• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pelosi: Democrat President Could Use Emergency Powers For Gun Control

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cytg111 said:
Is that apples to apples in your mind?
Click to expand...


Well, yes. If you're sure this is an abuse of power here, why wouldn't it be in the future? If you honeslty believe he is abusing his power and stepping outside of the limits granted by the constitution, will you complain when a Democrat is in office an does something similar, or will you vindicate Trump and say it is fine at that time? My guess is you guys won't care if a Democrat was in office and did something similar. Guess time will tell, but I'm pretty sure your arguments are more partisan than constitution-based.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Well, yes..
Click to expand...
You make few spelling mistakes that I pick up on, the LIX numbers cant be that bad, I deduce that you are probably not real-life retarded yet you put up these talking points, and you see, the talking points are retarded so I must deduce that you dont come up with them yourself. I think your Pede Club does.

SlowSpyder said:
Well, yes..
Click to expand...
- Of course its not apples to apples.
Apples to apples would be : Would the left rage against a D president abusing power like this WITH NO PRECEDENCE? Then yes, all the left leaning folk here would be OUTRAGED at Obama or Bill or HILLARY.
Its not apples to apples, and two seconds of your brain power would realize this... So think? Or are you really just a paid shill?
 
cytg111 said:
You make few spelling mistakes that I pick up on, the LIX numbers cant be that bad, I deduce that you are probably not real-life retarded yet you put up these talking points, and you see, the talking points are retarded so I must deduce that you dont come up with them yourself. I think your Pede Club does.


- Of course its not apples to apples.
Apples to apples would be : Would the left rage against a D president abusing power like this WITH NO PRECEDENCE? Then yes, all the left leaning folk here would be OUTRAGED at Obama or Bill or HILLARY.
Its not apples to apples, and two seconds of your brain power would realize this... So think? Or are you really just a paid shill?
Click to expand...


So, your entire argument is based on Trump doing it is wrong, but Trump doing it makes it right in the future if a Democrat POTUS would do something similar? So then it isn't wrong.

It is either wrong for a POTUS to do it, or it isn't. If you're fine with a Democrat POTUS doing something similar in the future, than you're just being partisan. And you guys sound like you don't care if a Democrat POTUS would in the future do something similar... so...
 
Vic said:
The entire point of the comparision that was made is that the next Presidential abuse of emergency powers is certain to be more egregious. That's the whole point, and you still can't seem grasp it, despite its simplicity and obviousness, and even after it being explained to you at least a dozen times.
Click to expand...

My opinion, rather than the two parties coming together to reign in the powers of the president, Democrats will use the courts.

That is why we need congress to act, rather than relying on activists judges.

Trump may not be the president we wanted, but he is the president we needed. We need him to point out what is broken in our government, and congress needs to act.
 
SlowSpyder said:
So, your entire argument is based on Trump doing it is wrong, but Trump doing it makes it right in the future if a Democrat POTUS would do something similar? So then it isn't wrong.

It is either wrong for a POTUS to do it, or it isn't. If you're fine with a Democrat POTUS doing something similar in the future, than you're just being partisan. And you guys sound like you don't care if a Democrat POTUS would in the future do something similar... so...
Click to expand...

- No that is your argument. I am telling you its absurd.
If Trump gets away with this and power ever returns to "normal" and to a D congress and president, I think the "LEFT" hopes for installment of laws that prevents this shit from happening ever again.
It is entirely YOUR strawman and noone is biting.
Of course if no such laws can be passed it will be the dems DUTY to play by the new fucked up rules so drawn out by Trump and co retards.

Now what is your Donald handle.
 
The country is too politically polarized for this not to have happened at some point, It was just a question of when. We already test run the concept with practices like Borking and removing minority filibuster rights and now we are at the “Just do it who cares what the other side thinks” stage. Meanwhile the hyper partisans have been awaiting this for years and are probably thinking “what took you so long.”
 
SlowSpyder said:
Well, yes. If you're sure this is an abuse of power here, why wouldn't it be in the future? If you honeslty believe he is abusing his power and stepping outside of the limits granted by the constitution, will you complain when a Democrat is in office an does something similar, or will you vindicate Trump and say it is fine at that time? My guess is you guys won't care if a Democrat was in office and did something similar. Guess time will tell, but I'm pretty sure your arguments are more partisan than constitution-based.
Click to expand...

Every step Trump has tried to take, he has been fought tooth and nail by factions of the democrat party. That is not how a peaceful transfer of power is supposed to work.

In all honesty, democrats are acting as obstructionist. I felt Trumps offer to the democrats was more than fair, but they refuse to budge, not even a fraction of an inch.
 
Texashiker said:
Every step Trump has tried to take, he has been fought tooth and nail by factions of the democrat party. That is not how a peaceful transfer of power is supposed to work.

In all honesty, democrats are acting as obstructionist. I felt Trumps offer to the democrats was more than fair, but they refuse to budge, not even a fraction of an inch.
Click to expand...


We saw it to some degree with Republicans when Obama was in office. Today the left has taken it even further with Trump. I agree 100%, they are pure obstructionists and to please their base doing nothing more than being against anything Trump is for is good enough for them. They no longer are considering what is good for America, but what is good for their partisan agenda. I hope they come back to reality, a moderate left is a good thing in my opinion. Today's radical left is awful, however.
 
glenn1 said:
The country is too politically polarized for this not to have happened at some point, It was just a question of when. We already test run the concept with practices like Borking and removing minority filibuster rights and now we are at the “Just do it who cares what the other side thinks” stage. Meanwhile the hyper partisans have been awaiting this for years and are probably thinking “what took you so long.”
Click to expand...

A new far left faction of the democrat party feels it is treason to negotiate with the GOP. In their opinion, it is there way or no way.

Government can not function when parties refuse to work together.
 
SlowSpyder said:
So, if a Democrat POTUS does something similar in the future will you all complain? If not you're vindicating Trump, and so far all I hear is partisan cheerleading.
Click to expand...
And now the old partisan two-wrongs-make-a-right you'd-do-it-too argument.

So so predictable.
 
Texashiker said:
My opinion, rather than the two parties coming together to reign in the powers of the president, Democrats will use the courts.

That is why we need congress to act, rather than relying on activists judges.

Trump may not be the president we wanted, but he is the president we needed. We need him to point out what is broken in our government, and congress needs to act.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that it would be great for Congress to finally find some balls, I disagree with you that the use of the courts to reign in executive/legislative abuse of power is representative of judicial activism. Especially given that that is one of the powers granted to the judiciary in the Constitution, with precedent established in 1803 by Marbury v Madison.

I mean, you do realize that you just referred to one of the most important and long-established checks and balances in our government as 'relying on activists judges,' right?

And then there's the problem that Congress did act here, by passing the budget, and what you are inferring as inaction is simply because they didn't pass the budget that you and Trump wanted.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Blah blah deflective talking point.

Blah blah.

Answer the content of the post or shut up.
Click to expand...
Well, unlike you, my parents raised me with a solid moral code, so you will never see me argue that 2 wrongs make a right as you just did.

I'd like to think that your malfunction is that your mother dropped you on your head as a baby, but that couldn't possibly have happened, because she would have had to have held you first.
 
Texashiker said:
A new faction of the democrat party feels it is treason to negotiate with the Russian agent and his supporters. In their opinion, it is the American way or no way.

Government can not function when parties refuse to work together to represent America and not Russia.
Click to expand...

FTFY!
 
Vic said:
I mean, you do realize that you just referred to one of the most important and long-established checks and balances in our government as 'relying on activists judges,' right?

And then there's the problem that Congress did act here, by passing the budget, and what you are inferring as inaction is simply because they didn't pass the budget that you and Trump wanted.
Click to expand...

Not just Trump and , but millions of Americans want a secure border.

Checks and balances, such as when FDR issued an executive order, and that order was upheld by the supreme court, not just once, but several times.

When people are supposed to have a right to due process, yet the supreme court allowed numerous human rights violations - forced sterilization, separate but equal... etc, without due process. Everyone the state deemed as "undesirable" should be sterilized.

The federal court system has a long, long, long history of ignoring basic human rights, and rights promised by the bill of rights.

So yea, I stand by my "activists" judge statement.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Blah blah deflective talking point.

Blah blah.

Answer the content of the post or shut up.
Click to expand...

Says the Pede that abandons ship everytime he is cornered.
You dont get to deflect and call others out for deflecting at the same time. That is so typically Trump-Right behavior.
 
Texashiker said:
Proof of Trump being a "Russian agent"?

Obama proved he was a muslim sympathizer. But that was not a problem was it? Lifting trade sanctions on Iran so they can develop missiles and nuclear was not a problem?
Click to expand...

You think Tucker will have Roger Stone on again and call him a patriot? You know the guy that is now proven to be a wikileaks contact? Fox is rotting your brain man.

Maybe Hannity has some more praise for Manafort, you know, Trumps campaign manager that is now going away for life? Fox is rotting your brain man.
 
Texashiker said:
A new far left faction of the democrat party feels it is treason to negotiate with the GOP. In their opinion, it is there way or no way.

Government can not function when parties refuse to work together.
Click to expand...

Do you live in an alternate reality or something? The Dems did negotiate. They would have given $25 billion for the wall if Trump would have agreed to immigration reform. Trump said no. They tried to compromise Trump said. They even provided funds without Trump compromising at all. Not good enough, says Trump, must declare emergency!

And you think it's the Democrats playing their way or no way? Really?

Here's what I think is happening. Trump doesn't give one shit about the wall except to use it for campaigning. That's why he rejects every compromise, and is now taking action that will take the issue, which could take years. Because if the wall ever did actually get built, then what would they chant at his campaign rallies?
 
Vic said:
And now the old partisan two-wrongs-make-a-right you'd-do-it-too argument.

So so predictable.
Click to expand...

I feel the question asked by SlowSpyder was fair.

When obama was writing exuctive order after exuctive order, or making appointments while congress was at recess, did you complain?
 
cytg111 said:
You think Tucker will have Roger Stone on again and call him a patriot? You know the guy that is now proven to be a wikileaks contact? Fox is rotting your brain man.
Click to expand...

Proof of proven wikileaks contact?



Vic said:
Do you live in an alternate reality or something? The Dems did negotiate. They would have given $25 billion for the wall if Trump would have agreed to immigration reform. Trump said no. They tried to compromise Trump said. They even provided funds without Trump compromising at all. Not good enough, says Trump, must declare emergency!
Click to expand...

I feel Trump made a mistake by not accepting the previous offer.
 
Texashiker said:
Not just Trump and , but millions of Americans want a secure border.

Checks and balances, such as when FDR issued an executive order, and that order was upheld by the supreme court, not just once, but several times.

When people are supposed to have a right to due process, yet the supreme court allowed numerous human rights violations - forced sterilization, separate but equal... etc, without due process. Everyone the state deemed as "undesirable" should be sterilized.

The federal court system has a long, long, long history of ignoring basic human rights, and rights promised by the bill of rights.

So yea, I stand by my "activists" judge statement.
Click to expand...

So you're standing by having a complete ignorance of the Constitution and our system of government, and are basing that stance on a couple of past abuses in order to justify a new and current abuse?

For some reason, that doesn't surprise me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top