President Donald J. Trump

[136 or 142]

I wonder if he has trouble sleeping at night.  Tossing and turning and so angry at the stupid Bellgabbers who won't see things his way.  I hope he takes ambien.

Speaking of bed, that's where I'm going now.  G'night.

I think your problem is that since you've pegged me as a liberal, you've also created this strawman of me as a 'bleeding heart' who believes in the worthiness of all human beings or of all ideas.

I replied to you earlier that the idea that all views are equal is simply wrong.  All valid views may be equal, but views that rely on falsehoods or rely on logical fallacies are not valid views, and, therefore, I dismiss them.  "When something's not right, it's wrong." 

I do not dismiss valid views from any ideological perspective and I do not play games that any conservative view must inherently be a logical fallacy and therefore it's automatically invalid.  Since I've never seen you express a valid view, you wouldn't know that.

Let's be serious here, Bellgab is not really a place to have serious ideological discussions/debates.  The one thing I believe fairness requires is trying as much as possible to provide full context.  This has led me on the few times I've tried to discuss political issues seriously here, rather than engage in back and forth debate on the topics of the day, to make lengthy posts. I was criticized for doing them, so I tried to cut down my post into a number of posts and then was admonished for flooding.  As nobody commented on substance of my posts, I didn't see any reason to continue making them here.  There are much more serious forums for those sorts of discussions anyway.  Bellgab clearly isn't a place that anybody goes to for serious discussion of  political issues.

[PB the Deplorable]

We've discussed this before
1.Every President dating back to, I think, Thomas Jefferson has used executive orders, though they had a different name back then.  It's up to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of any specific executive order.  If Obama told the Supreme Court he would ignore their ruling, then he would be an authoritarian.

2.The alleged IRS persecution of conservative organizations has also been debunked.  You're really not worth having a conversation with since you obviously lie to yourself that you're  fair minded enough to judge through a non partisan lens but all you do is repeatedly fall for the lies of the far right wing 'news' organizations you read, watch or listen to.

Garbage in, garbage out, especially when the person on the receiving end lacks the intelligence to know when he's being fed garbage.

Debunked by who, the Left-wing media?  Wow, that's really impressive.  They're just full of surprises, aren't they?

As far as Executive Orders - they are very legal and an important tool of the President.  They are for situations like focusing his Cabinet on his polices, setting priorities, dealing with emergencies, fine tuning policies when a certain amount of discretion is granted the president in certain legislation, things like that.

What is not legal, and what they are not there for is to make new law, order the enforcement of existing law to cease, change laws, etc

It doesn't matter the number of Executive Orders a president issues, what matters is their substance.  You make it sound as if each president is given a certain number of Executive Orders with which he can do anything he wants.  Obviously that's garbage, to use your term.


Beyond that, this president HAS ignored court orders, numerous times, but of course if someone bothered to show you specific links you'd have some other excuse for it.


Then there's perspective.  Some other president does something borderline, or even crosses a line for whatever reason, and you point to that and say ''see, everyone does it, so no matter how much more of it Obama does, he's just like everyone else''.  Never mind the sheer volume of usurped powers.

[SciFiAuthor]

I have no idea if the Clintons are criminals or not. But I know Trump is dangerous to you and the rest of the planet. Thank you PB for noticing my misspelling of Bliar... damn. Its early here.

How do you determine dangerous? I've spent weeks wondering how Hillary Clinton can legally and ethically hold a security clearance. I can't figure out a way unless we just give her one and not worry about her history.

[136 or 142]

This idea that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator it is NOT true. If anyone took basics civics, history, government classes, read the documents, arguments at the times, Court opinions, etc.

De Facto, of course the Supreme Court is.  If not, then who is?

[136 or 142]

1.As far as Executive Orders - they are very legal and an important tool of the President.  They are for situations like focusing his Cabinet on his polices, setting priorities, dealing with emergencies, fine tuning policies when a certain amount of discretion is granted the president in certain legislation, things like that.

What is not legal, and what they are not there for is to make new law, order the enforcement of existing law to cease, change laws, etc

2.Beyond that, this president has ignored court orders numerous times, but of course if someone bothered to show you specific links you'd have some other excuse for it.

3.Then there's perspective.  Some other president does something borderline, or even crosses a line for whatever reason, and you point to that and say ''see, everyone does it, so no matter how much of it he does he's just like everyone else''.  Never mind the sheer volume of usurped powers.

1.When does 'fine tuning policy' turn into changing laws?

2.Try me.

3.You're quoting me on something I never said or even implied.   Please don't do that, asshole.

[SciFiAuthor]

I think your problem is that since you've pegged me as a liberal, you've also created this strawman of me as a 'bleeding heart' who believes in the worthiness of all human beings or of all ideas.

I replied to you earlier that the idea that all views are equal is simply wrong.  All valid views may be equal, but views that rely on falsehoods or rely on logical fallacies are not valid views, and, therefore, I dismiss them.  "When something's not right, it's wrong." 

I do not dismiss valid views from any ideological perspective and I do not play games that any conservative view must inherently be a logical fallacy and therefore it's automatically invalid.  Since I've never seen you express a valid view, you wouldn't know that.

Let's be serious here, Bellgab is not really a place to have serious ideological discussions/debates.  The one thing I believe fairness requires is trying as much as possible to provide full context.  This has led me on the few times I've tried to discuss political issues seriously here, rather than engage in back and forth debate on the topics of the day, to make lengthy posts. I was criticized for doing them, so I tried to cut down my post into a number of posts and then was admonished for flooding.  As nobody commented on substance of my posts, I didn't see any reason to continue making them here.  There are much more serious forums for those sorts of discussions anyway.  Bellgab clearly isn't a place that anybody goes to for serious discussion of  political issues.

Awwwww. Ideas you don't like hurt. So run.

[PB the Deplorable]

I honestly don't see how Trump makes muster at all with anyone here; sure politically I may be at odds with several/many here but I think deep down they're morally decent on a human level. Trump admits to fancying his own daughter, he openly fondles her. Doesn't that ring any alarm bells over his overall moral compass?

I'm no fan either.  What matters is he is currently the only person standing between Hilary Clinton and the Presidency. 

Really, that's what it's come to.

[136 or 142]

Awwwww. Ideas you don't like hurt. So run.

I actually consider this notion that all ideas and views are somehow equally valid to be one of the most corrosive problems in a democracy. 

[Yorkshire pud]

How do you determine dangerous? I've spent weeks wondering how Hillary Clinton can legally and ethically hold a security clearance. I can't figure out a way unless we just give her one and not worry about her history.

Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac, and his own biographer (ghost writer) said he as the temperament of nine year old with ADHD. You think that's the measured personality required of POTUS?

[SciFiAuthor]

I actually consider this notion that all ideas and views are somehow equally valid to be one of the most corrosive problems in a democracy.

It is. But the problem is that you aren't consistent with that thinking in your posts.

[136 or 142]

It is. But the problem is that you aren't consistent with that thinking in your posts.

I've asked you to back up other claims that you've made about my posts, and you never do.   I'm again going to put this claim of yours down to you again trolling me.

[SciFiAuthor]

Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac, and his own biographer (ghost writer) said he as the temperament of nine year old with ADHD. You think that's the measured personality required of POTUS?

So, number one you think that narcissistic megalomania is somehow inconsistent with the job of politician. The problem there is that almost all politicians are megalomaniacal sociopaths. I think you know that. So why does Trump surprise you when he shows it a bit more than the rest? Secondly, I hate measured personalities. That's an exercise in being polished, fake, and bullshitting people to get into an Iraq war or Balkans war or whatever done. I'd rather a devil that reveals himself than one that doesn't. And given Hillary's history with scandals, I just don't want to end up with girl-Nixon when we really need to get some problems solved rather than politics as usual as we've grown accustomed to. It's time for pragmatism rather than the bullshit fake political horror show we've been watching for decades.

[136 or 142]

1.When does 'fine tuning policy' turn into changing laws?

2.Try me.

3.You're quoting me on something I never said or even implied.   Please don't do that, asshole.

To answer my own question on part one, since this is a reply to a post from man*boy: 'fine tuning policy' is when Republican Presidents do it, 'changing laws' is when Democrat(ic) Presidents do it. 

Isn't that essentially what all your 'views' come down to man*boy?

[136 or 142]

So, number one you think that narcissistic megalomania is somehow inconsistent with the job of politician. The problem there is that almost all politicians are megalomaniacal sociopaths. I think you know that. So why does Trump surprise you when he shows it a bit more than the rest? Secondly, I hate measured personalities. That's an exercise in being polished, fake, and bullshitting people to get an Iraq war or Balkans war or whatever done. I'd rather a devil that reveals himself than one that doesn't. And given Hillary's history with scandals, I just don't want to end up with girl-Nixon when we really need to get some problems solved rather than politics as usual as we've grown accustomed to. It's time for pragmatism rather than the bullshit fake political horror show we've been watching for decades.

False equivalence. 

[SciFiAuthor]

I've asked you to back up other claims that you've made about my posts, and you never do.   I'm again going to put this claim of yours down to you again trolling me.

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?

[136 or 142]

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?

? check back to our previous discussion.

[SciFiAuthor]

False equivalence.

Lack of ability to question your own thinking.

[SciFiAuthor]

? check back to our previous discussion.

Link? In fairness, I do go to bed and sometimes forget about previous discussions.

[136 or 142]

Link? In fairness, I do go to bed and sometimes forget about previous discussions.

Try searching your own posts first.

[Dr. MD MD]

Debunked by who, the Left-wing media?  Wow, that's really impressive.  They're just full of surprises, aren't they?

A big story today is how Tinder is teaming up with Spotify.  :

[Yorkshire pud]

So, number one you think that narcissistic megalomania is somehow inconsistent with the job of politician. The problem there is that almost all politicians are megalomaniacal sociopaths. I think you know that. So why does Trump surprise you when he shows it a bit more than the rest? Secondly, I hate measured personalities. That's an exercise in being polished, fake, bullshitting people to get an Iraq war or whatever done. I'd rather a devil that reveals himself than one that doesn't. And given Hillary's history with scandals, I just don't want to end up with girl-Nixon when we really need to get some problems solved rather than politics as usual as we've grown accustomed to.

What? The thng is Trump won't solve any problems; he won't do anything that doesn't directly benefit him. Do you believe his promise to deport 2million foreign criminals in his first hour in office?  Or 33333 per minute. You know how Republicans dont like goverment employees much? Well, expect some major ads going in recruitment agencies to get that little administrative venture rolling, before of course the crims are identified,  located, apprehended, booked, tried (because the lawyers will have a field day),  and deported. At 33333 per minute.

He believes it, its one of his pledges, so presumably he'll deliver on it like all his other stuff? Yeah?

[SciFiAuthor]

Try searching your own posts first.

Ah, I see. A canard then.

[PB the Deplorable]

1.Circular logic.  It's up to the Supreme Court to determine is Obama has 'stretched Presidential authority' at least in an un-Constitutional manner...

Barack Obama is a Constitutional lawyer.  What that means on the Left is he's studied it extensively and knows it's weaknesses and how to exploit them.  The misuse of Executive Orders are one example.  Ignoring courts orders is another.  Invoking Executive Privilege in areas it is not meant to cover is another.  Calling the treaties with Iran and Cuba 'deals' and 'agreements', and stating they are 'not treaties' and thus 'not subject to Senate approval' is another.  Actions such as releasing Gitmo prisoners without Congress' approval is another - what are the consequences to any of these things?  So yes, very much the authoritarian

He's done so much, and our system goes so slow, by the time one abuse has been caught up with and stopped, he's on to a half dozen others.  It's not a coincidence he's masterful at usurping power, he's been studying this for decades.

... 2.I don't know much about Lois Lerner and I have no idea why she took the 5th...

Of course you wouldn't.  It's quite the mystery

[136 or 142]

Ah, I see. A canard then.

Because you want me to do your work for you?

[Dr. MD MD]

So, number one you think that narcissistic megalomania is somehow inconsistent with the job of politician. The problem there is that almost all politicians are megalomaniacal sociopaths. I think you know that. So why does Trump surprise you when he shows it a bit more than the rest? Secondly, I hate measured personalities. That's an exercise in being polished, fake, and bullshitting people to get into an Iraq war or Balkans war or whatever done. I'd rather a devil that reveals himself than one that doesn't. And given Hillary's history with scandals, I just don't want to end up with girl-Nixon when we really need to get some problems solved rather than politics as usual as we've grown accustomed to. It's time for pragmatism rather than the bullshit fake political horror show we've been watching for decades.

What he said. 

[SciFiAuthor]

What? The thng is Trump won't solve any problems; he won't do anything that doesn't directly benefit him. Do you believe his promise to deport 2million foreign criminals in his first hour in office?  Or 33333 per minute. You know how Republicans dont like goverment employees much? Well, expect some major ads going in recruitment agencies to get that little administrative venture rolling, before of course the crims are identified,  located, apprehended, booked, tried (because the lawyers will have a field day),  and deported. At 33333 per minute.

So, politicians making promises they can't keep is a new concept to you? You're fucking old York, older than me and I'm fucking 40. You know that's what ALL of them do. Why are you acting surprised now and painting it as something other than a new take on the same old shit we've been watching for our entire lives? Are you caught up in a media narrative or something? What's the deal?

[136 or 142]

Barack Obama is a Constitutional lawyer.  What that means on the Left is he's studied it extensively and knows it's weaknesses and how to exploit them.  The misuse of Executive Orders are one example.  Ignoring courts orders is another.  Invoking Executive Privilege in areas it is not meant to cover is another.  Calling the treaties with Iran and Cuba 'deals' and 'agreements', and stating they are 'not treaties' and thus 'not subject to Senate approval' is another.  Actions such as releasing Gitmo prisoners without Congress' approval is another - what are the consequences to any of these things?  So yes, very much the authoritarian

He's done so much, and our system goes so slow, by the time one abuse has been caught up with and stopped, he's on to a half dozen others.  It's not a coincidence he's masterful at usurping power, he's been studying this for decades.

It's up to the court system to determine the proper role of the executive and the legislative.  Not me.

[SciFiAuthor]

Because you want me to do your work for you?

You made the accusation. Show it to me and I'll address it. Otherwise, you made it up.

[136 or 142]

You made the accusation. Show it to me and I'll address it. Otherwise, you made it up.

True, but you wrote them just a couple days ago.  Give me a few minutes.

[SciFiAuthor]

True, but you wrote them just a couple days ago.  Give me a few minutes.

Well, give it to me and I'll show you why I thought it.