Jump to content

Democrats and Totalitarianism


/dev/null

Recommended Posts

 


Between now and November 2016, Americans might want to think a bit about whether they wish to invest an openly totalitarian political party with the power of the presidency.

 

I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "Yes, they do."


 

As well they should be. They got scholarships to play football, then refused to play football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have totalitarianism without that first part, "total". Subservience to the government, that includes republicans.... :doh:

 

Or you just outlaw the Republican Party. Which is what the original link alludes to (if you have senators seriously suggesting that Exxon should be RICO'd over global warming, there's no particular reason the RNC can't be as well.)

 

And every president seems to take further steps towards marginalizing the opposition party. We're three or four administrations away from a presidency that can dispense with that pesky rule of law and do what he wants with "a pen and a phone." Like I said above...it's what the American people want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, the University of Missouri is a private college.

 

Dumbass.

 

The university doesn’t receive state funds to operate athletic programs, according to the University of Missouri’s student-athlete handbook . “[T]hus, similar to private business, the Mizzou Athletics Department must operate solely from what revenue it generates,” the handbook states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or you just outlaw the Republican Party. Which is what the original link alludes to (if you have senators seriously suggesting that Exxon should be RICO'd over global warming, there's no particular reason the RNC can't be as well.)

 

And every president seems to take further steps towards marginalizing the opposition party. We're three or four administrations away from a presidency that can dispense with that pesky rule of law and do what he wants with "a pen and a phone." Like I said above...it's what the American people want.

Yeah, that last part. People have short memories. Bush-Cheney did their fair share of presidential orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And therein lies the problem with executive order and judicial fiat. When it's YOUR guy doing it, bully for you. When it's not, look out.

I agree completely. I lump the two parties together. A puppet master had two hands...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What percentage of Exective Orders per Administration enacted policies and or regulations that were not able to make it thru Congress as a law?

 

Executive Orders should have a sunset. 90 days, 180 days, or something, where it has to be brought up before Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What percentage of Exective Orders per Administration enacted policies and or regulations that were not able to make it thru Congress as a law?

 

Executive Orders should have a sunset. 90 days, 180 days, or something, where it has to be brought up before Congress.

He also clearly didn't read the caveat at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the number of orders, it's what they're being used for.

 

No one cares if an executive order is issued to give a name to a national park or forest preserve. They do care when they are used to circumvent the legislative branch in order to enact major policy. The later is what is happening now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the number of orders, it's what they're being used for.

 

No one cares if an executive order is issued to give a name to a national park or forest preserve. They do care when they are used to circumvent the legislative branch in order to enact major policy. The later is what is happening now.

Prove it's happening more now than in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...