There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[oxmixmudd]

Not really. And it's not like Barr has sole discretion to enforce whatever legal opinion he wants without oversight (not that you are accurately characterizing his position). You're acting paranoid.

I don't think paranoia is a fair description of wanting to ensure no single person gains too much power in our government. IOW, when it comes to ensuring the power of government is balanced and checked between the three branches of government, there really is no room for the concept 'paranoia'. The fundamental assumption driving how our government is structured is that if there is an opportunity available to seize power, there will be someone that will try to do exactly that.

After all, the entire concept of three branches of government is an explicit attempt to make sure that does not happen. This country was founded on the understanding there is no single person or group of people that can properly handle power, and that government, even of the people, required a system of checks and balances that can push back if one or the other goes off the rails. So making sure those three elements of government remain properly constrained by each other is critical to the proper functioning of our government. The debate over how much power the president should have is simply part of the ongoing battle to ensure the government is by the people and for the people and does not lean towards by the king (president) and for the king (president). I believe Barr's position leans too close to the latter and thus threatens to unbalance the mutual restraining power of the three branches of government.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I don't think paranoia is a fair description of wanting to ensure no single person gains too much power in our government. IOW, when it comes to ensuring the power of government is balanced and checked between the three branches of government, there really is no room for the concept 'paranoia'. The fundamental assumption driving how our government is structured is that if there is an opportunity available to seize power, there will be someone that will try to do exactly that.

After all, the entire concept of three branches of government is an explicit attempt to make sure that does not happen. This country was founded on the understanding there is no single person or group of people that can properly handle power, and that government, even of the people, required a system of checks and balances that can push back if one or the other goes off the rails. So making sure those three elements of government remain properly constrained by each other is critical to the proper functioning of our government. The debate over how much power the president should have is simply part of the ongoing battle to ensure the government is by the people and for the people and does not lean towards by the king (president) and for the king (president). I believe Barr's position leans too close to the latter and thus threatens to unbalance the mutual restraining power of the three branches of government.

Jim

Yes, you are being paranoid. Barr has never said or done anything to suggest that he regards the president as a king who is not subject to oversight by the other two branches of government. In fact, he has said the exact opposite. And President Trump has never tried to push his agenda through like Obama with just his pen and a phone, and unlike Obama, the courts have ultimately upheld many of his executive orders.

[Cow Poke]

Did you know that kind of thing is most prevelant among church leaders, pastor CP?

Have you cancelled your membership yet, NAMBLA boy?

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, you are being paranoid. Barr has never said or done anything to suggest that he regards the president as a king who is not subject to oversight by the other two branches of government. In fact, he has said the exact opposite. And President Trump has never tried to push his agenda through like Obama with just his pen and a phone, and unlike Obama, the courts have ultimately upheld many of his executive orders.

Never tried to push his agenda through with a pen?

Have you completely forgotten about all the executive orders that were attempts to do just that in the first year of his presidency?

If the courts hadn't pushed back so vigorously, he'd likely still be doing it.

Jim

[Sparko]

That's it? It wouldn't have anything to do with their lives being in danger from the drug cartels and crime on the country of origin?



Think about what it means about where they come from when working at McDonalds, or putting shingles on a roof in 100 degree heat, or pulling weeds 12 hours a day is "The promised land".




No - what happens with a good many of them is that they manage to live on so little of what they make working at McDonalds or with the construction crew that they can afford to send money back to where they came from to help feed to people they left behind.



Depends on how much danger they would be in in mexico from the same people they are fleeing from. Mexico has its own cartel and drug problems.



That is not the narrative associated with the creation of sanctuary cities, which was the subject I was discussing. Please try to leave the goal posts where they begin.


Jim

Jim they don't think "Hey let's go to the USA so we can work at McDonald's and roof houses!" - That is just what the reality is once they get here. They see the USA as the land of milk and honey, where everyone is rich and they can be too. THAT is why they come here. That is why they refused to stay in Mexico where they had asylum. Most of these people are not fleeing for their lives. Some are, most aren't. I read one story (cant find it now) about one man in Honduras that said his wife up and left him taking her kid with her to go on the caravan. It showed photos of her in her modern SUV, with a smart phone, in nice clothes, in Honduras. She just wanted to leave her husband.
ETA: Wait here it is:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...peaks-out.html

This was the mother of the little child that was crying at the border as they searched her mom that made the news at the time.


And for those who ARE here out of fear for their lives, when Trump says we are going to do something about it, like remove Maduro from power, the liberals go all crazy eyed and say "no, we can't do that, we have no right to interfere with Venezuela" -- Well when we are being invaded by people fleeing there because of Maduro, yes we do have the right to intervene.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, you are being paranoid. Barr has never said or done anything to suggest that he regards the president as a king who is not subject to oversight by the other two branches of government. In fact, he has said the exact opposite. And President Trump has never tried to push his agenda through like Obama with just his pen and a phone, and unlike Obama, the courts have ultimately upheld many of his executive orders.

Well that's interesting. Please locate in any of my posts where i said that barr believed the the president was not subject to oversight by other branches of the government.

You wont find me saying that anywhere.

So who are you arguing with?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim they don't think "Hey let's go to the USA so we can work at McDonald's and roof houses!" - That is just what the reality is once they get here. They see the USA as the land of milk and honey, where everyone is rich and they can be too. THAT is why they come here. That is why they refused to stay in Mexico where they had asylum. Most of these people are not fleeing for their lives. Some are, most aren't. I read one story (cant find it now) about one man in Honduras that said his wife up and left him taking her kid with her to go on the caravan. It showed photos of her in her modern SUV, with a smart phone, in nice clothes, in Honduras. She just wanted to leave her husband.
ETA: Wait here it is:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...peaks-out.html

This was the mother of the little child that was crying at the border as they searched her mom that made the news at the time.


And for those who ARE here out of fear for their lives, when Trump says we are going to do something about it, like remove Maduro from power, the liberals go all crazy eyed and say "no, we can't do that, we have no right to interfere with Venezuela" -- Well when we are being invaded by people fleeing there because of Maduro, yes we do have the right to intervene.

I think you are wrong. They can make more money than they ever could where they come from doing those jobs and they work hard at them. Thats why they get hired. A contractor told me once if he needs something tough done well and fast, he hires mexicans. Americans just wont work that hard.

They csn live, eat, and help out their families at home on what they make, much more so than where they come from. And that is why they come and keep coming.

But again, if that is the good life for them, then your characterization falls flat.

Your example is a single case and you'd have to show it was a representative case for it to have meaning. The fact these sorts of jobs provide so much more than can be found at home for so many of them, again, says it is not.

The last bit acknowledges many are fleeing for their lives, which is my point. But i'll not follow the movement of the goal posts from why people are at our borders to if we should try to forcefully correct the problems in their countries of origin.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Never tried to push his agenda through with a pen?

Have you completely forgotten about all the executive orders that were attempts to do just that in the first year of his presidency?

If the courts hadn't pushed back so vigorously, he'd likely still be doing it.

Jim

Um... did you miss the fact that many of Trump's executive orders that have been challenged have ultimately been upheld by higher courts? Yes, lower level activist judges have tried to block some of them, but the majority were overruled as the cases worked their way up through the legal system.

Contrast with Obama who lost at the Supreme Court more than any other modern US president.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06...ern-president/

[Mountain Man]

Well that's interesting. Please locate in any of my posts where i said that barr believed the the president was not subject to oversight by other branches of the government.

You wont find me saying that anywhere.

So who are you arguing with?

Jim

You claimed that Barr sees the president as a king. This is false.

[Sparko]

I think you are wrong. They can make more money than they ever could where they come from doing those jobs and they work hard at them. Thats why they get hired. A contractor told me once if he needs something tough done well and fast, he hires mexicans. Americans just wont work that hard.

You were just complaining about how poor their prospects were.

They might make more here, but it COSTS more here too Jim. You aren't going to get by working at McDonalds. They might think $9/hour is good money while they are in Mexico, but when they get here it isn't much at all. IF they can get that much. I don't think McDonalds hires illegals. It would be too dangerous for them to get caught. Roofers maybe. Picking crops, sure.

Your example is a single case and you'd have to show it was a representative case for it to have meaning.

and you haven't shown ANY cases. You just assume what the MSM has been feeding you. They romanticize the migrants as poor families running for their lives. That isn't the typical illegal alien. Most are single men coming over. Many are gang members. Some families too, but not all are refugees, many are just trying to get to the USA because of what they think it is.

The fact these sorts of jobs provide so much more than can be found at home for so many of them, again, says it is not.

Mexico isn't that poor of a nation. Around the border areas, yeah it is pretty dismal, but go down to the coast and central areas of Mexico and it is a nice thriving economy where they could easily go to find work. People here in the USA actually retire to Mexico so they can live a good life cheaper than they can here.

[oxmixmudd]

You claimed that Barr sees the president as a king. This is false.

No - I didn't say that at all.

I've been though each of my statements in this thread using the words Barr and King.

One time I said:

Barr carries with him a view of President as much closer to king than ever envisioned by the founding fathers

Another time I said:

To get at the majority of the discussion of how Barr leans towards the idea of President as King

That is not an exhaustive list, but each time I'm saying basically the same thing as one or the other of the above.

The highlighted qualifiers are critical. And they are present each time I relate Barr's position and the concept of president as King. And your removal of them changes the meaning completely. This is why I sometimes say you are dishonest, because it would seem impossible for an intelligent person not to know that removing those qualifiers changes the meaning significantly.

Bottom line, it is not my assessment of Barr's position that is false, it is your alteration of my statements that is false. I said that in terms that relate to the unitary executive theory, he leans in the direction of president as king. I can point in the direction of bejing from my house, but I'm still over 10,000 miles from it!

However, his specific leaning in that direction is extreme relative to most, and presents the danger of unbalancing the three branches of government as were outlined in the links I gave. By giving too much power to the president.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Um... did you miss the fact that many of Trump's executive orders that have been challenged have ultimately been upheld by higher courts? Yes, lower level activist judges have tried to block some of them, but the majority were overruled as the cases worked their way up through the legal system.

Contrast with Obama who lost at the Supreme Court more than any other modern US president.

https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06...ern-president/

hmmm ... thank you for admitting Trump tried to legislate with the Pen, just like Obama. Sounds like you think he was successful at that too.

Incidentally - claiming he didn't legislate with a pen (per the post I responded to) and then gloating over the fact he was successful legislating with a pen is a bit self-contradictory - just in case you didn't know that.

So tell me, If Obama trying to legislate with a pen is bad ... how then is Trump successfully legislating with a pen not also bad ...


Jim

[Mountain Man]

However, his specific leaning in that direction is extreme relative to most, and presents the danger of unbalancing the three branches of government as were outlined in the links I gave. By giving too much power to the president.

Not really.

The only way the president could have "too much power" is if the other two branches could not keep him in check, but since Barr recognizes and fully supports the role of the other two branches providing oversight of the Executive Branch then there's no need for your paranoid delusions of Trump donning a crown and ruling by fiat.

[Mountain Man]

hmmm ... thank you for admitting Trump tried to legislate with the Pen, just like Obama. Sounds like you think he was successful at that too.

Incidentally - claiming he didn't legislate with a pen (per the post I responded to) and then gloating over the fact he was successful legislating with a pen is a bit self-contradictory - just in case you didn't know that.

So tell me, If Obama trying to legislate with a pen is bad ... how then is Trump successfully legislating with a pen not also bad ...

Executive orders are not legislation.

Obama tried to use them as an end-run around Congress, and he was repeatedly slapped down by the courts. Trump, on the other hand, has used them exactly as they were intended: as special instructions to the Executive Branch, and his orders have been upheld by the Judicial Branch.

[Mountain Man]

"There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign."

https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/behind...site%20buttons