Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

My God, the internet is blowing up with the Trumpanzees claiming that Clinton had a wire and was fed answers during the debate They showing a picture that shows here lapel mic power source and wire as proof.

You can't make this level up stupidity up

Hey she got the idea from George W.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ame]https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/781125929523372032[/ame]

[Wild Hoss]

No. 1/3 of my coffee group is Mexican and there is one illegal. You guys are buying what the media is selling. I'm sure there is a racial (and by that I mean "other", not Negroid or Caucasoid) component, but I've known these guys much of my life. Frankly, when you tell Mexican jokes to Mexicans, and they respond with Dutch jokes to Dutch guys, I think that's healthy. These Mexicans are Americans first, and they believe the foundational myths of this country. They, too, resent an illegal influx of persons who not believe in America.

While the idea of "race" has replaced "class" in Marxist thought, the underlying objective is the same: take from the working and give to the non-working.

There is no chance Hillary loses, but, IMO, you should be looking at the danger of powerful groups all agreeing on a particular candidate, even when that goes against their traditional interests. Once the Supreme Court is "neutralized", the way is clear to impose a collectivist system. Hillary will do that.

I don't even know what to make of this nonsense so I won?t respond except to say that I can speak to the experience of blue-collar types that I know. One of them being my father, who owned a framing company in Omaha for forty years and saw, first-hand, the transition of the labor market from predominantly white in the 1970s to almost entirely Hispanic by the 1990s. It occurred because of the lower wages those Mexican workers would accept, not some fanciful grand scheme of Racial Marxism, or similar idiocy. That's just simple fact.

The depression of labor wages across the economy is undeniably a major causal factor for many white blue-collar types to support Trump. This isn?t to say there aren?t other reasons that hourly labor workers might support a billionaire, but to think this isn?t the primary one is to subject one to claims of incredulity.

[iam416]

Heather MacDonald continues to carry on the battle against the inevitable: http://city-journal.org/html/hillary...ies-14759.html

[iam416]

That's my burden I guess. In your construct are you for deporting those 11 million or are you for open borders?

As the law currently stands, I'm for deportation. I'm open to the legislative process producing some sort of accommodation for those 11M that can establish sufficient contributions to the economy. But, absent that change, then the law is the law.

[iam416]

As a side note, I hope the specter of a Trump presidency causes some to re-think...lol....I mean think about the ever increasing power in the Executive, including executive orders, the massive code of federal regulations and various "informal" rules.

Trump and nukes makes for good copy, but it's stupid. Trump running the Executive with ever-decreasing accountability, checks and balances ought to scare the fucking bejesus out of a lot of folks.

It's all milk and honey when your guy is king.

[iam416]

Reuters/Isops has Clinton up by 4 in a 4-way and 6 H2H. A week ago it was down 2 in 4way and even H2H.

[hack]

Dunno how you put that cat back in the bag, but I agree about executive power. The system was designed as a balance of power and to hamstring any one individual.

[iam416]

Concur on both parts. I'm resigned, I think, to hoping for slower expansion of executive power. But, yeah.

One thing that would, IMO, change things a bit is if the Supreme Court reversed/modified Chevron. The principle ruling in that case is one of broad deference to agency rules provided the rule is sufficiently tied to a piece of legislation. The thought being that we don't want Courts second-guessing agency decisions as to how to implement Federal legislation. So, provided the agency complies with it's rule-making process and has some tenable rational basis to the rule, Courts won't touch them.

But, that decision was in the mid-80s. Much has changed since then. I know some justices would absolutely reconsider the case. If Trump was president then that might be enough to pull the liberal/moderate vote they'd need.

Eh, nothing will change. I'm a realist.

[froot loops]

I don't think you'll see any decrease in executive power as long as you have the polarization in the Congress. The party out of power fancies getting back into the executive branch for the Milk and Honey. The executive branch likes the power.

[SeattleLionsFan]

It's been a while since I took admin and con law, but don't you think Congress could simply pass a law restricting the grant of authority to the agencies to interpret laws?

[hack]

It may or may not speak to the larger problem of a loss of noblesse oblige. That's not the perfect term, since I don't mean that the rich should help the poor out of a sense of responsibility. But what the country needs is for those with access to the levels of power both in govt and the private sector to strike a balance between self-enrichment and restraint for the good of the system. No system is ever going to be humans-proof. You need quality humans who will take the long view rather than get seduced by that milk and honey. The Canadian banking sector is a great example of the benefits of that type of leadership. Paul Martin, chiefly, took the long view on bank consolidation, and could not be bought off. Canada will benefit for decades.

[Wild Hoss]

As a side note, I hope the specter of a Trump presidency causes some to re-think...lol....I mean think about the ever increasing power in the Executive, including executive orders, the massive code of federal regulations and various "informal" rules.

Trump and nukes makes for good copy, but it's stupid. Trump running the Executive with ever-decreasing accountability, checks and balances ought to scare the fucking bejesus out of a lot of folks.

It's all milk and honey when your guy is king.

In the absence of Congress' ability to do its part in governance, the Executive has adopted means to accomplish its goals. Nature abhors a vaccuum, especially in politics.

[Hannibal]

As a side note, I hope the specter of a Trump presidency causes some to re-think...lol....I mean think about the ever increasing power in the Executive, including executive orders, the massive code of federal regulations and various "informal" rules.

LMAO. Democrats are entirely incapable of this kind of thinking. These are people who live in an Orwellian twilight zone where suppression of congitive dissonance has become an art form. And with the entire mainstream media on their side, why should they ever worry about this? A Republican would never get away with weaponizing the IRS the way that Obama has. Not that we'll ever seen one as President again with immigration enforcement and demographic trends being what they are; the scenario getting a taste of their own medicine is way down on the list of worries for Democrats.

[hack]

Hillary would never get away with what Cheney and Rumsfeld did. Obama has used executive powers too, but in a way that Bill Clinton couldn't. This is exactly what talent means. It didn't make the right angry when Bush and Cheney broke barriers and took more power for the executive office, but it makes them angry now when Obama doesn't refrain from doing what his predecessors made possible.