Hiro11

Volume is only one side of the story, the importance of what is being ordered arguably matters much more. The New York Times (who was not exactly hostile to Obama while he was in office) called him "one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history" and said that his administration "depended on bureaucratic bulldozing rather than legislative transparency". Note that "major regulation" has an official definition in Washington.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/u...egulation.html

We can trade links all day. The truth is complicated and people believe different things.

carcajou

Can you stop this kind of post please.

Trade arguments but not insults.

I am not a Trump supporter.

Please respond to the content of giantaxe or hiro11.

civilservant

I've already stated that I dislike the imperial nature of the modern Presidency, but on reflection in the cases of the current and former President, they were left with little choice - it's the inevitable outcome of divided Government. Lest you forget that Obama couldn't even get McConnell to give Merrick Garland a hearing on the vacant SCOTUS seat, what hope did he have of passing major legislation?

Trump is much the same, Pelosi is never going to give him a big win, so what does he do? EO around the edges, it's the only way to get any R priorities in place.

carcajou

Well what the Presidency has meant, has ebbed and flowed. Back in the late 1800s you had a string of Presidents who thought it was their job to defer to Congress and keep a low profile, and campaigning for the office was seen as beneath them . . . and I think some of what is happening today, pales in comparison to what some Presidents have tried in the past. FDR and court packing, for instance.

I don't think Donald Trump is trying to destroy democracy. He is running a very confrontational campaign. We have a turn-up-the-volume media, and social media, culture right now that obsesses over minutiae and catastrophises everything and has the memory and attention span of a kitten. It pays some times to just take deep breath and back away. I think everyone could do themselves a favour and stay off Twitter for a while. It's a sewer and it's only going to get worse, the closer we head to November.

I've just ordered an old book, "Revolt of the Elites . . . " by Christopher Lasch. It's from 1996 but supposedly very relevant today (Lasch died shortly after the book was published). One of the key points is supposedly that he makes a very big distinction between progressivism and liberalism. I think that is probably going to be a key differentiation point between Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton that will fly totally under the radar. Biden (and Obama) are liberals and that is electable. Clinton is progressive and that is not. There is a lot about progressivism that simply is not compatible with Western liberal democracy. Biden, as a liberal, will win back a lot of support that was lost in the Upper Midwest and Florida by Hillary Clinton.

pejp

Why? Trump supporters should be insulted. Anyone still supporting him at this point is impervious to argument. These people are the enemy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if I'm nice to them, and they aren't deserving of respect. This is way beyond any traditional partisan issue.

nain rouge

Really?
Not even when he constantly attacks the press?

Not even when he disregards the Constitutional freedom of speech that peaceful protestors were using to attack them with tear gas, flash bang grenades, and mounted riot police so he can have a clumsy photo-op across the street?

Not even when he uses unidentified, unmarked troops to clear out the protestors?

What will it take for you to be convinced - mass hangings of peaceful protestors?

pejp

This is the point I was making above. Eventually a line needs to be drawn where we say that this isn’t normal or possible to look at through the traditional political lens. This isn’t a simple partisan issue. It’s not like wanting low taxes vs high high taxes, small government vs socialism etc. Supporting Trump simply isn’t a valid political view that should be respected, and this whole ‘both sides lie’ thing is just ridiculous. I don’t debate these people and I don’t really care why they still support him. We will look back on this moment, and I’d rather be on the right side of history. This man is scum, and so is anyone that supports him. I say that as someone who always voted Conservative at home, and consider myself fairly centrist. Trump’s complete and utter unsuitability for basically any position of responsibility, much less the presidency of this country, should not be a partisan issue. I genuinely don’t know what it would take to make people change their view on this. if he ordered the militarily to engage protestors on the street, I don’t think his supporters would care, and they’d jump through mental hoops to justify it, like they have done throughout his repeated attacks on this country and the very concept of democracy.

moneypenny20

This.

carcajou

Other presidents have constantly attacked, and been attacked by, the press. As a society we seem to have put in place a 5 year collective memory on past political events. Bush had his "box." Nixon and LBJ?

There is ample precedent for use of the Insurrection Act, including multiple uses for the same purpose by Democratic presidents. I do not agree with its potential use here but Trump is not the first. Several of the protests turned violent with rioters and looters, images of which flashed across the country. When that started happening, I am not sure what you expected to occur.

This is why it is so important for these things to not get violent. It de-legitimises the action and now you've given the opposition an excuse to roll in and break it up by force. This is not a particularly difficult lesson yet continually gets forgotten (see my "five year theorem" earlier). I have speculated before that I think the violence was encouraged and glorified in some quarters, including the media, in the mistaken belief it would actually make the protests look stronger and more intimidating, which backfired.

When mass hangings of peaceful protesters occurs, sure I will change my view. Until then I will put that prediction in the same box as the concentration camps, nuclear war with North Korea, cancelled elections, and other BE Trump predictions.

carcajou

You don't sound very centrist.

I think you should re-read my comments about backing away from social media and taking a deep breath. I don't mean that as an insult or to be snarky.

The wheels of history repeat. There is not a whole lot here that is new. What is new is a whole new group of people, through social media, are engaging in the political process. That is a good thing. Politics is considered a mass media genre now which it wasn't circa 15 years ago. But it is a bad thing that all of these new engagees do not have any institutional knowledge or memory. All of these things seem like "first times" and are now being catastrophised.

That may not have come out the right way. What happened to George Floyd is a catastrophe. But every event of the Trump Administration for the last four years has been portrayed as the end of the world. Almost no matter what.

Maybe people really do think he's Hitler, which is a scathing indictment of our education system - and the UK one.

I have engaged you without insult or stereotype. I'll engage you further if you respond in kind. I'll challenge you aggressively if you keep up the insults, stereotypes and name-calling.

pejp

I‘m not on social media. I don’t have Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any other account.

I don’t care if you engage me or not. See comment above. I don’t debate with people who support or defend this absolute charlatan. E.g If you genuinely can’t see how his attacks on the press are not like any other politician, how uniquely dangerous it is to routinely claim that objective truth basically doesn’t exist, while spouting obvious and blatant lies on a daily basis, then you’ve been brainwashed. It doesn’t take social media to see that.

carcajou

Yep. And there we go. A poster who openly states there is no interest or intent to engage.

Jerseygirl? Point made.

civilservant

I think it's fairly clear at this point that if Trump loses:

1) He will not accept the result
2) His supporters will not accept the result
3) He will call on Congress not to ratify Bidens election as President

Let's assume that this is all true, the question is, what then? Our system of Government is basically paralyzed, the Courts are so de-legitimized at this point that they are no longer neutral, where do we go?

i have heard the argument that no matter what he will turn into a pumpkin at noon on Inauguration Day, but what about the 2.5 months between election day and then? Part of me, a very very small part, wants him to be reelected just to avoid this issue in 2024 when he comes banging up against the 22nd Amendment, because I'm worried about what happens if he's defeated.

I agree.

Pejp, even though I understand the point you are trying to make, it does seem like you're firmly in the Dem echo chamber. Right or wrong (and he is wrong most of the time IMO), Trump is the President and was duly elected. You can't write off the many millions of free thinking people that voted for him just because you disagree with them.

Jerseygirl

if he irritates you so much...put him on ignore.

carcajou

<<<SNIP>>>

I think you are being too quick on #1 and #3. He was not planning on contesting the 2016 result and had already made vacation plans for right after the election. As for #2, who are his "supporters?" I think there needs to be a distinction between "supporters" and "people who voted for him." "People who voted for him" are not necessarily "supporters" who are going to go down with the ship. My contention is that in society we have 15% on either side who are dead-enders, but they dominate social media and have no interest or intent in engaging. Then 70% soft supporters or neutrals who could go either way depending on self-interest and aren't really allied with any party and not prepared to go down with any ship.

There will be Trump and Biden supporters who don't accept the result if either of them lose. There are still people who think Kerry beat Bush. There are still people who think Ross Perot was a Clinton plot to take the election from George Bush Sr.

I am actually more worried about what happens if Trump wins than if he loses. I do fear there will be violence. We are at a time in society right now where people hate others just for existing, just for minor things like their political shades. How crazy is that?

I'm not worried that he will go if he loses. Stuff will happen during the intermediate period, like he'll issue a lot of pardons - and social media will act like that's never been done before - but it almost always happens. Trump is all about Trump and he does not have a particularly strong political ideology or a "wish list" of government things he wants to do, that he will try to ram home. He'll leave and go open the most beautiful amazing library ever. Maybe it will have a casino in it.