Printable View
That’s true of any administration, although probably more so with Trump. I can picture something like the Obama apology tour. “Sorry about mentioning your reneging on your defense budget promises. That was rude.” “Sorry about asking about Greenland. But you made us such a good deal on the Virgin Islands, we couldn’t resist asking.” “Sorry about not trusting Iran. That strike on the Saudi oil fields was just a misunderstanding.”
"Sorry about bugging out on the G7 climate change talks and then lying about it." "Sorry about the emoluments clause, non-stop grifting and self-aggrandizement." "Sorry about time wasted playing golf and holding Hitleresque "rallies'" "Sorry about putting spies in peril to placate Vladimir Putin." "Sorry about revealing classified intelligence about Israel to Russian operatives, publicly." "Sorry about flouting international asylum rules because, you know, brown people--and sorry about all those deaths in ICE custody." "Sorry about stonewalling and unanswered subpoenas." "Sorry about states' rights, eminent domain, 'fine people on both sides,' Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon." "Sorry about countless lies and endless childish twitter insults..." An apology tour would clearly require an extensive staff and more time than we probably have. How anyone can defend this monumentally vile administration is a mystery to me. But hey--coming up with reasons to apologize would make a helluva party game.
I think you’re confusing putting Trump in context with defending Trump. It isn’t a simple for-us-or-against-us thing. Can’t I be against both? I can be creeped out by Trump, but I can also be creeped out when, say Warren says she has a plan for me and damn the constitutional niceties.
We’ve had a couple of generations now of every new guy being the worst guy ever. A Nazi. A monster. A golfer. You can’t escalate the good vs evil thing indefinitely.
You're right that (Republican) presidents have steadily eroded respect for the rule of law while enriching themselves and their cronies, but we have to have reached an apogee with this clown, else we have completely lost our way.
(I've read up on the "apology tour," and it wasn't.
Why would you imagine Elizabeth Warren--a law professor--won't respect the Constitution? I've seen nothing to indicate that.)
I am not an advocate of Elizabeth Warren. However, I believe she will try to do what she thinks is right for the people and the environment. trump doesn't care about the people, only that corporations make money. The hell with the environment. Today, trump is trying to make it so CA can't put into law environmental protections (i.e. gasoline mileage provisions).
Lawyers looking for ways around constitutional impediments is hardly unheard of.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Here's what Jonah Goldberg had to say on the topic: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...constitutional
Personally, I think she views the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome. She thinks she can succeed where Obama failed, waving her scepter her first day in office to ban fracking throughout the land. Using the commerce clause as the route to a national right to abortion strikes me as pushing the envelop until it tears. It seems her wealth tax idea is thought to be unconstitutional in most quarters. The arbitrary power granted the CPFB may not survive the many constitutional challenges ongoing. I certainly don't like her ideas about the government assuming de facto control of federal elections from the states when deemed necessary.
It's fascinating to me that conserving the environment is yet another of those core conservative principals that has been tossed aside in recent years. Admittedly it'd probably be a shorter list if I attempted to make a list of the principals that conservatives have retained. In any case, I am not terribly worried about trump's silly tweets on the topic of CA's environmental regulations. While he doesn't understand how laws work, we do still have a semi-functional judiciary branch that would have to pretzelize themselves worse than Scalia ever did to justify siding with trump on this. CA's ability to set their own standards is not some executive order, it's a law duly passed by both branches of congress and signed into law by the president at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I *thought* this comment by Beto during the last debate sounded a bit absurd. I know in our community we train for active shooter events, and we have triage teams ready to go in and stop the bleeding and stabilize patients, even while the event is underway.
So looks like Beto was throwing the first responders under the bus.
https://www.firerescue1.com/response...z2Trqk27utic7/
Watch the news today. Now trump's personal attorney, bill barr, is defending him from the whistleblower. barr got his job to watch trump's back! I hope everything blows up and out into the open. My guess it will not matter though because trump could kill someone and still not face the consequences. Many Republicans will stand by him no matter what crooked things he does. It truly is reprehensible!
The idea is to discourage whistle-blowing. Look what happened to Reality Winner.
This latest one should be very, very careful. I believe their life is in danger. Putin doesn't mess around.