Posted on 09/27/2023 2:55:25 PM PDT by Reno89519
Debate Time!
9:00 p.m. Eastern.
Participating
No Show
Hosts
Co-costed by FOX hosts Dana Perino and Stuart Varney as well as UNIVISION's Ilia Calderón
Where to Watch or Listen
Yep, all about them, not a word about who they represent.
The constitutional issue is using the Act to appoint Cabinet positions, not lower-level department positions. This has not been tested in the courts. One "acting" appointment was overturned by a District Court Judge (Obama-appointed) when President Trump appointed Ken Cucinelli to a newly-created position, ruling that the position, being new, never had a subordinate in place who could be upgraded to "acting."
-PJ
Vattel was SWISS and continental Europe had a different approach to citizenship than Britain. Either way, he specifically was addressing “natives” and “indigenes”. He didn’t use NBC and no one was quoting him on NBC - UNTIL the bad translation came out after the US Constitution.
I'm sorry. I made three points in my original post and you didn't specify which point you were inquiring about.
I'd have to look at each of President Trump's executive orders to see if the intent was to sidestep Congress or to undo Obama-era executive orders or to institute executive branch policies within the framework of existing law or something else.
Here is a Wikipedia list of Trump's executive orders.
I'll do a quick scan of the whole list to see if there are any abuses of power in the executive orders. Here are the first three EO's from President Trump that implemented his campaign promises:
Obamacare was specifically written to vaguely allow Cabinet Secretaries to act at their own discretion to interpret terms of the law. This EO directs Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services on how to interpret the Act in Trump's administration.Revoked by Joe Biden to direct interpretation of Obamacare during COVID-19 pandemic.
Streamlines environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure projects, especially projects that are a high priority for the Nation, such as improving the U.S. electric grid and telecommunications systems and repairing and upgrading critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges, and highways.Revoked by Joe Biden to review infrastructure process for climate change impacts.
The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation’s southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely.In accordance with existing law, including the Secure Fence Act and IIRIRA, take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border, using appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control of the southern border;
Return to Territory. The Secretary shall take appropriate action, consistent with the requirements of section 1232 of title 8, United States Code, to ensure that aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)) are returned to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding... Revoked by Joe Biden to pause work on each construction project on the southern border wall and plan for Redirecting Funding and Repurposing Contracts.
-PJ
The expectation is that everything changes in the General Election debates when there are only two candidates involved and are from opposition parties. Those debates become much more controlled and much less raucous.
Have you seen any of the Presidential debates from the 1960s to 1980s? In those days, the network anchor moderated while the leading journalists from the newspapers, weekly news magazines, and even competing networks asked the questions. It wasn't until the rise of cable news that the nature of the debates changed due to the rise of "celebrity" anchors from the cable networks becoming the moderators and questioners.
For your consideration, I would refer you to my series of posts analyzing the three debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Look at who moderated, who were the questioners, and how they showed their biases back then in the three-network era on televisions with only 13 channels.
A Review of Presidential Debate Questions - Nixon v Kennedy
-PJ
By that measure, I think that Nikki Haley won.
-PJ
Christie is still looking for his.
-PJ
What would be different if DJT was re-elected in 2024?
If you look at the EO list that I linked to for Trump's 2017 EOs, they were almost all about implementing laws within the executive departments. He wasn't "making law" with his EOs, which is why I'm a bit confused when you say "This would have largely avoided ruling by fiat EO." I'd need you to show me an EO that Trump "ruled with" that was rightly in the domain of Congress that supports the missed opportunity to "build consensus and pass conservative legislation." I think that both can be done in parallel: EO's are about implementing existing law within the executive departments and working with Congress is about passing new laws.
To my latter point, there is the question of whether new laws are necessary if/or existing laws are already on the books that can be enforced?
The 115th Congress (2017-2019) gave Republicans a 52-48 majority in the Senate, which is not enough for cloture without Democrat support.
In the week before Donald Trump took office, the Senate began the process of repealing Obamacare via the budget reconciliation process with a 51-48 vote to proceed (Rand Paul joined with the Democrats in opposition).
In February 2017, VP Pence had to break a tie on a confirmation vote to appoint Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Joining the Democrats in opposition were Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). This was a foreshadowing of the nature of the Senate that Trump would be facing.
In April 2017, Senate Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" to remove filibustering of Supreme Court nominees in order to confirm Neil Gorsuch. This move hardened Democrats against President Trump.
In June 2017, Steve Scalise was shot.
In September, the Senate Parliamentarian gave the Senate until the end of the month to pass Obamacare repeal via reconciliation. This would be infuriating to Democrats and making them unwilling to participate in furthering Trump's agenda.
In October, the "Me Too" movement began and resulted in the resignation of Al Franken (D-MN) in the Senate and Tim Murphy (R-PA) in the House. Trump was acccused of raping or molesting 19 women and Sens. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) both called on Trump to resign. Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) joined them a few days later.
It was in this hostile Congress that Trump was able to pass his 2017 tax cuts that lowered the corporate tax rate, doubled the standard deduction, reduced the limit on State and Local Income deductions to $10,000, and repealed the tax fine for violated the Obamacare mandate.
However, the Obamacare repeal via reconciliation was blocked in the Senate by Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain who all joined the Democrats to defeat the bill by a 49-51 vote. McCain gave his famous "thumbs up" after voting NAY on the bill.
I would have loved to see President Trump have a supportive Congress at his back, but I believe that personal politics in the Senate got in the way and Trump was lucky to get through what he did (one Supreme Court Justice and major tax cuts).
2018 brought us the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation that began in July 2018 and dragged out through October 6 2018 when Kavanaugh was confirmed by a vote of 50-48, with Republican Steve Daines absent for his daughter's wedding, Lisa Murkowski agreeing to vote "present" to cover Daines' absence, and Joe Manchin (D-WV) voting with Republicans to confirm.
I seriously don't know what President Trump could have done differently to work with this Congress after the confirmations of DeVos, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and the passing of his tax cuts, all while Democrats were smelling blood as the Russia Hoax was building steam (with John McCain working with the Democrats to take down Trump).
-PJ
Your very detailed reply is much appreciated. Many thanks for your time and efforts. You surely have earned your screen name.
Biden is your president, no matter whether he cheated or not. I’m not American, so I can handle the truth, not just stick my fingers in my ears and play pretend.
Did you see this Hotair piece today on last evening’s odious bucket of steaming MSM diarrhea?
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/09/28/the-biggest-loser-of-last-nights-debate-was-n581045
Accurate, in my view.
Make me. Use your big American muscles to force me off. Then go have a threesome with Putin and your god-king.
From the 8/6/15 live thread of the first Republican primary debate on Fox News (the infamous Chris Wallace, Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier debate):
From the next day 8/7/15:
Trump could have upped his game and really handled those without getting testy...this was not the time nor place to do soThat was my position going with the debate, but in my wildest imagination I never expected Fox to stage this debate as a series of 30 second cage fights between the candidates.
Nobody was given an opportunity to plainly state their positions and then let the other candidates question those positions. The Fox moderators twisted other candidates' statements and then asked the candidate to state what was wrong with it. Not even what they might have agreed with.
It was set up to make EVERYONE look bad.
From another post later that day, 8/7/15:
That wasn't vetting; that was a series of 30 second cage matches between the candidates.The moderators could have let the candidates present their own policy positions and then let the other candidates challenge it.
Instead, the moderators asked skewed interpretations of one's position and then asked the others what's wrong with it. Not even, do you agree with that? One time it was "Was he lying?"
It was their job to manage the forum, but it was the job of the candidates themselves to vet each other.
The Fox moderators inserted themselves into the debate and ended up just getting in the way.
And finally, my "big post" from 8/12/15:
Disagree. Fox could have let the candidates present their own policy positions and then let the other candidates challenge it.Instead, the moderators asked skewed interpretations of one's position and then asked the others what's wrong with it. Not even, do you agree with that? One time it was "Was he lying?"
The moderators were setting up a series of 30 second cage matches between the candidates.
And a post script, a post of mine from 8/9/15:
This is what the Fox moderators stole from the candidates and the viewers on Thursday night. They usurped the role of rebuttal and made the candidates individually argue their positions with themselves instead of the other candidates. And then knowing this was going to be the format, they staged meaningless personal questions that had no viable rebuttal opportunities from the other candidates.What candidate is going to interject in the middle of a crude mysogeny question? What candidate is going to rebut an "any word from God" question? What candidate is going to jump into Megyn Kelly's question to Jeb Bush that "your brother's war was a mistake" or the Bush dynasty question?
There were a half-dozen questions where one candidate was asked to attack another candidate.
With questions like that, how can we truly see the positions of each candidate? When the questions are lowball and undeserving of the stature of Governors, Senators, and business leaders, then why should we take seriously the fallout from such a farce.
- Wallace to Rubio: Could you please address Governor Bush across the stage here, and explain to him why you, someone who has never held executive office, are better prepared to be president than he is...
- Wallace to Cruz: Senator Cruz, your colleague, Senator Paul, right there next to you, said a few months ago he agrees with you on a number of issues, but he says you do nothing to grow the party...
- Wallace to Trump: Governor Bush has called those remarks, quote, "extraordinarily ugly." I'd like you -- you're right next to him -- tell us -- talk to him directly and say how you respond to that...
- Kelly to Christie: Do you really believe you can assign blame to Senator Paul just for opposing he bulk collection of people's phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?
- Baier to Rubio: Senator Rubio, why is Governor Bush wrong on Common Core?
- Wallace to Christie: Governor Huckabee says he can save Social Security and Medicare without doing any of that. Is he lying?
- Kelly to Bush: Governor Bush, I want to ask you, on the subject of name calling of your fellow candidates, a story appeared today quoting an anonymous GOP donor who said you called Mr. Trump a clown, a buffoon...
Further down...The candidates are as responsible as the moderators for a debate becoming a cage match.
Did you catch this exchange between Brett Baier and Ted Cruz? The subject was financial aid to Israel, and was directed to Rand Paul.
BAIER: Senator Paul, the first budget your proposed as senator cut all financial aid to Israel. You have since changed your view on that issue. What made you change your mind.PAUL: Well, let's be clear, Im the only one on the stage who actually has a five-year budget that balances. I've put pencil to paper...
[snip]
BAIER: Governor Christie, what do you think of that answer?
[snip]
CRUZ: Brett, can I -- Brett, can I jump in on this one?
BAIER: Senator, we're going to finish up with some more questions, thank you.
KELLY: We have to stand you by, because after the break, we're going to let the candidates make their closing statements, their final thoughts, and God.
Stay tuned for that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Overall, Cruz got the 4th highest speaking time at 6:39. The moderators spoke for 31:53. Cruz wanted to be a part of this discussion, but the moderators wouldn't let him, having already wasted valuable time on trivialities. Cruz has been one of the strongest supporters of Israel in Congress, but he was frozen out of the discussion at the debate.
So I've been all over the shoddy moderation by Fox News of Republican primary debates for six years now. I'm glad to see others in the media finally calling the out for it, too.
To the debate moderators:It is the job of the candidates to vet each other. It is the job of the moderators to provide a neutral forum for them to do so.
If you want to engage the candidates during the debates, then get on the stage and run for President yourselves.
Otherwise, just facilitate the discussion between the candidates and stay out of the conversation. You haven't earned the right to participate in the discussion, especially from the safety of behind the desk.
-PJ
BTW, thank YOU for the hurricane threads. My mother lives in Delray Beach, FL, and I really appreciate those threads even though I don't usually participate in them.
-PJ
Thank you Mr Trudeau! BACK TO DU!
Here we go again, same as it ever was.
Thank you Mr Trudeau!
Let’s hope the NEXT debate includes only the top 3 (or 2) candidates… no more of this nonsense with the likes of Pence, Christie, Burgham and Scott.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.