One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been pushing the envelop of executive power in the USsystem.WE're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining position.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he
fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments". These
do not need to have senate approval.
This would have really been pushing the envelop of executive power in
the US system.
We're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess
appointment threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining position.
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments". These do not need to havesenate approval.This would have really been pushing the envelop of executive power in the US system.WE're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric is
-=-=-=-=-=-
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of the scariestthings, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess
appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been pushing the envelop of
executive power in the US system.WE're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment
threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining
position.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing
that does not go away when you stop believing in >it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > > > It's only scary
because you think it should be scary.> > Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.Seriously, a better
description would be that it would be worrisome. In the short term it would be beneficial, by-passing the
obvious attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get his team in there and formulating
policies by which the voters could determine if he's any good.But it's also destabilizing because it would show
that Trump was willing to bend the system, and perhaps even break it. In truth, 06 Jan 2021 was such an
instance where the system held stable.Introduction of instability is a step toward anarchy, and that works
against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit from it.I've got skin in the game, skript,
and it makes me see things differently from someone who does not.-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I done created myself a monster."
--Juan Carlos Ferrero~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bending the system is something which always happen.
E.g. tennis players using new substances that are on not on banned list. It's bending the rules isn't it?
Bush invading Iraq without declaration of war thus bypassing Congress is what exactly?
Bush captirjng and enslaving foreign citizens in their own countries and taking them to US military bases around
the world denying them status of POW and thus denying them any rights is what exactly?
Bending the system is also the view of "living constitution", no?
In short, it's happening all the time.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
-=-=-=-=-=-
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he
fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments".
These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been
pushing the envelop of executive power in the US system.WE're now
into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment
threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric
is establishing an initial bargaining position.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's only scary because you think it should be scary.
Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.
Seriously, a better description would be that it would be worrisome. In
the short term it would be beneficial, by-passing the obvious attempts
at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get his team in
there and formulating policies by which the voters could determine if
he's any good.
But it's also destabilizing because it would show that Trump was willing
to bend the system, and perhaps even break it. In truth, 06 Jan 2021
was such an instance where the system held stable.
Introduction of instability is a step toward anarchy, and that works
against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit
from it.
I've got skin in the game, skript, and it makes me see things
differently from someone who does not.
In article <vm8in0$rb4$1@sunce.iskon.hr>,*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:>-=-=-=-=-=->>Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of thescariest>things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess>appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been pushing the envelop of>executive power in the US system.WE're
On 1/15/25 8:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> bmoore@nyx.net (bmoore) Wrote in message:r>> In article <vm8in0$rb4$1@sunce.iskon.hr>,*skriptis <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:>-=-=-=-=-=->>Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of the scariest>things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess>appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This
attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get his team in there and formulating>policies by which the voters could determine if he's any good.But it's also destabilizing because it would show>that Trump was willing to bend the system,It's only scary>because you think it should be scary.> > Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.Seriously, a better>description would be that it would be worrisome. In the short term it would be beneficial, by-passing the>obvious
On 1/15/25 7:02 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rsaid that he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump
pushing the envelop of executive power in the US system.WE're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment threats yet. I'm
beginning to see that a portion of Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining position.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in
it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > > > It's only scary because you think it should be
scary.> > Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.Seriously, a better description would be that it would be worrisome. In the short term it
would be beneficial, by-passing the obvious attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get his team in there and formulating
policies by which the voters could determine if he's any good.But it's also destabilizing because it would show that Trump was willing to bend the
system, and perhaps even break it. In truth, 06 Jan 2021 was such an instance where the system held stable.Introduction of instability is a step
toward anarchy, and that works against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit from it.I've got skin in the game, skript, and
it makes me see things differently from someone who does not.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I done
created myself a monster." --Juan Carlos Ferrero~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bending the system is something which always happen.
E.g. tennis players using new substances that are on not on banned list. It's bending the rules isn't it?
You're departing from my main point, which is: if your position benefits
from the status quo, you do not favor changing the rules.
If, however, there's an in-place mechanism in the system for >adding/deleting/modifying the existing rules, this is next best *because
you have some chance at preparation to accommodate the changes.
But if changes happen ad hoc, outside the system, for people like me
it's very threatening. You quit investing, start hoarding, and maybe
moving assets abroad. No one likes this, skript.
And there is a giant shitload of people like me currently in the US.
Bush invading Iraq without declaration of war thus bypassing Congress is what exactly?
There's strong established precedent for this going back to Vietnam, at >least, so it's not the same as pulling a brand new rabbit out of the hat.
But let's explore your point a bit more.
You seem to be using the Iraq war as an example of a quasi-legal policy
that introduces possible instability of the kind that disturbs people
like me, as described above.
Now you're saying (I think...clear this up, I don't want to strawman
your position) that since there's been one destabilizing policy it
should be OK to have another, right?
*How many* others?
If this is not what you meant, let's clear it up now.
POW and thus denying them any rights is what exactly?
Bush captirjng and enslaving foreign citizens in their own countries and taking them to US military bases around the world denying them status of
It's another instance, but remember: I'm saying from the beginning that
there are two types (at least) of policies that are not strictly within
the system. Those that can reasonably affect interests of US citizens
("skin in the game"), and those that, while not really kosher, don't
have any such effect.
Foreign citizens being abused in secret in remote locations by the US >intelligence service is not good, ideally, but does not affect me, and
people like me, in any realistic sense.
By this I mean that if these policies introduce a risk to me, in my
judgement that risk is so remote that I'm willing to bet, heavily, that
I'll be OK. And you should know by now that I'm not a betting man. :^)
Bending the system is also the view of "living constitution", no?
That's the excuse that resentful malcontents use here, yes.
In short, it's happening all the time.
There are immigrant grooming gangs that anal rape boys and girls all the >time, or so I've been told, so this, too, would be OK?
-=-=-=-=-=-Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1]
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
On 1/15/25 8:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> bmoore@nyx.net (bmoore) Wrote in message:r>> In article <vm8in0$rb4$1@sunce.iskon.hr>,*skriptis<skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote:>-=-=-=-=-=->>Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:> Sawfish
<sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> One of the scariest>things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that he fully intended to appoint his
nominees as "recess>appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really been pushing the envelop of>executive power in
the US system.WE're now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess appointment>threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of
Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining>position.-- >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing>that does not go away when you stop believing
it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> > > > It's only scary>because you think it should bescary.> > Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.Seriously, a better>description would be that it would be worrisome. In the short term it
would be beneficial, by-passing the>obvious attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get his team in there and
formulating>policies by which the voters could determine if he's any good.But it's also destabilizing because it would show>that Trump was willing
to bend the system, and perhaps even break it. In truth, 06 Jan 2021 was such an>instance where the system held stable.Introduction of instability
is a step toward anarchy, and that works>against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit from it.I've got skin in the game,
skript,>and it makes me see things differently from someone who does >not.-->~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I done created myself a monster." >--Juan Carlos
Ferrero~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>>>Bending the system is something which always happen.>>E.g.
tennis players using new substances that are on not on banned list. It's bending the rules isn't it?>>Bush invading Iraq without declaration of war
thus bypassing Congress is what >exactly?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#:~:text=United%20States%20House%20of%20Representatives,-Party&text=81%20(39.2%25)%20of%20208,Paul%20(R%2DTX).The Authorization for Use of
informally known as the IraqResolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No.
107-243,authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be knownas Operation Iraqi
Freedom.[2]>Bush captirjng and enslaving foreign citizens in their own countries and taking them to US military bases around>the world denying them
status of POW and thus denying them any rights is what exactly?>>Bending the system is also the view of "living constitution", no?>>In short, it's
happening all the time.>>>>>>>-- >>>>>----Android NewsGroup Reader---->https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html>-=-=-=-=-=-> >
See, bending.> > "Use of force".Don't do this dance, skript.
Care to explain?
I will admit, I mixed Iraq and Bush with the overthrow of Libyan government and execution of Gaddafi done Obama and Hillary. Tha was the instance of
waging a war purely from presidential office which is supposed to be illegal per your rules.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/24/barack-obama-libya-us-house-of-representatives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html
However bmoore did not win this argument even once he reminded us Congress approved "using force against Iraq".
So while it may have not violated US rules, in broader sense it was still illegal, violating international order.
UN had to approve it to in order to be legal.
So it's not dog shit, it's horse shit. Big difference.
So that too, was this bending you talk about.
If anything, bending is what constantly happens. That's a true constant.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader---- >https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
-=-=-=-=-=-
On 1/15/25 7:46 AM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 15.1.2025 klo 16.26:
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that
he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess appointments".
These do not need to have senate approval.This would have really
been pushing the envelop of executive power in the US system.WE're
now into the senate review of appointments, and no recess
appointment threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a portion of
Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining position.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's only scary because you think it should be scary.
Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.
Seriously, a better description would be that it would be worrisome.
In the short term it would be beneficial, by-passing the obvious
attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get
his team in there and formulating policies by which the voters could
determine if he's any good.
But it's also destabilizing because it would show that Trump was
willing to bend the system, and perhaps even break it. In truth, 06
Jan 2021 was such an instance where the system held stable.
Introduction of instability is a step toward anarchy, and that works
against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit
from it.
I've got skin in the game, skript, and it makes me see things
differently from someone who does not.
Btw, are you referring to current senate hearings... for example Pam
Bondi being NOW questioned for attorney general...
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/live/GWvhzn9Xzq8?si=P3_tWjzLqZhuk5up
Goddamn, this woman is corrupt as hell...
I'll reserve judgement until I look at her situation myself, if I ever do.
Sawfish kirjoitti 15.1.2025 klo 19.25:
On 1/15/25 7:46 AM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 15.1.2025 klo 16.26:
On 1/15/25 6:05 AM, *skriptis wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
One of the scariest things, to a US citizen, that Trump said that
he fully intended to appoint his nominees as "recess
appointments". These do not need to have senate approval.This
would have really been pushing the envelop of executive power in
the US system.WE're now into the senate review of appointments,
and no recess appointment threats yet. I'm beginning to see that a >>>>>> portion of Trump's rhetoric is establishing an initial bargaining
position.--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."--Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's only scary because you think it should be scary.
Yes, but I was using hyperbolic rhetoric, myself.
Seriously, a better description would be that it would be worrisome.
In the short term it would be beneficial, by-passing the obvious
attempts at political posturing by members of the senate. He'd get
his team in there and formulating policies by which the voters could
determine if he's any good.
But it's also destabilizing because it would show that Trump was
willing to bend the system, and perhaps even break it. In truth,
06 Jan 2021 was such an instance where the system held stable.
Introduction of instability is a step toward anarchy, and that works
against people like me, who are entwined into the system and benefit
from it.
I've got skin in the game, skript, and it makes me see things
differently from someone who does not.
Btw, are you referring to current senate hearings... for example Pam
Bondi being NOW questioned for attorney general...
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/live/GWvhzn9Xzq8?si=P3_tWjzLqZhuk5up
Goddamn, this woman is corrupt as hell...
I'll reserve judgement until I look at her situation myself, if I ever
do.
She decided not to press charges against Trump university after
receiving campaign donation from Trump.
Seemed to have lots of trouble answering direct questions at the
hearing. Referred to voter fraud. Looks like she will be another Bill
Barr, perhaps lacking even that small spine Barr had in the end.
Quite a looker though.
Apparently Kash Patel to FBI will be another problem. Seems like manning
the law system with loyalists.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 443 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 102:37:18 |
| Calls: | 9,205 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,480 |
| Messages: | 6,053,582 |