3 ms·

The goal is to dismantle the system (of checks and balances) so that it's not in the way of becoming an authoritarian regime. When this is your goal, you realiz

by geoka9 2y ago

The goal is to dismantle the system (of checks and balances) so that it's not in the way of becoming an authoritarian regime. When this is your goal, you realize Russia is not your enemy, it's your biggest ally.

rayiner 2y ago
There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch. What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate. It’s like those crosswalk buttons that aren’t connected to anything. No matter how people vote, the government just gives us more immigration and more globalism. E.g. No presidential candidate has ever run on a platform of more immigration. Support for increasing immigration hasn’t topped 35% in decades. Yet the foreign born population has grown from 5% to 15% since 1970. Nobody voted for that. Who did it?
- geoka9 2y ago
  > There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch. My comment was more general. > What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate. The alternative will be an undemocratic regime where the executive "branch" controls all the other ones in perpetuity. EDIT: Sigh... To me, this is obvious, as I've personally witnessed it happen in several different countries, not to mention historical examples. Worrying about H1B and similar right now is like worrying about hanging the family portrait in the best way possible while the house is on fire. Note: I would be happy to be proven wrong and I hope you revisit these threads in a few years to see if you have changed your opinion about MAGA (I will surely do).
- usernomdeguerre 2y ago
  There are quite a number of checks and balances within each branch, executive included. Some backed by law and others backed by tradition. Do you have some expertise in this that you're drawing from?
  - no-thank-you 2y ago
    He is a lawyer in the DC area. He appears to be a proponent of Unitary Executive Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
    - rayiner 2y ago
      That’s like saying “general and special relativity” is a “theory.” Technically correct but misleading. Articles I, II, and III, have nearly identical clauses vesting the legislative, judicial, and executive power, respectively, in Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? It would be madness to say that Congress can create a law creating an entity in the judicial branch that can adjudicate cases without oversight from an Article III judge. Nobody thinks that’s true.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        > Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? Yes. Apart from the specific enumerated executive powers in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, the "executive power of the United States" is whatever the Congress says it is. If Article II Section 1 had been intended as a preemptive, unitary-executive grant, there'd have been no reason to enumerate specific powers. As has been remarked, there's a reason Article I (concerning Congress) comes first.
        rayiner 2y ago
        Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Congress can give the executive more or less power through law, but whatever executive power it does create must ultimately be invested in the president, not someone else.
- sfennell 2y ago
  What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C. I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate. How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020. I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws. I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C. There are almost 700,000 federal employees in DC and its suburbs. The President appoints only about 4,000 people. Many of those people are the ones in agencies making rules that have the force of law. > I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate. They have—they all run on cutting taxes. > How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020. The federal government directly controls the immigration rate, unlike the birth rate. > I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws. Because politics has become polarized along moral dimensions. E.g. people don’t think immigration is merely a knob to turn, but instead is a moral issue, with a more “diverse” country being a moral good in and of itself. You can’t trust those people to work hard carrying out mass deportations when the public votes for the guy promising to do that. > I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power. The knobs that control the immigration rate are turned by people who as a matter of ideology believe diversifying the country is a moral good in and of itself. So they simply ignore what the public thinks and continue to turn the knob in favor of increased immigration.
bmitc 2y ago
Trump basically is Russia. He's a paper billionaire who likely gets direct funding from Russia. He just opened up the Green Card system that makes it trivial for Russian oligarchs to get a U.S. Green Card. He even mentioned them in the announcement. All of this stuff is directly out of Russia's playbook. It's also Trump's, but Trump is too much of an idiot to accomplish this himself. He knows almost nothing about anything. I can near guarantee that he is being coached.
- araes 2y ago
  This one from Politico today kinda cemented my view on that subject: "Russian state media enters Oval Office during Zelenskyy meeting": https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/tass-oval-office-trump-zelenskyy-00206739 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/tass-oval-office-tr... > According to the White House, the Russian reporter’s presence was unplanned. > “TASS was not on the approved list of media for today’s pool,” a White House official said. “As soon as it came to the attention of press office staff that he was in the Oval, he was escorted out by the Press Secretary." > The White House did not address how the unapproved reporter was able to gain access to the Oval Office. Only what's supposed to be one of the most secure sites in all of America, with one of the most difficult rooms to access anywhere. "We're not really sure how Russian media got in."
cutemonster 2y ago
And democracies in Europe are annoying, want you to step down after 4 years. Almost a threat

by geoka9 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch. What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate. It’s like those crosswalk buttons that aren’t connected to anything. No matter how people vote, the government just gives us more immigration and more globalism. E.g. No presidential candidate has ever run on a platform of more immigration. Support for increasing immigration hasn’t topped 35% in decades. Yet the foreign born population has grown from 5% to 15% since 1970. Nobody voted for that. Who did it?

geoka9 2y ago
> There’s no “checks and balances” within the executive branch. My comment was more general. > What we have now is an undemocratic regime where the executive branch is permanently controlled by a city that voted 91-6 for the losing candidate. The alternative will be an undemocratic regime where the executive "branch" controls all the other ones in perpetuity. EDIT: Sigh... To me, this is obvious, as I've personally witnessed it happen in several different countries, not to mention historical examples. Worrying about H1B and similar right now is like worrying about hanging the family portrait in the best way possible while the house is on fire. Note: I would be happy to be proven wrong and I hope you revisit these threads in a few years to see if you have changed your opinion about MAGA (I will surely do).
usernomdeguerre 2y ago
There are quite a number of checks and balances within each branch, executive included. Some backed by law and others backed by tradition. Do you have some expertise in this that you're drawing from?
- no-thank-you 2y ago
  He is a lawyer in the DC area. He appears to be a proponent of Unitary Executive Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That’s like saying “general and special relativity” is a “theory.” Technically correct but misleading. Articles I, II, and III, have nearly identical clauses vesting the legislative, judicial, and executive power, respectively, in Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? It would be madness to say that Congress can create a law creating an entity in the judicial branch that can adjudicate cases without oversight from an Article III judge. Nobody thinks that’s true.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Does anyone think Congress can create a law that enables the legislative or judicial powers to be exercised by employees independent of the control of the constitutional actors in which those powers are vested? Yes. Apart from the specific enumerated executive powers in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, the "executive power of the United States" is whatever the Congress says it is. If Article II Section 1 had been intended as a preemptive, unitary-executive grant, there'd have been no reason to enumerate specific powers. As has been remarked, there's a reason Article I (concerning Congress) comes first.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Article II says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Congress can give the executive more or less power through law, but whatever executive power it does create must ultimately be invested in the president, not someone else.
sfennell 2y ago
What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C. I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate. How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020. I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws. I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > What do you mean by "an executive branch that is controlled by a city" ? I thought the executive branch was headed by the president who then has most of the say about who heads up the departments. I don't think the president or the people he appoints to run positions have anything to do with the city, they can come from outside of D.C. There are almost 700,000 federal employees in DC and its suburbs. The President appoints only about 4,000 people. Many of those people are the ones in agencies making rules that have the force of law. > I don't think a presidential candidate has ever run on adding more debt either, but that has increased at an even higher rate. They have—they all run on cutting taxes. > How about birth rate? I don't think any candidate has campaigned on lowering the birthrate either, but that has dropped from 17.6 per thousand in 1970 to 12 per thousand in 2020. The federal government directly controls the immigration rate, unlike the birth rate. > I would really like to understand why you believe that the executive branch doesn't have the ability to govern because people that would be carrying out the laws must also be politically aligned with the laws. Because politics has become polarized along moral dimensions. E.g. people don’t think immigration is merely a knob to turn, but instead is a moral issue, with a more “diverse” country being a moral good in and of itself. You can’t trust those people to work hard carrying out mass deportations when the public votes for the guy promising to do that. > I also would like to hear why you think that just because something wasn't part of any presidential campaign it somehow supports your opinion that the people who carrying out the instructions in the laws - is an explanation for how the president and cabinet don't have any real power. The knobs that control the immigration rate are turned by people who as a matter of ideology believe diversifying the country is a moral good in and of itself. So they simply ignore what the public thinks and continue to turn the knob in favor of increased immigration.

bmitc 2y ago

Trump basically is Russia. He's a paper billionaire who likely gets direct funding from Russia. He just opened up the Green Card system that makes it trivial for Russian oligarchs to get a U.S. Green Card. He even mentioned them in the announcement. All of this stuff is directly out of Russia's playbook. It's also Trump's, but Trump is too much of an idiot to accomplish this himself. He knows almost nothing about anything. I can near guarantee that he is being coached.

araes 2y ago
This one from Politico today kinda cemented my view on that subject: "Russian state media enters Oval Office during Zelenskyy meeting": https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/tass-oval-office-trump-zelenskyy-00206739 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/tass-oval-office-tr... > According to the White House, the Russian reporter’s presence was unplanned. > “TASS was not on the approved list of media for today’s pool,” a White House official said. “As soon as it came to the attention of press office staff that he was in the Oval, he was escorted out by the Press Secretary." > The White House did not address how the unapproved reporter was able to gain access to the Oval Office. Only what's supposed to be one of the most secure sites in all of America, with one of the most difficult rooms to access anywhere. "We're not really sure how Russian media got in."

cutemonster 2y ago

And democracies in Europe are annoying, want you to step down after 4 years. Almost a threat