2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI had an interesting discussion yesterday evening ...
Mrs. 1SBM and I went to the local Gastro-Pub for dinner last night ... the place was packed (since the food is great and they have 150 micro-brews on tap), so we had to wait for a table on the patio. As we were looking for a seat, we saw four 60-something men sitting around one of the fire-pits. One of the men could see we were looking for a seat and signaled that we could take a couple of seats in their area.
Mrs. 1SBM and I, thanked them and took a seat. Me, being me, I started a conversation with the men. They looked as though they had been playing golf and were enjoying their "19th Hole", so I began talking a little about golf. Then, the conversation turned to politics, as President Obama's face flashed across the TV screen and a segment on President Obama's decision to send military aid back into Iraq played. One of the men rolled his eyes and said, "Can you believe that guy?"
Now, I'm pretty adept at judging the political leanings of people from their conversation ... but it struck me, this was a curious spot ... these men were clearly Conservatives, so why was this guy opposed to any escalation in Iraq? So I just listened. His complaints/comments were all over the map ... "We need to do something to help those poor bastards up on the mountain", "We've got to stop ISIS", "We should've never left Iraq", (and strangely) "Why are we even over there? Those savages have been fighting with each other since day 1 ... what busy is it of ours?" ... then, it became clear; he wasn't against the escalation to facilitate the humanitarian mission, or to stop ISIS, but at the same time, he did not support U.S. involvement in the region.
Then, he said: " What doesn't he think he can do? ... just make every decision on his own? I mean we still do have a Congress!"
So, I asked: "So what's the man to do? As you said, there are people trapped and dying on a mountain by ISIS and ISIS is moving to take over the region ... we don't want either to happen and withdrawing pretty much assures that both will happen ... and the body constitutionally charged with influencing, if not determining, the U.S. response is on vacation!"
One of the other guys offered, "It's not just this ... (President) Obama is issuing all these executive orders and usurping the power of Congress. That's not how a democracy is supposed to work."
(Just then a waitress came by and I ordered a round of drinks for everyone ... Mrs. 1SBM recognized this as my "Lace up your boots, boys! You're about to get schooled" move.)
I said: "You know ... You're right; a democracy isn't supposed to work this way; but you'll have to admit, nothing about these times reflects how the Framers envisioned governance." I, then, asked: "What do you think about Ted Cruz?"
All the men nodded, and one said: "He's a breath of fresh air. He's a true conservative, who is unwilling to go along to get along!"
I said, "Okay, what do you think of Congress?"
The same guy said: "They're a bunch of worthless F@#ks that are only concerned with getting re-elected. We need more people like Cruz who will stand up for what's right."
So I said: "I know you will disagree with this; but this recent rise of Cruz-type politicians is exactly what is wrong these days. Congress is in complete grid-lock because too many politicians' approach to governance is 'My way or I'll burn down the house' and too many Americans see that as okay because those politicians are 'standing up for what's right, governance be damned.
Well, the Framers of the Constitution did everything in their power to discourage this mentality and to encourage politicians to work together, in order that this nation be ruled through reasoned debate and a respect for minority opinions. They, in their wisdom, anticipated the likelihood of a divided government, shared by members of differing political parties, so they split up the Federal Government into 3 co-equal parts, and they split up the legislature into two co-equal bodies of Congress, each serving as a check on the other. As such, the only way to get anything done was through cooperation and compromise ... whatever, comes out of any one body, has to be at least tolerable to the two other bodies; and I suspect, they hoped this negotiation between bodies would reflect the will of the people.
But that's not what's happening ... we have one half of government, across the two bodies of Congress, that decided before President Obama's first day in office, that they would not cooperate with anything that he, or Democrats, put forward. And, we have politicians like Cruz who are being celebrated for their unwillingness to produce anything that the other side can live with ... and as crazy as this may sound, at times, 'the other side' is not only Democrats, but also, other republicans.
So here we find ourselves ... a crisis in Iraq and Congress is unable to act; a crisis on the Border and Congress is unable to act; the middleclass is disappearing and Congress is unable to act. Well, these are all pressing matters of state and decisions must be made; but Congress is on vacation ... and when President Obama does what he thinks necessary to actually govern this nation, whether we agree with the decision or not; people freak out about his exercise of his executive authority, as if anyone else was doing something to address any of these crises, other than talk ... and as if this is the first time in history it has been done.
If you want to stop President Obama from governing by executive order ... elect representative that understand and accept what the Framers said was their job ... to govern, and that requires compromise.
Now ... Who is ready for another round?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...the next time I get into a debate with a teaper. Well done, sir.
JustAnotherGen
(31,856 posts)When the IndieTeaPublican du jour started his ranting and raving. You are so much better at this than I am.
sheshe2
(83,850 posts)
Bravo, 1SBM, well done.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
and then,
and my reaction to their reaction:
sheshe2
(83,850 posts)I just had to clean off my keyboard! Nah, won't charge you a cent, 'cause that is priceless!
You say it as well with smilies as you do with words. 
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)they didn't offer up any excuses ... they accepted the second round, ordered a couple more rounds, thanked me for the drinks and the conversation, and then they left.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Does go to show that slogans have replaced thinking.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it exposes that what they SAY/THINK they are upset with really isn't what they ARE upset with ... but they refuse to self-reflect because they know they do not want to find what they find.
brer cat
(24,591 posts)You are very quick on your feet. When I have encounters like this, I have a hard time getting my thoughts together and my mouth functioning before the conversation is over.
I hope they listened and learned at least a little bit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)helps with the speaking and sometimes, with the listening.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)but I will never accept that the solution to a failure of Congress is to abrogate the constitution. The end does not justify the means. Two wrongs do not make a right.
A bank robber cannot go before the judge and claim justification by saying that his employer did not pay him his wages.
If Congress has failed (and it has) then the solution, the only proper solution, is to change Congress. The solution is to stop reelecting 85% of the members of Congress.
To say that the failure of Congress justifies a president governing by executive order is something that I will simply not accept. We have a constitution and its terms are not optional.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the use of Executive Orders was litigated decades ago, and determined to be a legitimate and constitutional tool of the Executive.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)You said it yourself in your original post, "If you want to stop President Obama from governing by executive order."
Not all executive orders are created equal. An executive order to hold an Easter Egg roll is one thing. An Executive Order to alter a law passed by Congress is a different thing altogether. As is an Executive Order to create a law, the "Dream Act," which Congress had declined to enact.
If this was a Republican president issuing Executive Orders to allow industries to pollute skies, you would be screaming bloody murder. But since it is a) a Democrat issuing b) orders with which you agree, you will defend the process.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We clearly have a different understanding of executive powers, mine is rooted in the Constitution and historical practice; whereas, yours is rooted in ... well ... I have no idea.
The first to have happened, been litigated, and accepted, since the mid-1800s; but your understanding of the "Dream Act" is flawed ... the "Dream Act", does not/has not created law; it does affect how existing law is enforced ... and that, too, has been litigated, and accepted, since the mid-1800s.
You are right ... I'd be quite opposed to such an executive order; but, my opposition to an act/action does not delegitimize the act/action. And that has nothing to do with partisanship or my support/opposition to an act/action. It is merely, a recognition of how this government has evolved.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)The "Dream Act" was rejected by Congress and effectively created by executive order in directing the execution of existing immigration law. Technically it was legal, but it was nonetheless a direct circumvention of the will of Congress.
As to your "understanding of executive powers, mine is rooted in the Constitution," even though you are willing to descrive Obama's actions as "governing by executive order," which most certainly is not in the constitution.
Article 2, Section 3 reads in part: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
So when the law as passed by Congress says that the employer mandate shall take effect in 2014 and Obama declares on his own authority that it be delayed until 2016, is he “taking Care that the Laws are being faithfully executed?”
When the law as passed by Congress says that Medicare Advantage funding is cut by $200 billion in the ACA and Obama declares on his own authority that that cut be cancelled, is he “taking Care that the Laws are being faithfully executed?”
"...my opposition to an act/action does not delegitimize the act/action." When I said you would be screaming bloody murder, I did not mean you would dislike it, I meant you would be claiming it was illegal, and my selection of example was deliberate because when Bush made such an executive order Democrats did scream bloody murder about the illegality of the order and about the "imperial overreach" involved in him making it.
We are not talking about preferences, likes or dislikes. For what it's worth, I too, like the orders being issued by Obama, but I cannot and will not defend the process because there will not always be a Democratic president making orders which I like. Sooner or later there will be a Republican president issuing orders which I dislike. He will cite the precedent set by Obama and you and I will be rendered powerless to object.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
ailsagirl
(22,898 posts)
I'm sorry but I had to stop reading the post right there because I felt nauseated.
Anyone who would say that about TC with a straight face... well, the smileys say it
better than I.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Cruz is unhinged
ailsagirl
(22,898 posts)He's not only *certifiable*, he's consumed with hatred.
(I think I need to take a shower now)
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Those men were not saying anything they thought of or analyzed themselves. Their words were not the result of thoughtfulness and knowledge. They were parroting platitudes and talking points that they hear often from their party. Someone at some time in the near past used the term 'fresh air' regarding Ted Cruz (probably Ted Cruz himself) so now every idiocrat repeats that as if it already settled as a fact somewhere. They plagiarize other people's shallow remarks and repeat them to each other assuming everyone thinks they sound clever and smart and current and interested and intelligent in world affairs. They're the kind of people who get all their news from headlines and none from actually reading the articles. It's their attempted 'intellectual' version of conversing about last nights football game without saying anything of substance because they'll give away that they know very little about it. They never think for themselves which you can learn by the platitudes.
What the hell does a "breath of fresh air" mean anyway?
But it's important that you told them this. Who knows. Maybe one of them was a closet liberal just going along with his friends' pseudo mental alacrity.
