Trump MAGAThread V: March Comes In Like A Lion

[Senkaku]

They can. Killing a good person is evil, but killing an evil person is good.

And who gets to judge what is good or evil?

If religious group A believes that they are good and religious B is evil, is the killing of religious group b to be permitted?
Conversely, if religious group B believes that they are good and religious A is evil, is the killing of religious group A to be permitted?

"An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." Ghandi.

holy shit someone who can make bland analogies and quote him some goddamn Gandhi, motherfucker i gotta write this shit down

[The East Marches II]

Boy do I feel safe from those evil refugees now!

I'm assuming you're serious but maybe my sarcasm meter has gone offline?? Either way, Id just like to add i'm so glad no more attacks like Bowling Green will ever happen thanks to this order

110% sarcasm, it may have overloaded you. Thats ok, it happens sometimes.

[Izandai]

They can. Killing a good person is evil, but killing an evil person is good.

And who gets to judge what is good or evil?

If religious group A believes that they are good and religious B is evil, is the killing of religious group b to be permitted?
Conversely, if religious group B believes that they are good and religious A is evil, is the killing of religious group A to be permitted?

"An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." Ghandi.

"Eye for an eye" doesn't come into it. We're not talking about exacting revenge, we're talking about standalone actions.

As for who decides what is good or evil: I do. And so do you. And so does everyone else. Morality is determined by social consensus. Group A believes it is good to kill members of group B, group B thinks it is good to kill members of group A, and I ask everyone to please settle down and stop killing each other for probably no good reason (this being a religious dispute).

[WhatsamattaU]

And of course the whole boogieman of Trump With Executive Orders. Guess the federal courts were all powerless to declare Trump's Muslim Ban unconstitutional and block it.

My favorite part is when he fixed the problems and then did it anyway. That was 110% awesome. The courts aren't blocking it anymore. Guess the federal courts are powerless when he executes it without violating the Constitution explicitly. Boy do I feel safe from those evil refugees now!

You mean the 9th Circus?

Basically, the T. A. repaired all the small shit that the opposing governors had their panties twisted up in wads over, made it bullet proof, and kept their mouths shut about judicial review.

[WhatsamattaU]

And who gets to judge what is good or evil?

If religious group A believes that they are good and religious B is evil, is the killing of religious group b to be permitted?
Conversely, if religious group B believes that they are good and religious A is evil, is the killing of religious group A to be permitted?

"An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." Ghandi.

"Eye for an eye" doesn't come into it. We're not talking about exacting revenge, we're talking about standalone actions.

As for who decides what is good or evil: I do. And so do you. And so does everyone else. Morality is determined by social consensus. Group A believes it is good to kill members of group B, group B thinks it is good to kill members of group A, and I ask everyone to please settle down and stop killing each other for probably no good reason (this being a religious dispute).

Could be a political dispute.

Anyway, if you think it was evil for Trump to use Obama's tools, then it was evil for Obama to leave them out on display where the next President could find them.

[Frenequesta]

They can. Killing a good person is evil, but killing an evil person is good.

And who gets to judge what is good or evil?

If religious group A believes that they are good and religious B is evil, is the killing of religious group b to be permitted?
Conversely, if religious group B believes that they are good and religious A is evil, is the killing of religious group A to be permitted?

"An eye for an eye making the whole world blind." Ghandi.

Leave that kind of stuff to professional philosophers who will then be misinterpreted by public officials:

"Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." - John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Keynes wrote that in reference to economists and specifically political philosophers, of course, but I don't see why other philosophers wouldn't be covered. Though in this day and age, of course, the "academic scribbler" might just be some equally crazy blogger. How times have changed.

[Izandai]

"Eye for an eye" doesn't come into it. We're not talking about exacting revenge, we're talking about standalone actions.

As for who decides what is good or evil: I do. And so do you. And so does everyone else. Morality is determined by social consensus. Group A believes it is good to kill members of group B, group B thinks it is good to kill members of group A, and I ask everyone to please settle down and stop killing each other for probably no good reason (this being a religious dispute).

Could be a political dispute.

Anyway, if you think it was evil for Trump to use Obama's tools, then it was evil for Obama to leave them out on display where the next President could find them.

It's not Trump's use of the tools that I find abhorrent, it's what he's doing with them. Which now that I type it out could just be me saying the same thing twice, but I trust you get what I mean.

[Senkaku]

Which now that I type it out could just be me saying the same thing twice, but I trust you get what I mean.

It's not. It's the difference between saying you hate sledgehammers themselves no matter how they're used and saying you hate people murdering puppies using sledgehammers.

[Izandai]

Which now that I type it out could just be me saying the same thing twice, but I trust you get what I mean.

It's not. It's the difference between saying you hate sledgehammers themselves no matter how they're used and saying you hate people murdering puppies using sledgehammers.

That's what I meant. Glad to see it came across.

[Gauthier]

"Eye for an eye" doesn't come into it. We're not talking about exacting revenge, we're talking about standalone actions.

As for who decides what is good or evil: I do. And so do you. And so does everyone else. Morality is determined by social consensus. Group A believes it is good to kill members of group B, group B thinks it is good to kill members of group A, and I ask everyone to please settle down and stop killing each other for probably no good reason (this being a religious dispute).

Could be a political dispute.

Anyway, if you think it was evil for Trump to use Obama's tools, then it was evil for Obama to leave them out on display where the next President could find them.

That tired old disingenuous "Obama should have sat on his ass and done nothing about trying to get his campaign promises fulfilled instead of using executive orders to do so when the Republicans blocked him because Trump can use them too!" sophistry is just a copout to blame Obama for Trump's shit.

[The East Marches II]

Could be a political dispute.

Anyway, if you think it was evil for Trump to use Obama's tools, then it was evil for Obama to leave them out on display where the next President could find them.

That tired old disingenuous "Obama should have sat on his ass and done nothing about trying to get his campaign promises fulfilled instead of using executive orders to do so when the Republicans blocked him because Trump can use them too!" sophistry is just a copout to blame Obama for Trump's shit.

Yeah, keeping power from falling into the wrong hands is just worthless sophistry! Oh wait, turns out that they were right in the end.

[Betoni]

That tired old disingenuous "Obama should have sat on his ass and done nothing about trying to get his campaign promises fulfilled instead of using executive orders to do so when the Republicans blocked him because Trump can use them too!" sophistry is just a copout to blame Obama for Trump's shit.

Yeah, keeping power from falling into the wrong hands is just worthless sophistry! Oh wait, turns out that they were right in the end.

I don't get it, how is it Obama's fault? What exactly are you blaming Obama of doing? Were the electorate not aware of the power of the Presidency when they elected Trump?

[Vassenor]

Yeah, keeping power from falling into the wrong hands is just worthless sophistry! Oh wait, turns out that they were right in the end.

I don't get it, how is it Obama's fault? What exactly are you blaming Obama of doing? Were the electorate not aware of the power of the Presidency when they elected Trump?

Especially since arguably he played it up with his constant talk of Obama being a dictator using his unlimited power to pass DOes to circumvent democracy.

[The East Marches II]

Yeah, keeping power from falling into the wrong hands is just worthless sophistry! Oh wait, turns out that they were right in the end.

I don't get it, how is it Obama's fault? What exactly are you blaming Obama of doing? Were the electorate not aware of the power of the Presidency when they elected Trump?

Promising to do things like stop mass surveillance and then expanding executive power. He rushed rules in for the droning and surveillance before 2012 as it looked like Romney was gonna win. Before Trump came in, he just kept expanding instead of spiking the guns so to speak. Others argued at the time/before that such tools were too dangerous to have around (including oddly a Senator Obama) and we should put them away lest they fall into the wrong hands. The day has dawned that they have fallen into the wrong hands. Yet there are people still defending it. At the very least, Obama could have done as he did in 2012 and tried to restrict them. The Democrats are playing neither hardball politics (openly hypocritical but at least spiking the guns) nor following their ideals. It is infact their fault that now he can label news Russian propaganda. "He'd never just lie as to the contents of something" - then the fake news stuff. Total incompetency at every level.

[AiliailiA]

What happened to The East Marches? I assumed a CTE but now there's a replacement?

[The East Marches II]

What happened to The East Marches? I assumed a CTE but now there's a replacement?

He died a horrible death due to bantz with a friend. New name, same friendly service.

[Betoni]

I don't get it, how is it Obama's fault? What exactly are you blaming Obama of doing? Were the electorate not aware of the power of the Presidency when they elected Trump?

Promising to do things like stop mass surveillance and then expanding executive power. He rushed rules in for the droning and surveillance before 2012 as it looked like Romney was gonna win. Before Trump came in, he just kept expanding instead of spiking the guns so to speak. Others argued at the time/before that such tools were too dangerous to have around (including oddly a Senator Obama) and we should put them away lest they fall into the wrong hands. The day has dawned that they have fallen into the wrong hands. Yet there are people still defending it. At the very least, Obama could have done as he did in 2012 and tried to restrict them. The Democrats are playing neither hardball politics (openly hypocritical but at least spiking the guns) nor following their ideals. It is infact their fault that now he can label news Russian propaganda. "He'd never just lie as to the contents of something" - then the fake news stuff. Total incompetency at every level.

Be specific, how did Obama expand the executive power? What, if anything, would have stopped the next president from doing exactly what Obama did? Could Obama do the opposite, contracted(?), the executive powers of the presidency unilaterally? If not, would he had have the necessary support in the legislative branch to achieve this?

[AiliailiA]

I would say the only precedents (legislative or executive order) which really matter, are those which were tested in court. Legislatures reverse the precedents set by previous ones, and executives do too, it only gets set in stone when the Supreme Court upholds or strikes down the change.

[The East Marches II]

Promising to do things like stop mass surveillance and then expanding executive power. He rushed rules in for the droning and surveillance before 2012 as it looked like Romney was gonna win. Before Trump came in, he just kept expanding instead of spiking the guns so to speak. Others argued at the time/before that such tools were too dangerous to have around (including oddly a Senator Obama) and we should put them away lest they fall into the wrong hands. The day has dawned that they have fallen into the wrong hands. Yet there are people still defending it. At the very least, Obama could have done as he did in 2012 and tried to restrict them. The Democrats are playing neither hardball politics (openly hypocritical but at least spiking the guns) nor following their ideals. It is infact their fault that now he can label news Russian propaganda. "He'd never just lie as to the contents of something" - then the fake news stuff. Total incompetency at every level.

Be specific, how did Obama expand the executive power? What, if anything, would have stopped the next president from doing exactly what Obama did? Could Obama do the opposite, contracted(?), the executive powers of the presidency unilaterally? If not, would he had have the necessary support in the legislative branch to achieve this?

We've got the CIA peering into our TVs my man. Here is one prominent example regarding it. There is a more indepth Daily Beast and Jacobin is thats your cup of tea. What he could have done was establish rules around this stuff instead of expanding it. Contracting the powers of the Imperial Presidency could have been done too but for sake of brevity lets play the pragmatism card if that is ok with you. He could have established rules which would have been extremely difficult and politically hazardous for Trump to remove. Leaving him a sort of political landmine if he wanted to use those powers in the same manner as Obama. Given the heightened media atmosphere, it would have been a bloodbath. Why the paralysis then when Trump had won and an expansion of those powers? It makes no sense. To take decisive action on a potential Romney win but do nothing and expand with a Trump win when we can agree he was clearly the greater threat?

[Betoni]

We've got the CIA peering into our TVs my man. Here is one prominent example regarding it. There is a more indepth Daily Beast and Jacobin is thats your cup of tea. What he could have done was establish rules around this stuff instead of expanding it. Contracting the powers of the Imperial Presidency could have been done too but for sake of brevity lets play the pragmatism card if that is ok with you. He could have established rules which would have been extremely difficult and politically hazardous for Trump to remove. Leaving him a sort of political landmine if he wanted to use those powers in the same manner as Obama. Given the heightened media atmosphere, it would have been a bloodbath. Why the paralysis then when Trump had won and an expansion of those powers? It makes no sense. To take decisive action on a potential Romney win but do nothing and expand with a Trump win when we can agree he was clearly the greater threat?

So Obama didn't really expand the executive power, he used that power to give intelligence agencies more latitude. He could have established rules around it, but there wouldn't have been anything other than possible political backlash to stop the next president to do the exact opposite. So, contracting the powers of the presidency seems to be the only solution. Could Obama have accomplished that?

[The East Marches II]

So Obama didn't really expand the executive power, he used that power to give intelligence agencies more latitude. He could have established rules around it, but there wouldn't have been anything other than possible political backlash to stop the next president to do the exact opposite. So, contracting the powers of the presidency seems to be the only solution. Could Obama have accomplished that?

To repeal intelligence rules requires more than the executive's pen. I was reading in the Atlantic that it requires Congressional approval and that of the agencies (if anybody has a for sure article that can correct me please do). It could be done but at political cost. If you can give your enemy a bloody nose in expanding those powers, especially if you think he is unstable, why wouldn't you? Sure Obama could have accomplished that but give somebody a taste of power and they won't give it up. Senator Obama's opinions differ greatly from President. It would have been ez pz for him to do it in his first term with the Democratic Congress and unprecedented support. He choose not to do it. He didn't have Patriot done in, he reauthorized it. He could have just as easily let it die even if Congress had done it anyway with his veto.

[AiliailiA]

Be specific, how did Obama expand the executive power? What, if anything, would have stopped the next president from doing exactly what Obama did? Could Obama do the opposite, contracted(?), the executive powers of the presidency unilaterally? If not, would he had have the necessary support in the legislative branch to achieve this?

We've got the CIA peering into our TVs my man. Here is one prominent example regarding it. There is a more indepth Daily Beast and Jacobin is thats your cup of tea. What he could have done was establish rules around this stuff instead of expanding it. Contracting the powers of the Imperial Presidency could have been done too but for sake of brevity lets play the pragmatism card if that is ok with you. He could have established rules which would have been extremely difficult and politically hazardous for Trump to remove. Leaving him a sort of political landmine if he wanted to use those powers in the same manner as Obama. Given the heightened media atmosphere, it would have been a bloodbath. Why the paralysis then when Trump had won and an expansion of those powers? It makes no sense. To take decisive action on a potential Romney win but do nothing and expand with a Trump win when we can agree he was clearly the greater threat?

Well a simple explanation is that unlike Romney who was sometimes ahead in polls (consistently even, in October even) Trump never looked like a winner.

A more devious explanation, giving Obama more credit for strategic thinking, is the honey trap. Giving Trump some rope to hang himself.

[Betoni]

So Obama didn't really expand the executive power, he used that power to give intelligence agencies more latitude. He could have established rules around it, but there wouldn't have been anything other than possible political backlash to stop the next president to do the exact opposite. So, contracting the powers of the presidency seems to be the only solution. Could Obama have accomplished that?

To repeal intelligence rules requires more than the executive's pen. I was reading in the Atlantic that it requires Congressional approval and that of the agencies (if anybody has a for sure article that can correct me please do). It could be done but at political cost. If you can give your enemy a bloody nose in expanding those powers, especially if you think he is unstable, why wouldn't you? Sure Obama could have accomplished that but give somebody a taste of power and they won't give it up. Senator Obama's opinions differ greatly from President. It would have been ez pz for him to do it in his first term with the Democratic Congress and unprecedented support. He choose not to do it. He didn't have Patriot done in, he reauthorized it. He could have just as easily let it die even if Congress had done it anyway with his veto.

If the intelligence rules were a result of an EO doesn't the current president have the authority to revoke that EO? At least Obama did it previosly, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 If the current rules are not an EO by Obama, than it really is not Obamas doing, not solely Obamas doing, at least. Yeah, I'm well aware how Obama seemed to have a huge change of heart on the issues of intelligence gathering and personal privacy. I'm not entirely sure that the Democrats would have wanted to lessen the executive powers of the president, but yes he should have tried at least. But, we did start this conversation of on the argument that Obama actually expanded the executive power, and I still don't see how that is true. He could have done more to contract said powers, but that is really not the same as he expanded them. In this regard Obama is not any different from any other previous president.

[The East Marches II]

We've got the CIA peering into our TVs my man. Here is one prominent example regarding it. There is a more indepth Daily Beast and Jacobin is thats your cup of tea. What he could have done was establish rules around this stuff instead of expanding it. Contracting the powers of the Imperial Presidency could have been done too but for sake of brevity lets play the pragmatism card if that is ok with you. He could have established rules which would have been extremely difficult and politically hazardous for Trump to remove. Leaving him a sort of political landmine if he wanted to use those powers in the same manner as Obama. Given the heightened media atmosphere, it would have been a bloodbath. Why the paralysis then when Trump had won and an expansion of those powers? It makes no sense. To take decisive action on a potential Romney win but do nothing and expand with a Trump win when we can agree he was clearly the greater threat?

Well a simple explanation is that unlike Romney who was sometimes ahead in polls (consistently even, in October even) Trump never looked like a winner.

A more devious explanation, giving Obama more credit for strategic thinking, is the honey trap. Giving Trump some rope to hang himself.

Option 1 why he kept expanding it and didn't rush rules post Trump win. The Romney part makes perfect sense though. We can only hope its option 2 then. Obama playing 5d chess while Trump is only 4.

[The East Marches II]

To repeal intelligence rules requires more than the executive's pen. I was reading in the Atlantic that it requires Congressional approval and that of the agencies (if anybody has a for sure article that can correct me please do). It could be done but at political cost. If you can give your enemy a bloody nose in expanding those powers, especially if you think he is unstable, why wouldn't you? Sure Obama could have accomplished that but give somebody a taste of power and they won't give it up. Senator Obama's opinions differ greatly from President. It would have been ez pz for him to do it in his first term with the Democratic Congress and unprecedented support. He choose not to do it. He didn't have Patriot done in, he reauthorized it. He could have just as easily let it die even if Congress had done it anyway with his veto.

If the intelligence rules were a result of an EO doesn't the current president have the authority to revoke that EO? At least Obama did it previosly, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 If the current rules are not an EO by Obama, than it really is not Obamas doing, not solely Obamas doing, at least. Yeah, I'm well aware how Obama seemed to have a huge change of heart on the issues of intelligence gathering and personal privacy. I'm not entirely sure that the Democrats would have wanted to lessen the executive powers of the president, but yes he should have tried at least. But, we did start this conversation of on the argument that Obama actually expanded the executive power, and I still don't see how that is true. He could have done more to contract said powers, but that is really not the same as he expanded them. In this regard Obama is not any different from any other previous president.

Did you read any of the articles I linked? They do detail how he expanded those powers. He didn't do a fucking thing to contract them. He only made it worse and then in his infinite wisdom kept expanding them post Trump win. He added fuel on top of an already disaster and posters like Gauthier rushed to his defense due to a blue team jeresy. What a fucking joke. The Democrats can't even fucking play evil correctly. The Republicans are waging total political war and the solution is to help them by making even easier to get data without a warrant? In what world does that not constitute an expansion and a bad idea both?