• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Executive actions ready to go as Trump prepares to take office

Slyfox696 said:
No one is disputing that.
First of all, there's a difference between executive actions and executive orders. Second of all, the number of actions and orders ruled unconstitutional pale in comparison to the ones that didn't. Finally, this is the last I'm saying about this because it has nothing to do with my point.

See above. And then research.

Um...yes it is. If you willingly replied to me, it is most definitely incumbent upon you to understand the argument to which you reply. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

No, I'd rather you go back and actually read and understand what I said. I never said Trump was king or dictator or anything like that. I asked j-mac if, given that Trump is doing what j-mac disapproved of Obama doing, if he would call Trump the same things he said about Obama.

It's right there in black and white and anyone with an IQ in the double digits can understand it.
I haven't changed what I said once. Just because you lacked the desire to understand it the first time, that does not mean I changed my position. Again, it is on you to understand an argument before you reply to it, so you can avoid posting stupid things.

Yet more evidence you simply don't understand the conversation. I'll explain it one more time for you, but after that, you're on your own.

My contention is the blindly partisan will often excuse for one what they condemn in another. In this case, j-mac previously said Obama was worse than a king or dictator because he was issuing executive orders/actions. In this case, j-mac started a thread about Trump issuing executive orders/actions so I asked if he thought Trump was worse than a king or dictator, since that was what he said of Obama. I never once said Trump was king or dictator, despite your previous misunderstanding.

Finally, with regards to SCOTUS, my "of course" refers back to yet another thing I said, which is partisans on either side of the aisle generally tend to see EA/EO as lawful or unconstitutional based on the agenda of the partisan. In other words, I was saying someone like you, who is definitely partisan, likely feels SCOTUS gets rulings "correct" when they rule the way you want them to rule, but get it "wrong" when they don't. Because that's what partisans do, they lack objectivity.

I've now explained this in-depth to you. Despite your absurd belief it is not your job to understand an argument before you reply to it, the fact is it IS your responsibility to understand an argument before you reply to it. So, before you reply with yet another post which has nothing to do with what I've actually said, take the time to actually read and comprehend. Maybe take a full day to think about it before you reply. Because I've reached my limit for tolerating stupidity for the day.
Click to expand...

save your moving goal posts for other people. that stuff doesn't work on me.

an executive action is a wish list of what a president would like to see done.
an executive order is what legally (or illegally) attempts to change a law.

EO are nothing more than memo's that are supposed to clear up ambiguity of how a law works.
they are not modes to change or create a new law as Obama has had to find out.

courts do not rule on executive actions as they have no legality. they do however rule on orders.

Executive Action Definition - Presidential Orders

yes you should educate yourself on the difference. an executive action carries no weight at all.
EO's do.

Your poor attempt to wiggle your way out doesn't work.
Nope you are assuming my argument and then arguing your assumption which is well a fallacy

I already stated my argument in black and white which was.

The constitution is the document that is correct. anything that deviates from that document is not correct. the job of the SCOTUS is to uphold the constitution.
therefore if they make a ruling that is I counter to what the constitution says it means that they were wrong.

your opinion is well meaningless. you don't get to assume someone's argument then thing you can argue that assumption and have it carry any weight.
yes please take time to read and comprehend what people write instead of just making stuff up. you will become better in a lot of ways.
 
j-mac said:
So, all of this out of you was based on you wanting to expose some kind of hypocrisy?
Click to expand...
Something like that, yes.
Well, maybe a little, but my God man....How petty are we to get here?
Click to expand...
Petty? We're posting on political debate forum. Exposing hypocrisy, partisanship and double standards is common.

Would you not agree having such hypocrisy due to partisanship is far more petty?
ludin said:
save your moving goal posts for other people. that stuff doesn't work on me.
Click to expand...
And again you use terms you don't understand.

Nope you are assuming my argument and then arguing your assumption which is well a fallacy
Click to expand...
I haven't said anything about any argument you may or may not have made. No, instead I was explaining to you MY argument, of which you continuously show no understanding. Why do you bother to write a response when you don't bother to read what you are responding to?

I told you I've reached my limit of reading stupidity. So have a good day.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Something like that, yes.
Petty? We're posting on political debate forum. Exposing hypocrisy, partisanship and double standards is common.

Would you not agree having such hypocrisy due to partisanship is far more petty?
And again you use terms you don't understand.

I haven't said anything about any argument you may or may not have made. No, instead I was explaining to you MY argument, of which you continuously show no understanding. Why do you bother to write a response when you don't bother to read what you are responding to?

I told you I've reached my limit of reading stupidity. So have a good day.
Click to expand...

good job on not addressing anything as usual.
let me know when you feel like being honest.

yes you do that on a consistent basis. concession noted.
study up on the difference between an executive action and order so you will
know next time.
 
ludin said:
good job on not addressing anything as usual.
Click to expand...
When you reply to what I actually said, instead of just making up things I never said, then I'll happily address it. But until then, have a good day.
 
Ikari said:
Well at least for 4 years, no more than 8.

And when the Dems retake the office, I will expect the right to go back to bitching about EOs.
Click to expand...

Even 4 years is looking unlikely. The bookies are currently giving 3-1 that he'll be impeached in the first six months!
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Cite at least three such cases.
Click to expand...

Dream act over ruled.
EO on overtime pay.
EO on the clean air act ruled unconstitutional.
there are a few more if I take the time to dig through them.
you asked for 3 I gave them.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Even 4 years is looking unlikely. The bookies are currently giving 3-1 that he'll be impeached in the first six months!
Click to expand...

They do not know much about the American system of government if they are betting real money on that.
 
Mac77 said:
They do not know much about the American system of government if they are betting real money on that.
Click to expand...

Show me a broke bookie! You raise an interesting point. Opinion polls have variable results, but betting odds are the result of people puttung hard cash behind their opinion. If a lot of people are betting on it, the odds shorten.
 
Mac77 said:
This must be absolute torture for obama/hillary libs

I know its driving them crazy
Click to expand...

Wish I was a fly on the wall, watching them squirm.
 
Mac77 said:
I'm going to invest in Vodka futures cause libs will have to drown their sorrow in something
Click to expand...

You mean they aren't boycotting Russia?

Vodka is a Russian drink.
 
ludin said:
Dream act over ruled.
EO on overtime pay.
EO on the clean air act ruled unconstitutional.
there are a few more if I take the time to dig through them.
you asked for 3 I gave them.
Click to expand...

What are the case titles? You know, "John Doe vs. Joe Blow?"
Give me those (from the SCOTUS) or your citations are no good.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What are the case titles? You know, "John Doe vs. Joe Blow?"
Give me those (from the SCOTUS) or your citations are no good.
Click to expand...

I just gave them you asked for 3 I gave them to you proof enough.
 
j-mac said:
I know that there is another thread lamenting that President Trump may not get busy until Monday, however, Reuters reports that today some orders may be signed....So, There you go libs....Getting started immediately.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with executive orders... what about the congressional route? Wasn't that what the right was complainging about with our last president?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You did not. As I said, actual court cases or it's no good.
Click to expand...

and I quote you
Cite at least three such cases.

I sited at least 3 cases. you did not state court cases or anything else so you are moving the goal posts.
because you asked for something and I gave it to you.
yes they are good.

you are claiming a victory when there isn't one.
you don't have to cite common knowledge.
these were published all over the news and most of the
papers.

You asked for 3 cases
I gave you 3 cases.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Something like that, yes.
Click to expand...

Well, my goodness, nothing more pressing to do other than get into some partisan mud match in here eh? Nothing of substance for you to address?

Petty?
Click to expand...

Yes, petty....You are aware of the term right?

We're posting on political debate forum.
Click to expand...

Congratulations...You figured out what we are doing all this typing for....

Exposing hypocrisy, partisanship and double standards is common.
Click to expand...

Really? I thought this was the "Breaking News forum"... I wasn't aware that your characterization of my positions was Breaking News.....

Would you not agree having such hypocrisy due to partisanship is far more petty?
Click to expand...

I would say that a certain amount of hypocrisy is standard fair in politics...I am positive that a search of the annals of your posting history would uncover hypocrisy as well. In fact, the mere truth of what you are trying to do here is a definition of hypocrisy in a way, not to mention off topic....So, we should get back to it....

Anything on the topic to address?
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, with executive orders... what about the congressional route? Wasn't that what the right was complainging about with our last president?
Click to expand...

Oh, NOW you want it to be done correctly eh? EO's don't require congressional action to overturn.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, NOW you want it to be done correctly eh? EO's don't require congressional action to overturn.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say that I agreed with Obama's executive actions? I'm talking about the huge double stanbdard being played by the right. Trump has a super majority and he's signing executive actions? What's wrong with that picture?

It's a double standard and hypocritical dude.
 
j-mac said:
Well, my goodness, nothing more pressing to do other than get into some partisan mud match in here eh?
Click to expand...
Oh, I believe you misunderstand. I'm not partisan...I'm pointing out your partisanship. Big difference.
Nothing of substance for you to address?
Click to expand...
As opposed to...what exactly? This is an Internet message board where people routinely talk past each about things very few of us have any control over. What exactly is this "substance" to which you refer?

Yes, petty....You are aware of the term right?
Click to expand...
Aware? Yes. Aware you seem to miss the big picture when you try to deflect from the apparent hypocrisy of your positions? Yes.

Congratulations...You figured out what we are doing all this typing for....
Click to expand...
Oh, I've long been aware. I'm pointing out the absurdity of you thinking someone exposing hypocrisy is petty on an Internet message board. All of this is petty. We're not solving any problems, we're discussing/debating with anonymous people because we literally have nothing better to do (or, I guess, are actively avoiding doing something we don't want to do).

I'm not sure why you don't understand the concept.

Really? I thought this was the "Breaking News forum"... I wasn't aware that your characterization of my positions was Breaking News.....
Click to expand...
Not every post in every thread in the Breaking News forum has to be breaking news. It's rather common for individuals to discuss tangents within a thread. You've been here long enough, you know this already.

Look, I understand you're trying to deflect from the fact you obviously have two different standards, one for your team and one for the other team. Why try to hide it behind veiled ad homs? Just own it. You're partisan. You're hardly the only one on this forum. I think it's absurd to engage in such rampant partisanship when it leads to obvious hypocrisy, but it's what some people do. But don't be offended when you're called out on it.

I would say that a certain amount of hypocrisy is standard fair in politics
Click to expand...
And a certain amount of lying is done by lawyers. It doesn't make either one the right thing to do.

...I am positive that a search of the annals of your posting history would uncover hypocrisy as well.
Click to expand...
Possible, though I find it unlikely. That's the benefit of not supporting a team...when you support actual ideals you believe in, rather than a team based on a color, hypocrisy comes around far less often, if ever.

In fact, the mere truth of what you are trying to do here is a definition of hypocrisy in a way
Click to expand...
No it isn't.
, not to mention off topic
Click to expand...
It's not off-topic actually. You seem to take a celebratory tone on President Trump's actions, while you cast an accusatory tone towards President Obama's actions, even though the actions themselves used the same authority. Why the double standard? That is most definitely on topic.

Anything on the topic to address?
Click to expand...
I did. I asked you a question, you answered it and I didn't reply to you again. You, however, replied to something I said to another poster, thus re-opening the discussion. So obviously YOU are the one who brought us to our current conversation...do you have anything YOU wish to comment on? Because I got the answer I was seeking already.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
and I quote you
Cite at least three such cases.

I sited at least 3 cases. you did not state court cases or anything else so you are moving the goal posts.
because you asked for something and I gave it to you.
yes they are good.

you are claiming a victory when there isn't one.
you don't have to cite common knowledge.
these were published all over the news and most of the
papers.

You asked for 3 cases
I gave you 3 cases.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming a victory. I'm claiming that you didn't provide an adequate answer.

Was the question not specific enough for you? Okay, my bad. I did mean court cases and I still do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom