Executive power for me and not for thee
I’ve been thinking along these same lines:
Washington’s massive about-face on executive power is underway.
Donald Trump’s election has triggered a whiplash-inducing role reversal in D.C. legal circles, as liberals who spent the past eight years defending President Barack Obama’s use of his executive authority prepare to challenge Trump’s plans on issues like immigration, the environment and transgender rights, while conservatives who railed against Obama for acting unilaterally on those fronts seem ready to back the new president’s moves.
And then there are decisions to be made by Republicans about the filibuster, whose charms will suddenly become very very attractive to the Democrats.
Look, I understand the temptation to want more power when you’re in charge. Of course. That’s the siren song that the right is hearing now. But devotion to rules and checks and balances has been one of the major strengths of this country that has kept it (so far) from becoming a banana republic.
But hey, you say, it’s payback time.
I get it. Believe me, I get it. But I think the right has to stand for something, and refraining from the exercise of raw power by jettisoning some of the bulwarks of our republic needs to be part of what that. I respect anyone on either side who is able to do so.
It’s not wartime yet; no need to throw everything overboard that we supposedly hold dear. Maybe I’m also feeling so uncharacteristically optimistic right now that I actually think that some moderate Democrats (a few exist, you know) might come along for the ride, if they think their seats might be threatened if they’re too resistant to passing laws that the majority of people want, such as a replacement for Obamacare that actually might be an improvement.
My counsel continues to be “wait and see.” Patience.
Oh, and this:
[NOTE: Nothing in this post should be construed as implying that Trump can’t reverse by executive order what Obama proclaimed by executive order. He can do that, and should do that. In addition, changes to Obamacare can be passed through reconciliation. Also, the Republicans could probably keep in place the nuclear option for federal judgeships, which the Democrats instituted in 2013.]
No, you don’t get it.
We are at war, and have been since someone announced the start of the “fundamental transformation of the country”.
In a war, if you won’t fight, you will definitely lose.
Are there dangers? Of course. But none so dangerous as the consequences of losing.
Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they don’t respect those bulwarks. I remember when the nuclear option was first proposed for judges in the George W. Bush Administration- it was under consideration when the Democrats had filibustered all of the circuit and D.C. court positions, but the Republican leadership decided not to utilize it in part because they knew Democrats would then use it when they were in the majority- indeed, the Democratic leadership told them so and talked them down resulting in the first “Gang of 8” compromise. However, the Democrats weren’t really interested in preserving the right of filibuster of judicial nominees, and nuked the process when it suited them, and with no hesitation, I might add. Indeed, they had promised to do it for SCOTUS nominees if Clinton had won and they took back the Senate. I see no reason to not just get rid of the filibuster for all appointments (not a position of convenience for me- I have advocated this position for as long as I have been making comments on line, and it predates even that).
On executive orders, Trump would do well to reverse most of those Obama implemented his first week in office.
It would be interesting for the new administration after reviewing and modifying Obama’s executive orders to continue the process to review EOs from other previous administrations.
When I would start a new job, I hated hearing “that’s the way it’s always been done”. A lot of the time, the staff would not know why they were doing something. It was even sadder, when asking the Executive Director why he needed the report, that he replied that he didn’t understood it and just put it aside whenever he got it.
I also hope that when Trump issues these “reversals” that he includes a summary of the EO being rescinded and an explanation of why it is being rescinded. Therefore the “why” is in the official record and it is harder for MSM to revise history.
When we are all striving for the common good, the filibuster would make sense. However, the Democrat-socialist aren’t striving for the same goals small-government Republicans are seeking. They want to transform our country, and they have been at this since the 1930’s. The left is tolerant until they have control. Then they are totalitarian in opposing dissent. We have plenty of reason to believe that had the Democrats won the Senate and Presidency that a filibuster of any appointment, especially for Supreme Court, would not happen.
There is merit to listening to ones adversary. They might have some point worth considering. But Obamacare has none. Truly the seeds of World War II were sown at Versailles. However, some things are non-negotiable. Destruction of the United States is one of those. This Supreme Court has upended common sense, as have the Democrats in power. We need to end the filibuster and reverse many Executive Orders
“It’s not wartime yet;”
Neo,you’re not on my campus over the last 3 days. The faculty are up in arms over Trump and I haven’t seen this level of vitriol since the Iraq War and BDS. They are now pushing the sanctuary status for the school. I pointed out the Washington Post article about how trump is talking about the first step of deporting or incarcerating violent criminal illegals. And in the same WP article it points out how Obama has already deported almost that number over the past 6 years. Well the usual “Racist!” calls came out, etc.
They are worked up, full of hate, and I don’t think it’s going away. This IS going to be a war.
I think the left actually gets a high from this stuff. Somehow I think they actually enjoy being livid as it makes them feel like they are such superior beings.
“Moderate Democrats” ?? the last ones I remember were Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.
physicsguy:
What you describe is not a war. You yourself write “This is going to be a war.” That’s a prediction, not an actuality.
It’s a mere week after the election. As I said, wait and see.
There are moderate Democrats left. Not as many as there used to be, for sure, and definitely not many, period. But they exist. I don’t think this page has been updated since the election of 2016, but I don’t doubt that quite a few are returning. That’s the House, but this is the Senate [emphasis mine]:
Now, I make no predictions. But (a) these people exist; (b) they care about getting re-elected AND they care about getting back into power; and (c) they know they were defeated. If they fail to back legislation they perceive as popular, they might end up worse off, and that may mean that some of them—the more moderate ones—will cooperate.
People are tired of the hysteria on the left. I’m also tired of the hysteria on the right. The right won an impressive victory, and we need to see how this shakes down before everyone becomes ready to cast aside all the principles about checks and balances and tyranny of the majority in which we used to profess we believed
tom swift:
Hillary Clinton, carpet bagger and grifter, inherited one of the last sensible demcrat’s senate seat, namely, that occupied by Patrick Moynihan. The likes of Moynihan and Scoop Jackson in today’s democrat party are an endangered species. There no way to compromise with the democrats on important issues, except to give them everything they want on a silver platter.
Yet, I do not want to see the filibuster discarded. EOs are another matter. Trump should rescind all bho’s orders on day one.
neo,
We do indeed need to see how this shakes down. IF how the Left is currently behaving is a minor tremor presaging a much greater lawlessness to come, then fighting fire with fire is not casting aside all the principles about checks and balances and tyranny of the majority in which we have professed to believe. In WWII we fought the NAZI’s as ruthlessly as they fought because only one side fighting by the equivalent of the ‘marquis of queensbury’ rules is suicidal in war.
As we all know, The Left is entirely prepared to bring a gun to the knife fight.
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for mercy, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I show no mercy and take away your freedom, because that is my principle.” Louis Veuillot (The dialectic of the left)
Thomas More’s point is well taken when both sides respect it. If only one side respects the rule of law, its days are numbered. This past 8 years has demonstrated that the Left does not respect the rule of law. When they are in power they cut down whatever laws impinge their agenda. If not stopped, eventually they will permanently seize power.
Geoffrey Britain:
Sure, his point is well taken when both sides respect it.
But it is also well taken when only one side respects it, or both sides end up the same.
Nor is he talking about a war, nor are we. We are not at war, where the rules are different.
I think I need to write a post on this. Maybe tomorrow.
I see that a lot of supposed conservatives believe the ends justify the means, if it’s their own ends we’re talking about. The very definition of tyranny. But I never have imagined that conservatives are saints any more than that liberals are.
Tom and Geoffrey:
Oh, we didn’t have an election? We are at war? Exaggerate again, say it’s not so?
The left is always saying that something must be done in the interest of fairness. So the Republican Senate should play fair by enacting the exact same set of rules that the monstrous and corrupt Sen. Reid enacted when he was “Der Fuhrer” of the Senate.
I am being fair by using the same terms to describe a politician that leftists did when referring to President-Elect Trump during the campaign. ( I still love being able to write that :-} )
Neo:
Not much too add to your other commenters. You don’t get it and, yes, we are at war. You are ting way too hard to straddle the fence but it is untenable. The left has decided there will be no peaceful transition of power and does not hesitate to use force to tie up cities and violence against individuals. Since it does not respect our government, it will have to be dealt with by force. My concern is Trump is a complete wuss, in which case we might as well have lost.
Why can’t Trump supporters organize (other than the fact that they have jobs and families). Why is Trump Tower in NY not protected by dozens of 18 wheelers? In fact, how many would it take to shut down every bridge and tunnel in NY? We should call on police to go home and let the libs eat each other alive.
How about a million man concealed carry march on DC on January 20? You know the left will be there. Frankly, I think Trump will need to declare martial law in DC. I hope he shoots down news copter that don’t comply.
Lincoln violated the constitution in order to restore the union. He did not want to be dictator. Neither does Trump. But this is what needs to be done. It is more important in the short term than repealing Obamacare or Dodd Frank. He should not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court. He should ignore it.
Unfortunately, I don’t think he reads the comments at NeoNeoCon.
neo,
The Left’s actions are demonstrable proof that they have long been engaging in an undeclared war upon the right. What else is the Gramscian March through the Institutions but war by other means? So we are in an undeclared war, whether we recognize it or admit it or not. One in which we have been contending civilly with the Left out of respect for common decency and respect for our Constitution.
When one side, when in power flouts the law and gets away with it, it acts as an acid eating away at a society’s respect for the rule of law. We see evidence of it all around us with that evidence surfacing constantly in the news. Ineffectually opposed and periodically renewed, it will eventually lead to tyranny. As power is ultimately the goal of those who flout the law.
Recognizing the reality and consequence of that situation requires an effective response. You cannot respond effectively in a contest where you insist upon playing by the rules, while the other side laughs at the rules without consequence. That strategy forms the entire basis for Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.
It is not we who seek to justify the means by the end but they, and in doing so, they force us to play by their rules. Only in the movies can you win a gunfight with a knife. It is not we who seek to impose tyranny upon them but they who seek to impose it upon us. Survival requires no justification, nor does liberty.
What I’d like to see Trump do on January 20:
1) have the FAA shut down all airports serving NY, Chicago, LA, SF and Portland in the interest of public safety. Also Amtrak.
2) set up military checkpoints around every city and town in which people have been assaulted for supporting Trump until the perpetrators are apprehended. This must stop.
3) end all financial assistance of any kind to colleges and universities across the board.
4) revoke the licenses of all television broadcasters and seize the assets of any company continuing to broadcast.
5) announce that the government will seize the assets of any organization disseminating false or threatening speech or any private information, e.g., tax returns, pictures, conversations, without the written consent of the subject. Let’s see what that does for their stock prices.
6) arrest Obama and Hillary as traitors and hold them in Guantanamo.
I’d settle for 1 and 2.
You know, Lincoln said “with malice towards none and charity for all” in his SECOND inaugural, not his first.
Unless we are planning on winning elections forever more, or are planning to cancel them altogether with single party GOP rule, we will still face the reality that the dems will soon enough be back in power.
Any weakening of restrictions on government power we do today (on top of what the dems and prior administrations have) WILL come back to haunt us.
We need to do everything within those boundaries to reverse liberalism’s advance. Fair game on executive orders, and good riddance to any obama legacy.
.
It is disheartening to hear people jump the gun to declare “war” before even trying the tools available to us to make the changes we desire.
For those who want to overrun all those restrictions to push through the changes they want, think about this:
Just how different is that from those protesting in the street also feeling justified in the vandalism they are causing?
No doubt they may equally fervently see it as a “war” too.
@Ben – one word: ridiculous!
I see no need to even talk about war or pay-back. The issue is clear and can only be obscured by such rhetoric. The direction of the government must be changed. That was the essence of the election. Any legal tactic that supports that goal must be considered with only one question in mind
–will it succeed?
I venture that most of the 60 million who voted for Trump also think that the trending direction of our society must be altered. The social issues. Again, any tactic that respects the lawful rights of individuals is fair game.
It will certainly be claimed that since 60 million plus voted against Trump, there is no mandate for change. That should be treated as spurious at best. Not only are elections won or lost; we know with some degree of certainty that a large portion of the opposition voted without serious thought exactly as their union boss, their minister, their community organizer, or now their Professor, told them to. We know that because that is what they always do–then they brag about their ground game. I trust that Trump will pay little heed to their orchestrated howling.
No reason to be drawn into emotional arguments about pay back or war. It is simply a matter of necessity to drain the swamp; the election turned on the issue. So, like all necessary, but difficult jobs, just go about the business professionally. (In my youth I mapped swamps. They can be fascinating, but unpleasant places; They care not a whit about you or about your motives for entering.)
Big Maq,
Recognizing that war by other means is being perpetrated against us is not meant as an endorsement of lawlessness. There is much that Trump can legally do if the GOP leadership is supportive. With that support, he may be able to defang the Leftist beast.
I am not in favor of violating anyone’s constitutional rights. But I am equally opposed to allowing fear of political repercussions to lead to acting timidly.
Defund Planned Parenthood. Defund PBS & NPR. Eliminate entire federal departments. Pass a balanced budget bill. Amend the Constitution. Cut off federal funding for sanctuary cities. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the employers of illegals. End all benefits for illegals. Bring RICO charges against George Soros.
Look for any legal means of going after the media and academia. Every day tell the leftist media to go pound sand and because these people have repeatedly betrayed every ethical journalistic standard, do it with utter contempt and scorn.
Take off “the kid gloves” and DRAIN THE SWAMP!
If Trump and the GOP at least attempt to do all of that, then we will know they are serious about saving this country.
To all those who say we are in war with the left. Please look up the word “WAR” in the dictionary. Please look at the war in Syria or the Congo, or Ukraine, or look back at the wars what was Yugoslavia. Your “WAR” is nothing as savage or brutal or wasteful, and evil as actual warfare. Have you forgotten the words of W.T. Sherman about our last civil war? ” War is hell ….”
If you wish for it, well maybe you are evil too.
Geoffrey Britain:
“An undeclared war” is rhetoric. An undeclared war is not a war, it’s a metaphor. If the Gramscian march is what you object to, have your own Gramscian countermarch.
We were actually at war with the Nazis, and in war it is much more no holds barred (even then, there were rules we followed, or tried to follow).
Politics is often an undeclared war. The Founders knew that. They put all sorts of checks and balances in there for a reason. You can find a way to feel comfy with “the ends justify the means” or “They did it first, so we have to do it!” I am not the least bit comfortable with it at this point.
Plus, do you really think they got away with it? What do you think the utter defeat of the Democratic Party on the national level—and by that I include the state governors and legislatures—was all about? What do you think it means that the vote in this election was to dismantle the Obama years? The victory wasn’t just Trump, it was also the Republicans retaining the Senate despite all the predictions, and all those state governments going more and more Republican.
This election was a backlash.
To further those who feed the “we are at war” with the left. Consider the spate of assassinations of police officers in the last few years. Are you good with Van “little list of those who won’t be missed’ the cute hint of death squads and extrajudicial executions that typically result from such internal “warfare,” like the French in Algeria?
Shorter Ben Jacobs: I’m all for tyranny as long as it’s my sort of tyranny.
Not a good idea.
I can only say again that it is the left that has seceded from the union. Mr. Trump – FREE THE DEPLORABLES AND THE IRREDEEMABLE! LIBERATE US FROM THOSE WHO WOULD ENSLAVE US!
Is there anyone who thinks we can reason with these people? Apparently a few true believers here, including NeoLib. Give it up, Neo. Push has come to shove. Stick to writing about ballet and writing the holocaust. No one writes about it better.
Ironically, my agenda is aimed squarely at rich white people. I’d love to see the net worth of, say, Mark Zuckerberg and Adolph Sulzberger reduced to zero overnight. (Lest anyone misinterpret, I am Jewish.) So let them call us racist as we redistribute the wealth of the 1%.
As for the future, peace is made when the war is won. If we have learned anything from our military misadventures since WW2 it should be that. Or perhaps you want Colin Powell as SecDef again.
Lastly, I am all for Mark Levin’s Article 5 Convention as a way out. If Trump can promote this, so much the better.
Ben Jacobs:
Again, saying something that is a metaphor does not make it true.
No, the left has NOT seceded from the union. Period.
You have already indicated that you’re fine with tyranny. Perhaps it’s you who have seceded from the union.
And what’s this “NeoLib” business? What are you trying to say?
Don’t tell me what to write about and what not to write about. Go start your own blog and write about what you want to write about. It’s great that you like my writing about dance and the holocaust, and I appreciate the compliment, but I repeat that I will write about what I want to write about.
I know plenty of liberals I can reason with. Plenty of them. Are you a person who can be reasoned with? You are skirting troll territory. Maybe you should calm down and reflect a bit.
Have I got this right : people voted for Trump in protest at Hillary’s ambitions to continue Obama’s behaviour. So Trump should continue Obama’s behaviour according to his firmest fans?
Why would people then want to vote Trump or his party when they did precisely what they said they were opposed to?
For the Republicans to become the party of good government, they have to govern well. If that means not cutting corners to get things done you want done now, well so be it.
OM,
Who indicated that they wished for a war?
War can include types other than killing people, such as the Cold War. Alinsky’s tactics are an example of war by other means. Downplaying the Left’s intent and goals won’t change a thing.
neo,
How many of those reasonable liberals have listened with an open mind such that they went through the same transition as yourself? We know facts, reason and logic support our position. Surely in the many conversations you’ve had over the years with those reasonable liberals, some must have seen the light, yes?
Am I wrong in thinking it to have been very few?
And if facts, reason and logic prove unpersuasive, just how ‘reasonable’ can they really be?
Friendship and loyalty are qualities to be treasured but they can blind us to truths we’d rather not face.
Chester Draws,
Where has it been suggested that Trump act unconstitutionally? Draining the swamp does not require that he do so.
The rot is too deep. The majority of those who voted for Hillary are never going to approve of the Republicans governing well because that ends the entitlement state and the regulatory state and a host of other issues as well.
Folks, you don’t take the left seriously. They play for keeps. They do not give up. They will capture your kids minds. They do not shy away from organized violence. This is a war of self defense. We did not seek it. How do you plan to fight it?
I gave up on Trump on election night. Infrastructure?! Another $2 billion dollar boondoggle with nothing to show for it? Did he even mention this during the campaign? I take back my vote, not that it matters.
It has been.downhill since. Preserve coverage for pre-existing conditions? That’s not insurance, it’s health care.
Giuliani for SOS? Romney for SOS? What happened to Bolton?
He said he would be the investment banker’s worst nightmare, at least eliminating carried interest. Won’t happen. We deplorables were had.
Neo-calm down. Write what you want. I’m just having some fun. Hey, I’m a donor.
I am serious, though, that Lincoln was a tyrant yet we celebrate him. He suspended constitutional protections to save the umion. Go figure. We need a modern version. Trump is not it.
Good night.
“Am I wrong in thinking it to have been very few? “ – GB
You are wrong to think you have the evidence to conclude it is so.
You are wrong to think that because we cannot convince every single person on the “other” side that it is not worthy trying with those who can be persuaded.
You are wrong to think that is a justification to extraordinary means for change.
Bottom Line: You are wrong to think you have a monopoly on knowing the “facts, reason and logic” to support your position.
Geoffrey:
During the cold war there were many incidents where our adversaries killed American personnel, shoot downs of signals intelligence flights around the borders of the Soviet Union for example. But those dead don’t count…
Shorter version of many on this comments thread.
“Tyranny is great when he’s MY tyrant”
Republicans won’t be in power forever. Maybe some care would be in order here? You might want to be able to filibuster later.
What happened to the constitution you all claim to revere?
Bunch of hypocrites. And demagogues too. I was hoping after a Trump win all the doom talk would end for a few. I was wrong.
Bill:
Human beings are human beings. Right or left, abusing power remains a great temptation. The Founders certainly knew that.
Big Maq,
I haven’t “concluded” anything about neo’s liberal friends. What I suspect (indicated by the question mark) is based on her prior posts, as had she had much success, surely she would have written about it? I can’t recall her ever having done so.
Who said anything indicating a standard that demands convincing “every single person on the “other” side”? Nor did I even imply that it is not worthwhile trying to convince others.
I did express doubt about its chances for success, as our failure to persuade despite having facts, reason and logic on our side demonstrates that few can be persuaded. Since ‘reasonable’ implies being open to reason, a position that employs reason but fails to persuade… indicates an ‘unreasonable’ person.
Since I’ve clearly stated that I’m not in favor of unconstitutional moves on Trump’s part, evidently the only justification for extraordinary means for change you favor is when bullets start to fly.
I did NOT state or even imply that I personally had a monopoly on knowing the “facts, reason and logic” to support MY position. I stated that they support the right’s position viv a vis the Left.
Quite frankly, your twisting my words into interpretations of them which does not comport with their clear meaning leads me to wonder as to why you’re engaging in intentional misrepresentation.
OM,
Of course those deaths counted but the cold war was not a declared war and that supports my point.
Bill,
No Republicans will not be in power forever. Which is actually the point when I argue that if we don’t make substantive changes, when they do return to power, they’ll start off, where they left off.
Since I believe that the Left is very close to a tipping point into a peacefully irreversible fall into the Collective, making substantive changes is not only an imperative but the only means of peacefully preserving liberty.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
“Bunch of hypocrites. And demagogues too.”
Well, that’s a harsh but arguable assessment. And one that conveniently pretends that the GOP stumbling along, doing pretty much what its done before will be sufficient.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Then go through the hard work of amending it.
If you think the chances of us falling irresistibly into “the Collective” are higher than our chances of falling into tyranny (right or left wing) through the continued erosion of checks and balances and the continued mounting of unaccountable executive authority and the abolition of senate rules so that it’s pure brute force majority wins, then I can’t help you.
The first is a remote possibility (but wait! I thought the election of Pinochet was going to stop that!). The second is a very real probability if we don’t stand against it.
I want separation of powers, limited executive power, limited Executive regulatory power, laws actually passed by congress rather than executive fiat. I am guessing you want the same but, unlike me, you’re willing to give up those rights and freedoms because of the false urgency of the stalinist march.
I’m not willing to give up those rights. It’s so disheartening to see so-called conservatives so “pro” giving Trump and the Republican senate unprecedented power.
Geoffrey Britain:
Actually, I have discussed the question of whether my talking has converted anyone, but I don’t have a particular post on it and the discussions have been brief. I don’t have time to search for them now, and I wouldn’t even know how to conduct such a search. Nor would I expect anyone to remember what I said; as I noted, the mentions of it on this blog were brief.
However, I’ll answer your question now.
As far as changing people’s minds goes, just give me 100 hours with them, and we’d see. But actually, I’m not ordinarily talking politics with people that much; it’s too divisive, and I don’t spend that much time with my friends anyway, and politics is not what we’re there for when we do get together. It’s not something we ever used to talk about, either.
And I’ll add that YOU may think my positions (and yours!) are obviously right (“facts, reason and logic support our position”, you write). But of course they don’t, or they would hold those positions themselves.
“A mind is a difficult thing to change”—and it took me hundreds of hours of reading and thinking to change my mind (actually, probably thousands). I am the same person now that I was when I was a liberal, and as far as I was concerned back then, “facts, reason, and logic” supported my old position when I held it.
Also, as in the old joke, a person has to want to change, or at least be open to it and questioning about his or her beliefs. I’m not some deprogrammer, spending my life trying to argue with my friends.
However, there are indeed several people to whom I have talked in depth about politics, and most of this admittedly small number did change their minds. Of course, they are not a random group to begin with. They are (a) people I am very close to, who (b) were interested enough in politics to endure fairly lengthy and repeated conversations with me about it, and (c) were not way-out leftists to begin with.
Actually, my track record on change isn’t bad at all, for those with whom I’ve put in the time.
By the way, if you’re thinking of having any discussions with people who hold different views from yours, it is a good idea to come at it with an attitude of respect for them rather than condescension.
Ben Jacobs:
Lincoln was at war. Not a metaphorical war, a real live war. There’s a difference.
By the way, I take the left very very seriously. I’ve been writing about it for over a decade. I grew up with relatives who were part of it, and I was always offended and disturbed by it even at an early age. I understand its tenacity and its drive.
As far as lightening up goes, a lot of people try to tell me what to write, and it’s not something I feel light about. Also, it’s hard to tell a person’s tone online. You seemed to be pretty serious. If you’re going to joke about that particular subject (one that tends to press a button for me) I’d suggest putting ye olde smiley face in there somewhere.
Bill wrote
“I was hoping after a Trump win all the doom talk would end ….:
That was my hope too and is why I am so angry (a) at the left for its unrelenting attacks and doom talk and (b) Trump and supporters for accepting it as their due.
There is nothing Trump can do before January 20. After that, however, he needs to stand up for the people who elected him. He won by challenging political correctness. I may be wrong (frequently am), but I think that was key. It was for me.
My critics here seem more aligned with the establishment wing of the Republican party. Fine, but they have never had what it takes to win.
No one mentioned the article 5 convention of the states. Pull out your pocket constitution. It’s fascinating.
Best to all.
Whenever I post here, I have a second thought.
Am I the only person on this thread outraged by the conduct of the left? You all seem more outraged by little old me!
What do you propose that Trump do, especially when dealing with determined Alinskyites?
If Trump is coopted by establishment republicans, which we see happening hour by hour, where will the army of the dispossessed that put him in office go in 2020? It will not be to republicans. Then you should worry.
I hope for the best, but expect the worst. It’s nice to be an optimist, but it must be coupled with action to bring about the desired result. The left is proving every day that merely voting is not enough. Nor is criticising me.
Best.
It almost feels like redundancy for me to talk about Civil War 2, since everybody else wants to talk about it.
Your “WAR” is nothing as savage or brutal or wasteful, and evil as actual warfare.
OM should go back to the drooling fury mode he was at here concerning Trum voters and supporters.
It’s more familiar than this attempt at creating logical arguments.
Y;
Take another hike,
Ben Jacobs:
I’m puzzled by your reaction. This blog is loaded with 11 years of criticism of the left, both in the posts and in the comments. There are certain commenters here (I won’t name them, but there’s more than one) who are fairly obsessed with the dangers of the left.
And in fact, plenty of people here who voted only reluctantly for Trump did so only because they felt they needed to stop the left’s advance now.
“No one mentioned the article 5 convention of the states. Pull out your pocket constitution.” Ben J
Evidently, you don’t read much of what anyone else has been saying here.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/18/lets-take-a-local-look-the-state-legislatures/#comment-1933049
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/09/post-election-now-the-work-begins/#comment-1882926
Thanks fot the links, Big Maq. I should search before speaking.
The left continues to show daily that it believes not only Trump, but all Trump supporters and, by association, Republicans are subhuman cancers that must be removed by any means. Where have we heard that before? Who is Hitler now?
Ive enjoyed Neo’s writing but you all seem to think that this will pass and, in any case, will not really affect you. Good luck with that.
@Ben – I’ve seen plenty from the “right” that make equally bad lump assumptions about the “left”.
.
EVERY election has consequences for every single one of us.
BUT, so long as we have democratic processes, it is up to us to work to convincing enough of the population that our ideas are superior.
.
The downside of our democratic processes is to the extent the extreme left or the extreme right gain power and influence, then we all lose that much more of what we all are claiming here we want.
This is very much why the title of this article is salient “Executive Power for Me, And Not for Thee”, as it covers much more than the issue the article focused on. Some see the only answer as using that elected power only for their own tribe’s benefit.
With every subsequent round of elections we see a legal arms race of each side building more laws, centralizing more power. At some point there needs to be a major deescalation.
From a recent post you made (forget where it is now) it sure doesn’t look like you want to deescalate whatsoever.
OM Says:
November 18th, 2016 at 8:32 pm
Y;
*Smirts* Nice try, but you know it’s not going to work as well as I do. OM’s reaction being challenged on the Christian Gospel, was pretty amusing to see. Why dontcha repeat that one for us.
You know, the one about how you think no power exists that can change human nature. It’ll be more funny than the hiker line, which you over use past the date of heresy. An atheist can easily claim that, but didn’t you mention something about being a Christian, OM.
Where have we heard that before? Who is Hitler now?
You believing in Leftist propaganda and paying attention to it is how you fell into the trap.
Stop falling for Leftist traps and maybe people will be able to talk about what the objective truth is. It’s like you think the Matrix is under your control because you keep talking about the red pill but you’ve never actually taken it.