizards8507]

Well, if it is not within his powers as the Executive, it will be struck down by the courts, cause someone is without a doubt going to sue him over it. The general provisions of EOs tend to specify the limitations of the EO. I doubt he will be "writing law" as decried by the right.

You put a lot of faith in "the courts" for someone who's expressed what you've expressed regarding our legislators.

 

[Cackalacky]

Well, if it is not within his powers as the Executive, it will be struck down by the courts, cause someone is without a doubt going to sue him over it. The general provisions of EOs tend to specify the limitations of the EO. I doubt he will be "writing law" as decried by the right.

You put a lot of faith in "the courts" for someone who's expressed what you've expressed regarding our legislators.

You are right. I just assumed people knew that s how I think. I will amend it here:

"Well, if it is not within his powers as the Executive, it will be struck down by the courts (if it is in the best interest of those in power), cause someone is without a doubt going to sue him over it. The general provisions of EOs tend to specify the limitations of the EO. I doubt he will be "writing law" as decried by the right."

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I am interested in the justification to deny the suits. Seems like the Treasury and other departments would have to comment if it was a real issue. Also I would think that one of the massive corporations would be suing for this if it's a major issue, not just two libertarian-backed small entities.

They can't -- they don't have standing.

 

[Cackalacky]

They can't -- they don't have standing.

But the U.S. Treasury Department said in an email that the latest action was an exercise of its longstanding authority to grant transitional relief when implementing new legislation, as provided by the Internal Revenue Code.

"There certainly are arguments that this is legal," said Timothy Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University.

While some courts have held that a specific deadline in a statute must be met, he said, other courts have said that a statutory deadline is just one factor to consider in determining whether a delay is reasonable.

I am guessing the Treasury was granted authority at some point (From your article)?. As far as standing, is there no way a person or entity is harmed by the ACA? Are there different interpretations for standing? Very curious as I claim ignorance to this.

 

[BobD]

Long time till 2016 Bob. And if the economy doesn't take off and jobs created by then, the country will be in no mood to continue with a Democrat as President. Those famous words may forever haunt the Clintons... "The economy, stupid." Thanks James Carvill - you may very well do your own buddies in the Clinton's in.

Long time to go, but the republicans got absolutely nobody. As things stand right now, if she runs, besides being the first woman president she'd probably win by the largest margin ever. Is Huckabee still the republicans front runner? Fkn Huckabee ? I'm an independent and would love to think there is someone out there better who could win, but there isn't.
Carville said "it's the economy stupid" over 20 years ago. Nowadays he'd have to say "it's about marketing stupid" . That's where republicans lose HUGE. They cling to that old conservative right wing money that doesn't have near the power it once did. Like it or not this IS a popularity contest.

 

[wizards8507]

Long time to go, but the republicans got absolutely nobody. As things stand right now, if she runs, besides being the first woman president she'd probably win by the largest margin ever. Is Huckabee still the republicans front runner? Fkn Huckabee ? I'm an independent and would love to think there is someone out there better who could win, but there isn't.
Carville said "it's the economy stupid" over 20 years ago. Nowadays he'd have to say "it's about marketing stupid" . That's where republicans lose HUGE. They cling to that old conservative right wing money that doesn't have near the power it once did. Like it or not this IS a popularity contest.

If the Evangelicals ram Huckabee through the GOP primary, then the party is absolutely toast. If the GOP establishment push Jeb Bush on us, then the party is absolutely toast. If the northeastern liberals force Chris Christie on us, then the party is absolutely toast. The old guard needs to be ushered out (starting with Boehner, McConnell, and McCain). I'd be shocked if the nominee isn't someone named Paul/Rubio/Cruz/Jindall/Walker.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'd be shocked if the nominee isn't someone named Paul/Rubio/Cruz/Jindall/Walker.

If its any of these guys the election is over. No chance any of them wins a general election. The GOP is in a bad spot.

Bill Clinton once said the country was ripe for a long-term Democrat presence in the WH. Whatever you think of him he was one hell of a politician. Since then, Bush was given the presidency in 2000 by the SC (controversial to say the least) and barely won the 2004 election. Obama crushed the R's in 2008 and again in 2012. Looks like the R's are even less popular today. Polls are trending poorly for many junior and senior R's. McConnell was getting beat by a female Dem the last I checked. Walker is about to be under investigation, Ryan voted against his own budget proposal, the Virginia governor is under investigation, Bachman is a lunatic.....Cruz shutdown the government and may not even qualify to run for the president. Jindal.....maybe....but he will have a hard time making it out of the primaries unscathed.

 

[wizards8507]

If its any of these guys the election is over. No chance any of them wins a general election. The GOP is in a bad spot.

Bill Clinton once said the country was ripe for a long-term Democrat presence in the WH. Whatever you think of him he was one hell of a politician. Since then, Bush was given the presidency in 2000 by the SC (controversial to say the least) and barely won the 2004 election. Obama crushed the R's in 2008 and again in 2012. Looks like the R's are even less popular today. Polls are trending poorly for many junior and senior R's. McConnell was getting beat by a female Dem the last I checked. Walker is about to be under investigation, Ryan voted against his own budget proposal, the Virginia governor is under investigation, Bachman is a lunatic.....Cruz shutdown the government and may not even qualify to run for the president. Jindal.....maybe....but he will have a hard time making it out of the primaries unscathed.

The statistics say you're wrong. Romney, for example, would have won the 2012 election if he had gotten even McCain's piddly turnout numbers from 2008. The Republicans didn't lose in 2012 because voters are afraid of conservatism, the Republicans lost because conservatives stayed home. Give them a candidate they can be excited about and we have a different outcome.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Because he acknowleges that he is must stay within in the sidelines, he an wannabe king? That is a huge leap to go from those comments to what you are saying.

We've demonstrated he isn't staying within the sidelines, as others have shown. All the guy has done for 5 years is complain about being president, refuse to negotiate with Republicans, and now he's all about "I have a pen and a phone." He's frustrated he doesn't have more power.

 

[Cackalacky]

The statistics say you're wrong. Romney, for example, would have won the 2012 election if he had gotten even McCain's piddly turnout numbers from 2008. The Republicans didn't lose in 2012 because voters are afraid of conservatism, the Republicans lost because conservatives stayed home. Give them a candidate they can be excited about and we have a different outcome.

Well you listed guys that have no chance of winning a general election. None. So......Romney has been the most viable republican candidate in 20 years. As BobD said its marketing. The R's are losing badly at that and so is whatever "conservatism" is supposed to be today.

As far as voter turnout... it rarely matters except in swing states where yes the voter turnout can change the colors of purple states. I don't know what you are getting at with statistics? The Dems had greater turnout in the battle grounds..... they won those states. Bush's 1st election was basically handed to him. The 2nd was as close as it could have been. The country as a whole is trending blue on all major indicators. If there are some solid fiscal changes by the Dems and the general populace (insert joke here) the R's may never win another general election again.

I will also add the independents will be massively in play next election. Something like 40% of the voters are independent. On social issues alone, Dems win the majority of this group. Maybe moderates are a better descriptor for independents. Obama killed Romney in the "moderate" category.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Long time to go, but the republicans got absolutely nobody. As things stand right now, if she runs, besides being the first woman president she'd probably win by the largest margin ever. Is Huckabee still the republicans front runner? Fkn Huckabee ? I'm an independent and would love to think there is someone out there better who could win, but there isn't.Carville said "it's the economy stupid" over 20 years ago. Nowadays he'd have to say "it's about marketing stupid" . That's where republicans lose HUGE. They cling to that old conservative right wing money that doesn't have near the power it once did. Like it or not this IS a popularity contest.

Joke of the year so far on IE. Don't kid yourself. No one on this board believes you're an independent lol.

 

[wizards8507]

Well you listed guys that have no chance of winning a general election. None. So......Romney has been the most viable republican candidate in 20 years. As BobD said its marketing. The R's are losing badly at that and so is whatever "conservatism" is supposed to be today.

As far as voter turnout... it rarely matters except in swing states where yes the voter turnout can change the colors of purple states. I don't know what you are getting at with statistics? The Dems had greater turnout in the battle grounds..... they won those states. Bush's 1st election was basically handed to him. The 2nd was as close as it could have been.

That's exactly what I'm saying. What you're missing is the cause-and-effect relationship. The Dems won the turnout battle precisely because Republican primary voters believed the bullshit about Mitt Romney being "the most viable Republican candidate in 20 years." When the general election rolled around, conservatives looked at Romney, said "meh," and stayed home, which handed the turnout battle to Obama. Granted, it wasn't a very strong field of contenders to choose from, but the turnout battle would have gone differently if the Republicans had nominated a liberty-minded conservative.

Ronald Reagan said we need "a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling." Mitt Romney was a "pale pastel" because a lot of people saw him as Obama-lite (especially regarding healthcare).

The country as a whole is trending blue on all major indicators. If there are some solid fiscal changes by the Dems and the general populace (insert joke here) the R's may never win another general election again.

The bolded indicates that the time is ripe for a liberty-oriented Republican candidate to take control of the party. The country is trending blue on social issues, so liberty candidates can separate themselves from gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment candidates like Huckabee and Santorum of the world. Likewise, the Democrats are never going to make "solid fiscal changes" because the government-dependent population forms their core constituency. The country is trending socially libertarian and fiscally conservative, so a "bold colors" conservative is what's needed to make that message clear. A "purple" candidate like Romney reinforces the belief of voters like you, Cack, who don't see much difference between big-spending Democrats and big-spending Republicans.

 

[BobD]

Joke of the year so far on IE. Don't kid yourself. No one on this board believes you're an independent lol.

If I was something other than an independent, why wouldn't I just say so? It's not like anybody cares. Loosen the strap on your helmet.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's exactly what I'm saying. What you're missing is the cause-and-effect relationship. The Dems won the turnout battle precisely because Republican primary voters believed the bullshit about Mitt Romney being "the most viable Republican candidate in 20 years." When the general election rolled around, conservatives looked at Romney, said "meh," and stayed home, which handed the turnout battle to Obama. Granted, it wasn't a very strong field of contenders to choose from, but the turnout battle would have gone differently if the Republicans had nominated a liberty-minded conservative.

Ronald Reagan said we need "a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling." Mitt Romney was a "pale pastel" because a lot of people saw him as Obama-lite (especially regarding healthcare).


The bolded indicates that the time is ripe for a liberty-oriented Republican candidate to take control of the party. The country is trending blue on social issues, so liberty candidates can separate themselves from gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment candidates like Huckabee and Santorum of the world. Likewise, the Democrats are never going to make "solid fiscal changes" because the government-dependent population forms their core constituency. The country is trending socially libertarian and fiscally conservative, so a "bold colors" conservative is what's needed to make that message clear. A "purple" candidate like Romney reinforces the belief of voters like you, Cack, who don't see much difference between big-spending Democrats and big-spending Republicans.

We must live in two totally different countries lol. Socially liberal not libertarian. While there are some overlaps policy wise between Libertarians and progressives there is no way a Libertarian candidate becomes viable at this time.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If I was something other than an independent, why wouldn't I just say so? It's not like anybody cares. Loosen the strap on your helmet.

Probably because you're tired of trying to defend modern liberalism. In the past year in this thread nothing you've said has been close to independent. Like I said, no one on here looks at you as an independent.

 

[GoIrish41]

If the Evangelicals ram Huckabee through the GOP primary, then the party is absolutely toast. If the GOP establishment push Jeb Bush on us, then the party is absolutely toast. If the northeastern liberals force Chris Christie on us, then the party is absolutely toast. The old guard needs to be ushered out (starting with Boehner, McConnell, and McCain). I'd be shocked if the nominee isn't someone named Paul/Rubio/Cruz/Jindall/Walker.

Those guys all have considerable baggage and a lack of experience in funcitonal government.

 

[GoIrish41]

The bolded indicates that the time is ripe for a liberty-oriented Republican candidate to take control of the party. The country is trending blue on social issues, so liberty candidates can separate themselves from gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment candidates like Huckabee and Santorum of the world. Likewise, the Democrats are never going to make "solid fiscal changes" because the government-dependent population forms their core constituency. The country is trending socially libertarian and fiscally conservative, so a "bold colors" conservative is what's needed to make that message clear. A "purple" candidate like Romney reinforces the belief of voters like you, Cack, who don't see much difference between big-spending Democrats and big-spending Republicans.

The problem with this statement is that the Republican Party is so fractured that all of the factions within the party need one another to even be considered viable in a general election. So long as the "liberty oriented" wing of the party continues to attack their republican opponents with primary challenges, and very public statements they will remain a divided party. The Dems, on the other hand, will be 100 percent behind Clinton and they will bring a unified front to the election while the Rs are busy fighting amongst themselves. What the Republicans need is a candidate who can bridge all the considerable gaps that exist in their party. I don't see such a candidate in their ranks.

 

[GoIrish41]

Probably because you're tired of trying to defend modern liberalism. In the past year in this thread nothing you've said has been close to independent. Like I said, no one on here looks at you as an independent.

What is an independent? I would argue that it is a third choice, one in which an individual does not have to bind himself to one party or the other without the ability to disagree with their peers. I've followed Bob's posts, and he can ceratinly correct me if I'm wrong, and they suggest he is closer to the modern left than what the right has become in recent years. If memory serves, Bob used to be a Republican (I suspect a moderate Republican), and while I suspect he remained where he was politically, the GOP moved away from him. I suspect that Bob got left behind by the GOP in the same way that political giants like Bob Dole did. When Bob Dole is not considered by people within the Republican Party to be a Republican, I think it is safe to say that the party shifted right. Guys like Bob (again, I'm doing this from memory) had the good sense to recognize that it wasn't the same party anymore, and I assume he proclaimed his independence. If Bob and other former moderate Republicans seem too repulsively liberal to you, it should make you take notice of just how far the GOP has shifted right.

 

[BobD]

What is an independent? I would argue that it is a third choice, one in which an individual does not have to bind himself to one party or the other without the ability to disagree with their peers. I've followed Bob's posts, and he can ceratinly correct me if I'm wrong, and they suggest he is closer to the modern left than what the right has become in recent years. If memory serves, Bob used to be a Republican (I suspect a moderate Republican), and while I suspect he remained where he was politically, the GOP moved away from him. I suspect that Bob got left behind by the GOP in the same way that political giants like Bob Dole did. When Bob Dole is not considered by people within the Republican Party to be a Republican, I think it is safe to say that the party shifted right. Guys like Bob (again, I'm doing this from memory) had the good sense to recognize that it wasn't the same party anymore, and I assume he proclaimed his independence. If Bob and other former moderate Republicans seem too repulsively liberal to you, it should make you take notice of just how far the GOP has shifted right.

Well said. Thank you Sir.

 

[ACamp1900]

I came here to see some political comments but instead found Goirish41 and Bob both confused this for the 'What are you drinking?" Thread...

 

[irishog77]

Those guys all have considerable baggage and a lack of experience in funcitonal government.

I think this is interesting. I think it is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals in our country.

Broadly speaking, conservatives don't see a lifetime in the public sector as a bureaucrat as a positive attribute for someone seeking office, but rather, as a negative attribute. They'd rather see a candidate who has spent much time honing his craft in the private sector, separate from guaranteed checks, COL increases, and incredible retirement benefits.


I know this isn't what you were saying GoIrish, but it made me think about the above.

Besides, I think all of us, on both sides, have enough cynicism within us anyway now to doubt if there is even such a thing as "functional government."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What is an independent? I would argue that it is a third choice, one in which an individual does not have to bind himself to one party or the other without the ability to disagree with their peers. I've followed Bob's posts, and he can ceratinly correct me if I'm wrong, and they suggest he is closer to the modern left than what the right has become in recent years. If memory serves, Bob used to be a Republican (I suspect a moderate Republican), and while I suspect he remained where he was politically, the GOP moved away from him. I suspect that Bob got left behind by the GOP in the same way that political giants like Bob Dole did. When Bob Dole is not considered by people within the Republican Party to be a Republican, I think it is safe to say that the party shifted right. Guys like Bob (again, I'm doing this from memory) had the good sense to recognize that it wasn't the same party anymore, and I assume he proclaimed his independence. If Bob and other former moderate Republicans seem too repulsively liberal to you, it should make you take notice of just how far the GOP has shifted right.

Everyone can have different views of what defines an independent. I have friends who are independents, and they are just as sour towards D's as they are R's. Others agree with R's on some issues and despise their views on others, and vice versa. Over the past year in this thread there's been absolutely nothing that shows Bob is an independent voter, and outside of you coming out to play big brother and defend him, no one on here looks at Bob as an independent voter. He might as well be the Jay Carney of IE. We could get into a whole different discussion of which party has moved in which direction, but we've been down that road.

Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly both identify themselves as independents. Does anyone really believe they are? No. Independent thinking, and I respect it, does not equate to being an independent voter.

 

[GoIrish41]

Everyone can have different views of what defines an independent. I have friends who are independents, and they are just as sour towards D's as they are R's. Others agree with R's on some issues and despise their views on others, and vice versa. Over the past year in this thread there's been absolutely nothing that shows Bob is an independent voter, and outside of you coming out to play big brother and defend him, no one on here looks at Bob as an independent voter. He might as well be the Jay Carney of IE. We could get into a whole different discussion of which party has moved in which direction, but we've been down that road.

Bill Maher and Bill O'Reilly both identify themselves as independents. Does anyone really believe they are? No. Independent thinking, and I respect it, does not equate to being an independent voter.

At the end of the day, people are going to vote for the candidate with whom they most align with at the time of the election, no matter their party. I'm a Democrat (I know, shocking) but I've voted for Reagan, Bush Sr. (once) and Independents (Ross Perot, twice) over the years. In half of the elections in my voting life, I voted other than Democrat. I could easily describe myself as an Independent without hesitation. I did so because I believe that those candidates recognized what the most important issues of the day were, and at the time offered what I thought was the best way forward. I describe myself as a Democrat because I want to make it clear that I want to distance myself as much as possible from the new Republican party, and claiming Independence may make folks think that there are things on their agenda that I agree with along with things the Democrats stand for that I agree with. In the time we live in now, few things could be futher from the truth. I don't agree with everything the Democrats believe in, but I'm much closer to their mindset than I am with Republicans. Whether you accept it or not, it doesn't matter what you think about Bob's political affiliation. I believe his voting record and party affiliation is his to define, not yours or anyone else's. You have taken a step in a whole new direction, and gone from being the curmudgeon who believes all things liberal are the bane of the country's existence to now defining people's personal affiliations -- and you call Obama an elitist. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

I think this is interesting. I think it is a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals in our country.

Broadly speaking, conservatives don't see a lifetime in the public sector as a bureaucrat as a positive attribute for someone seeking office, but rather, as a negative attribute. They'd rather see a candidate who has spent much time honing his craft in the private sector, separate from guaranteed checks, COL increases, and incredible retirement benefits.


I know this isn't what you were saying GoIrish, but it made me think about the above.

Besides, I think all of us, on both sides, have enough cynicism within us anyway now to doubt if there is even such a thing as "functional government."

I understand your point and respect your opinion, but if I'm going to hire a football coach, I'm not going to choose a guy who was successful at coaching basketball. I want a guy who has demonstrated success in the field in which he will be working.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I understand your point and respect your opinion, but if I'm going to hire a football coach, I'm not going to choose a guy who was successful at coaching basketball. I want a guy who has demonstrated success in the field in which he will be working.

Naturally. Virtually all liberals share your preference for "experienced" politicians and competent technocrats. Though your example above isn't very apt to the conservative rebuttal, because as profession, coaching doesn't have a proven tendency to corrupt its practitioners.

 

[wizards8507]

Naturally. Virtually all liberals share your preference for "experienced" politicians and competent technocrats. Though your example above isn't very apt to the conservative rebuttal, because as profession, coaching doesn't have a proven tendency to corrupt its practitioners.

Not just liberals. So-called moderate (see: establishment) Republicans feel the same way, which is why we ended up with Mitt Romney in 2012. Professional politicians and the desire for a candidate who's "been there, done that" has driven us away from the concept of representation of the people by the people. We get these entrenched lifers who are the perfect representation of everything that has Cackalacky so disenchanted with the entire process.