Some 2020 General Election Polls

[sophie]

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

I see where these points are coming from, but I rather disagree. The federal government should indeed step in when a local government fails in its duty to protect its law-abiding population. Moreover, there is precedent for this dating back to the 19th century. It sounded to me like Trump wanted to intervene but he's holding back and limiting his role to protecting federal property.

As far as DACA...his executive orders here are really a dig at Congress to deal with the situation, as they should. I definitely am of a mixed opinion about this though. On the one hand, any yielding will only further encourage the illegal immigrant onslaught. On the other hand....the people in question have been living here all their lives and had no say in where they were brought up. Humanely speaking can you really bear to pack them all back off to a home country they can't even remember?

There's another good reason why Trump should not be fighting DACA: he may not realize this but he has a lot of support among Hispanics. They (the ones who got here legally anyway) are not sympathetic to illegal immigration AND they have borne a lot more of the effects of BLM-induced crime than the more well to do neighborhoods.

[drumminj]

Humanely speaking can you really bear to pack them all back off to a home country they can't even remember?

"Humanely speaking" sets up a very slippery slope.

Humanely speaking, can you really bear to let people sleep out in the cold?

Humanely speaking, can you really bear to let people starve to death?

Humanely speaking, can you let any dog be euthanized?

etc...

Laws should protect the citizens and be impartially enforced. Sometimes it means others may suffer, but it's simply not possible to avoid all negative impacts in the world (see risk avoidance thread

[drumminj]

But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

Agree with you here, Tech. It's ironic how the left can manage to assert that Trump is trying to assert all this extra authority, when he's very clearly been deferring to local authorities when it's appropriate. Instead, they cry "Trump isn't doing anything!"

[drumminj]

As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.

I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts. It's a bi-product of their breaking the law, not any actions taken at this point.

We see this in many other scenarios -- if someone "gifts" you stolen goods (I'm assuming you don't know), you don't get to keep it when it's discovered. Are you harmed? Absolutely.

Sometimes there's collateral damage due to illegal acts but that's not a reason to abandon enforcing the law, and the burden of that damage falls on the lawbreaker.

[stuper1]

Punishment has two purposes: justice and deterrence. If we let the DACA kids become citizens, then there is no deterrence effect. More Mexicans will sneak over with their babies because they will think that very likely in another 30 years we will have another amnesty event. If we don't do amnesty and do send the DACA kids home, then they will see that we mean business and hopefully they will get the picture that they need to go through legal immigration channels rather than sneaking across. It's harsh but that's how the world works. The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.

[vnatale]

So I see there is quite a bit we agree upon.

Generally speaking, I am less aligned (nor strongly against) either party. My bigger concern is the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch, whomever might be in the chair.

As part of the Reichstag Fire Decree, Hitler was granted (and used) the power to suspend free press on the basis that the press was Communist/Marxist. He also suspended the right to public assembly on the basis that the assemblers were thugs threatening the safety of the public. These were all emergency powers. It could be coincidence that some of the recent developments in the US are reminiscent of the conditions that led to Hitler's dictatorship.
However, I think at the risk of being called paranoid, it would be prudent for libertarian minded types to watch closely the events of the next few months to see which way they tilt, using history as at least one reference for interpretation.

To be clear, it was not until the Enabling Act was legally passed by the German legislature that Hitler was given the right to rule by decree thereby consolidating his power as a true dictator. Up until that point, he was a temporary dictator under emergency powers.

Again, not a Constitutional scholar, but I like to retain the belief that the framers of the US Constitution were more than mindful of consolidation of power in the hands of any one individual or government branch.

Have we allowed ourselves to drift away from that ideal over an extended period due to the progressive expansion of executive authority over many administrations and calamities? If we like or trust a particular President, do we become okay with he/she wielding power that could be abused in the hands of another?

Fortuitous - today I found out CBS/Ted Koppel did a recent segment about this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rewriting- ... al-powers/. Worth a watch. Even if one doesn't trust CBS and/or might think Koppel a deranged maniac as his demeanor might imply, it's worth a watch. Use it as a jumping off point to do your own research using sources you trust.

I am extremely suspicious of executive power and I'm certain that the Presidency is far too powerful today, much more than the Founders intended.

But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

He also hasn't gotten us into any new wars and is in fact drawing down overseas troops.

There are of course things I disapprove of, notably the incredible spending spree that the government has been on, but that is still primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch. Of course he has the veto, but what would people say if he vetoed one of the relief bills, which veto would probably be overridden anyway.

So overall, he is the least non-libertarian President of my lifetime. And when you consider what the Democrats would do if they got their hands on the White House, I'm all in for re-electing him.

A Trump tweet from 3+ years ago seems to signify his desires regarding how he would like the federal government to step into local and state government matters:

Trump pledge to "send in the feds" rankles Chicago cops, criminals and academics
BY JOSH SAUL ON 1/25/17 AT 5:02 PM EST

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-tweet-ra ... ics-548269


Vinny

[vnatale]

How does Trump currently rank?

Vinny

Which presidents brought the best stock market performance?

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/whic ... rformance/

[vnatale]

What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny

Capture.JPG (80.56 KiB) Viewed 4441 times

[sophie]

As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.

I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.

Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.

[Xan]

What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny

This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.

[shekels]

As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.

I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.

Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.

I'm sure some of you remember that in 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made illegals eligible for amnesty.

How did that work out?

[shekels]

What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny

This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.

Joe Biden needs/has Reservations in Hell.

[Libertarian666]

As for the DACA recipients, that is on their parents and those who encouraged them to come here illegally. Giving them amnesty will just make the problem worse.

Here's the problem with anything other than deportation: I would be okay with giving them permanent residency and no path to citizenship, but as soon as the Democrats get in, they will give them all citizenship. The only way to prevent that is to deport them. I'm not happy about that but it is entirely the fault of the Democrats that we are in this position in the first place.

I think this is the salient point -- their "suffering" (not sure a better term) is due to their parents illegal acts.

Completely agree. and I also see the point about giving them (would-be illegal immigrants, Democrats) an inch and knowing they will take a mile. The sticking point to me is that you are effectively holding the children responsible for their parents' illegal acts, which is contrary to what most of us consider fair. In some societies, the sins of the parents affect subsequent generations, but that's never been true in the U.S.

How about this for an idea? Allow the children to remain BUT on condition that the parents are deported, which is the appropriate response to their crime (and it IS a crime). Many children, I expect, would choose to go back with their parents, which is fine. The parents could then apply for legal re-entry, getting on line and proving they are not a public charge just like anyone else.

And, how about the following simple solution for minor children: the parents are subject to deportation and will have to take the kids with them. End of story. So DACA should only apply to age 18+.

This is incorrect. No one is being held responsible for anyone else's illegal acts.

Let's do a thought experiment.
Suppose Person A kidnaps Person B from Country C and brings him into Country D illegally.
Does Person B have a right to remain in country D? No.
Would sending him back to Country C be a punishment? No. It would be a recognition of the fact that he doesn't have a right to remain in Country D.

In the present case, Person B is a DACA recipient, Person A is the parent, Country C is their country of origin, and Country D is the US.

DACA recipients are not US citizens, nor are they permanent residents.
Thus, they have no right to remain in the US.
Deporting them back to their country of citizenship is not punishment for anyone's illegal acts; it is a recognition that they don't have any right to remain here.

[glennds]

I am extremely suspicious of executive power and I'm certain that the Presidency is far too powerful today, much more than the Founders intended.

But the only President in my lifetime who has not tried to expand his own powers but has instead told Congress and state/city executives to do their jobs is... Donald Trump.

This includes but is not limited to DACA, handling the riots, and pandemic response, none of which is the job of the executive branch of the federal government. The only time Trump has stepped in to the riots is to protect federal property, which IS his job. Otherwise, it's up to the states and cities to police their own territory, asking for help if they need it. And when they have asked for help, he has provided it, whether for policing or for medical supplies and services.

He also hasn't gotten us into any new wars and is in fact drawing down overseas troops.

There are of course things I disapprove of, notably the incredible spending spree that the government has been on, but that is still primarily the responsibility of Congress, not the executive branch. Of course he has the veto, but what would people say if he vetoed one of the relief bills, which veto would probably be overridden anyway.

So overall, he is the least non-libertarian President of my lifetime. And when you consider what the Democrats would do if they got their hands on the White House, I'm all in for re-electing him.

Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike. Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors. This is helpful because it brings attention to the issue i.e. the risks of absolute or near absolute power accumulated in one person and one branch of government. This is why I urge similarly minded people to reach out to their members of Congress and raise the issue. If enough people do so, that's how issues get addressed in a democracy, and hopefully we can right-size the Presidency for our collective benefit whomever might be in the office, Republican, Democrat or other.

I've had people tell me that a preponderance of power in the Presidency is a good thing because it allows the President to break Congressional gridlock. I say Congressional gridlock is a legitimate problem, but imbalanced power in another branch is the wrong solution, or at least trades one problem for another. Again, this is not a Trump issue, but an Office issue. Trump has done us all a big favor by casting light on it, but of course the media has given him no credit for it.

[glennds]

The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.

The latter part of your statement is not accurate. Immigration laws vary from country to country quite dramatically. This is not to say the US laws are good, bad or anything else. But acquainting oneself with how other countries handle immigration is a good exercise if you care about the issue. It's a complicated issue that balances legal issues against human rights issues against political ideologies. There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal residency. In many countries illegal entry is not a crime at all. Many countries make exception for asylum seekers, but many do not.

A few resources:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nts/#close

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ ... ooklet.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php

[sophie]

DACA recipients are not US citizens, nor are they permanent residents.
Thus, they have no right to remain in the US.
Deporting them back to their country of citizenship is not punishment for anyone's illegal acts; it is a recognition that they don't have any right to remain here.

I think the difference in your example is that the kidnapped person is returned relatively quickly to resume their normal life in Country C, and never has an opportunity to build a life in Country D.

In the case of the DACA recipients, many of them have lived here for most of their lives and often aren't even aware of their legal status until they start wanting to do things like apply for jobs. You're right that technically it's the same situation, but at the same time...it's not.

I think this is just one of the many unfortunate results of the longtime official policy of ignoring (and hence condoning) illegal immigration. That's why, at the same time that I am arguing for DACA, I also firmly believe we need a merit-based immigration system, better security on the southern border, tighter rules for asylum applicants (i.e. "fleeing poverty" or a condition that is the responsibility of the originating country's government are both ridiculous and should be immediately disallowed), zero tolerance for illegal immigration, and mandatory E-verify for all employers of any size, public or private. And as a bonus, we need to get rid of the birthright citizenship deal.

In other words, deal with the source of the problem but we have to recognize that the consequences of failed policies need to be cleaned up.

[vnatale]

What I put on Facebook earlier this morning.

Vinny

This site:
https://neiliabiden.com/
paints a pretty clear picture of a heroic truck driver who did all he could to avoid/mitigate the accident, rushed to the scene and may have saved the two boys' lives, and then had his reputation tarnished by Biden claiming HE had been drunk when it appears in fact it may have been Mrs Biden who was drunk, with the toxicology report covered up.

Just ONE of the many reasons why I consider Biden to have low to NO integrity.

Vinny

[glennds]

Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike.

Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors.

Your previous two sentences are mutually contradictory. Is the comparison relevant or irrelevant?

Assuming that it is relevant, please cite examples of his brazenness, and compare them to the following (incomplete) list of what Obama did:
1. Made treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate (see FATCA enforcement actions directed against foreign governments).
2. Unilaterally declared DACA without any authority to do so.
3. Weaponized the intelligence community and other government agencies against the incoming administration.
4. Used the IRS to attack conservative non-profit organizations.



I agree that the Presidency is too powerful and should be reined in. Of course the media hasn't given him credit for it, as they never give him credit for anything.

What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began. The pattern seems to be after every disaster, war or major calamity, additional powers were accrued, and permanently. Meaning we've only added to the power of the office, never deleted.

So if you feel Trump is good and Obama was bad, that's your prerogative. What I am saying is the preference is irrelevant because both have or had too much power.

Trump's helpful brazenness in my view is his blatancy about broadcasting his power. For example on April 13,2020 he declared "When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."
On March 12, 2020, Trump said "I have the right to do a lot of things people don't know about".

You can use words other than brazenness. Maybe forthcoming, honest, boasting, grandstanding, baleful? Pick your word. But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future. Other presidents that were more verbally circumspect about their power would not have even triggered the question (at least for me). Nixon might have been one exception because he talked quite brazenly about both his extensive authority and immunity (see the May 1977 Nixon Frost interviews i.e. that things that would otherwise be illegal are legal if the President does them).

Again, to be clear, none of this commentary is about a particular President. It's about the Office itself.

[stuper1]

The fault is with the parents not the USA's immigration laws, which are similar to those of any other country.

The latter part of your statement is not accurate. Immigration laws vary from country to country quite dramatically. This is not to say the US laws are good, bad or anything else. But acquainting oneself with how other countries handle immigration is a good exercise if you care about the issue. It's a complicated issue that balances legal issues against human rights issues against political ideologies. There's a difference between illegal entry and illegal residency. In many countries illegal entry is not a crime at all. Many countries make exception for asylum seekers, but many do not.

A few resources:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nts/#close

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ ... ooklet.pdf

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php

Admittedly I don't know much about immigration laws either of the USA or any other country. I briefly looked at one of the links you posted. Basically, it said that some countries don't call it a crime if you enter illegally -- they just deport you without calling you a criminal. Other countries call you a criminal and then deport you. Either way you get deported. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the DACA situation where we're discussing amnesty for DACA people rather than deporting them.

Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.

[sophie]

Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.

Simple answer: NO. And it absolutely astounds me that the U.S. somehow is viewed by the world as the only country without the right to determine who it will accept as immigrants. Somehow, merit-based immigration here is "racist" - but it's the way it's done virtually everywhere else.

[glennds]

Admittedly I don't know much about immigration laws either of the USA or any other country. I briefly looked at one of the links you posted. Basically, it said that some countries don't call it a crime if you enter illegally -- they just deport you without calling you a criminal. Other countries call you a criminal and then deport you. Either way you get deported. I'm not really sure what that has to do with the DACA situation where we're discussing amnesty for DACA people rather than deporting them.

Serious question: is there any relatively prosperous country where I can sneak in with my family, live for a while maybe working under the table, and later when the authorities discover us, we can expect that they will make a way for us to become citizens rather than asking us to leave? It sounds too good to be true, but I'm willing to be surprised. Everything I've ever read about trying to move to another country and live permanently makes it sound like it's not especially easy to do.

I can't think of an example country that would let you do that, especially working under the table.
There are some countries that want immigration for economic stimulation, but they are far fewer than they used to be. And even then, they are seeking model immigrants, not the types that are typically at issue in DACA. Germany has tried to maintain a humanitarian stance regarding admitting refugees and migrants that are asylum seekers, especially from war torn places like Syria and parts of Eastern Europe.

You're right, emigrating to other countries is not especially easy. A lawyer friend of mine looked into emigrating abroad and came to the opinion that American citizens are not particularly desirable, at least after 2016. This was the case in New Zealand, Australia and Japan. Poor guy ended up back in the US, back to a law firm and back to the grind, dreams on hold.

[sophie]

What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began.

Actually the event/person you're looking for is John Yoo, a legal advisor to George Dubya. He worked tirelessly to expand Presidential power, starting with his famous memos justifying waterboarding of Iraqi and Guantanamo prisoners. When Obama came into office, I thought he would reverse that change and act to limit Presidential power - which he actually said he would do during his campaign. However he did exactly the opposite.

Tech's list of Obama's use of presidential power is only a start. I'd add the NSA surveillance program that Snowden acted to reveal and the drone strikes in several places without Congressional authorization. And lest I forget, the illegal surveillance on the Trump campaign.

Trump has simply continued what is now a long-standing precedent, because it suits his purpose. I would point out that he's mainly used it not to wage undeclared wars or set up domestic spying, but to accomplish a detailed deregulation program that likely contributed in no small part to the healthy pre-COVID economy, implement some of his immigration plans (which he intends to help this country, although some might disagree) and patch holes that Congress has left due to its dysfunction & inability to act.

Of course you also have to take care to translate Trump's "brazen use of power" appropriately. Here's how you should read it: "We the mainstream media disapprove of Trump's latest executive order, maybe because we don't like it but mostly because we don't like Trump." And like Libertarian666, I also find it interesting that virtually any of his actions are interpreted as "authoritarian" while his lack of action is interpreted as "he is failing to do X" where X is an action for which he would be condemned as an authoritarian dictator if he did it. So I just kind of ignore that whole scene. It's much easier than tying yourself up in knots trying to understand it.

[glennds]

Since you agree that the Presidency is too powerful, more so than the Founders intended, and thus represents a risk, whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant.
It's not as though excessive power is acceptable in the hands of a President you like but not so in the hands of a President you dislike.

Similarly, what other Presidents have done or not done in the past is irrelevant also, what matters now is the present and the future risks to citizens.

Trump is unique, and helpful, in one respect and that is his willingness to brandish his Presidential executive authority more brazenly than his predecessors.

Your previous two sentences are mutually contradictory. Is the comparison relevant or irrelevant?

Assuming that it is relevant, please cite examples of his brazenness, and compare them to the following (incomplete) list of what Obama did:
1. Made treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate (see FATCA enforcement actions directed against foreign governments).
2. Unilaterally declared DACA without any authority to do so.
3. Weaponized the intelligence community and other government agencies against the incoming administration.
4. Used the IRS to attack conservative non-profit organizations.



I agree that the Presidency is too powerful and should be reined in. Of course the media hasn't given him credit for it, as they never give him credit for anything.

What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began. The pattern seems to be after every disaster, war or major calamity, additional powers were accrued, and permanently. Meaning we've only added to the power of the office, never deleted.

So if you feel Trump is good and Obama was bad, that's your prerogative. What I am saying is the preference is irrelevant because both have or had too much power.

Trump's helpful brazenness in my view is his blatancy about broadcasting his power. For example on April 13,2020 he declared "When somebody is President of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be. It's total."
On March 12, 2020, Trump said "I have the right to do a lot of things people don't know about".

You can use words other than brazenness. Maybe forthcoming, honest, boasting, grandstanding, baleful? Pick your word. But my point is that he's been more vocal about presidential power than his predecessors, and what is helpful about it is that it causes inquisitive people like me to start thinking about the limits of presidential power, what was intended in the formation of the Government, and what the pros and cons might be in the future. Other presidents that were more verbally circumspect about their power would not have even triggered the question (at least for me). Nixon might have been one exception because he talked quite brazenly about both his extensive authority and immunity (see the May 1977 Nixon Frost interviews i.e. that things that would otherwise be illegal are legal if the President does them).

Again, to be clear, none of this commentary is about a particular President. It's about the Office itself.

So you refuse to answer whether the comparison with previous Presidents is relevant or irrelevant? You claimed both in successive sentences. Which is it?
Why is that difficult to answer?

Not difficult to answer. It's not relevant.
I only pointed Trump out because he has helped recently flag the issue as a topic (for me) by talking about it. Perhaps I can add Ted Koppel because his recent news story did the same. But for my purposes it is irrelevant to compare previous Presidents because they were all holders of the same office. It is the office that I am commenting on.
Comparing the Presidents themselves is not relevant to my post.

I think the power of the Executive Branch of the US government has expanded beyond what was contemplated originally and ought to be reined in for the future.

Did I answer your question?

[glennds]

What I'm trying to say is whether you like or dislike a President is irrelevant. Trump has too much power. So did Obama. So did Bush and so did every President going back to Eisenhower at least. Maybe earlier because it is not totally clear to me exactly when the progression of expanded powers for the Office of the President first began.

Of course you also have to take care to translate Trump's "brazen use of power" appropriately.

I think I see what I need to clarify. When I say Trump was brazen, I just mean with his mouth.
I am not commenting on his use of power either more or less than any other presidents.

Please do not feel moved to defend Trump based on my comments in this thread. I am not criticizing him, but I am criticizing the office he holds, and I am doing so more for the future than as a commentary on past holders of that office.

I hope this clarifies.

[sophie]

OK glennds. You did weave those two topics rather seamlessly in your posts, so your clarification is appreciated.

FWIW - I'll defend anyone who I think is wrongly accused. I think Trump is being wrongly accused of quite a lot, excepting his brazen mouth & tweets. You won't get much argument there. However, his words & tweets, like that of any other President, do not carry the force of law and thus will not have lasting impact.