(01-12-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:49 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 10:01 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 09:18 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I don't care if he's fit. The republic can and has survived unfit presidents. The republic will not survive an extraconstitutional fitness test.

A policy of fitness as a condition of holding the office makes the man more important than the office.

So do you or don’t you think he is fit? It is the same type of question (qualitative) as him being a good one bad president.

I don’t think he should be removed based on “fitness,” but I think having a frank discussion about his fitness is good - we have other branches to help manage an unfit president.

Again, I don't care if he's fit. That's your concern, so that's why you should be the one to provide the definition. As for "good" or "bad" - I think he has a big mouth and needlessly antagonizes people, but on the other hand I like the fact that he hasn't really done much. He's also been the least warlike president we've had since Carter, and that's a very positive thing, although I do wish he'd follow through on promises to reduce military involvement in the Middle East.

• Alienating most of our allies.
• Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.
• Making the US the only country not in the Paris Climate Accord.
• Withdrawing certain federal protections for transgender students in public schools.
• Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.
• Tax reform that will undoubtedly benefit the rich more than those who need help.
• Allowing funding for CHIP to expire
• Ending subsidies for ACA
  

I wouldn't say that is not really doing much.

some of your points are better than others. I will just concentrate on one - tax reform.


yep, tax reform will benefit the rich(er) more - since they pay the majority of taxes. Hard to give a tax break to people who do not pay Federal Income Taxes.

But I think the idea that the extra money will just sit on their dressers gathering dust is overblown. if there is one thing rich people want, it is to get richer. If there is one thing corporations want, it is to grow. So the money will be put to work.

So I see the tax reforms as a stimulus for the economy. I do not see that as a bad thing.

I'll take a stab at another 2:

---------------

[*]Holding people who need DACA hostage over a wall that won't fix our problems.

I guess you are unaware of the 5th Circuit ruling that gutted DAPA (btw, created by Presidential fiat) as an unconstitutional encroachment of executive power on the legislature given the legislature had passed a law that stated almost precisely the opposite of some points that DAPA tried to put into place.

Interestingly enough, the executive order DACA has much of the same problems in its structure and implementation. I guess that it is 'terrible' and 'uncalled for' that, if we as a country truly wish the results of DACA, that we actually pass a fing law for it (instead of executive fiat decree)?

Look, I am actually in favor of the goal of DACA. But the means by which it is put into place was fing grotesque.

As for 'a wall', well, I guess call me a snaggle tooth racist, but I have no problem with the US *actually* controlling and being in control of its borders; that is one of the main functions of a sovereign nation.

--------------------

[*]Crackdown on Marijuana just issued by Sessions.

First, I have no problems with legalization of the use of marijuana at all levels, and am in fact a proponent of that. The solution to the question and goal I seek is *exactly* what California and Colorado have implemented.

*If* we as a nation wish to do that, then we should undoubtedly enact legislation to make sure that cannabis is not included as a DEA Schedule 1 drug. It is far more grotesque to have laws on the books and not just overlook them, but to *selectively* overlook them by geography, such as what Obama implemented with his policy on marijuana.

As for 'crackdown', I think you really mean 'enforce the law as written', which is an exceptionally odd view or the term 'crackdown', imo.

But, I guess for some the ignorance or creation of new legal regimes at a whim is fine and dandy when done by presidential fiat. To me, that is an amazingly scary thing to buy into.