This is what dictators do…

[DrTigerGoob]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

A lot of things have happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

There has a lot of things happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

THE PRESIDENT RUNS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

 

[TigerGrowls]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

There has a lot of things happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

POTUS is putting things back into the correct state. Reclaiming the power of the executive branch where it was originally stated by the constitution.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

POTUS is putting things back into the correct state. Reclaiming the power of the executive branch where it was originally stated by the constitution.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the Executive branch interpreting laws for themselves. Article III says that is the responsibility of the Judicial.

So, that statement doesn’t work.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

THE PRESIDENT RUNS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

He can run it. He can’t interpret the laws for himself and decide which ones he will follow and which ones he won’t.

 

[TheValley91]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

There has a lot of things happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

It’s a massive power grab and is really concerning.


No matter the party, this should be unacceptable for anyone that cares about our country.

We are going to see how much the Supreme Court really stands by their role or bend to the president.

Highly concerning times.

 

[TigerGrowls]

If potus over extends then scotus will stop it. You leftwards were more than happy when your lib heros like China Joe took every rule and broke it.

Business as usual will not get it done. Everyone should be happy that Trump is attempting to stop this freight train running downhill out of control which no one ever has before. 36T and incrementing up exponentially fast.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

If potus over extends then scotus will stop it. You leftwards were more than happy when your lib heros like China Joe took every rule and broke it.

Business as usual will not get it done. Everyone should be happy that Trump is attempting to stop this freight train running downhill out of control which no one ever has before. 36T and incrementing up exponentially fast.

Trump has already said they don’t have to pay attention to judgments. SCOTUS will fall into that category. Now he says he will interpret laws to fit his agenda and priorities.

Let’s extrapolate out four years when he Trump wants a third term. He can interpret the law in a way to allow him to run again. If SCOTUS says no…he will ignore them.

This is what dictators do.

 

[Willence]

Trump has already said they don’t have to pay attention to judgments. SCOTUS will fall into that category. Now he says he will interpret laws to fit his agenda and priorities.

Let’s extrapolate out four years when he Trump wants a third term. He can interpret the law in a way to allow him to run again. If SCOTUS says no…he will ignore them.

This is what dictators do.

Actually he didn't say that about the courts. I listened to him talking about it and he definitely didn't say what you're indicating. You use the word extrapolate and that is what's going on on the left in a lot of us. They are extrapolating things into false territory because they don't feel they can win on the merits I guess. Let's just stay in reality and work there. At least that's my opinion.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Trump has already said they don’t have to pay attention to judgments. SCOTUS will fall into that category. Now he says he will interpret laws to fit his agenda and priorities.

Let’s extrapolate out four years when he Trump wants a third term. He can interpret the law in a way to allow him to run again. If SCOTUS says no…he will ignore them.

This is what dictators do.

Show me where Trump said he will ignore the judiciary. I will say that the majority of the injunctions will be overturned as its just activist judges trying to slow down the Trump Train. You are wildly exaggerating here.

 

[TheValley91]

Actually he didn't say that about the courts. I listened to him talking about it and he definitely didn't say what you're indicating. You use the word extrapolate and that is what's going on on the left in a lot of us. They are extrapolating things into false territory because they don't feel they can win on the merits I guess. Let's just stay in reality and work there. At least that's my opinion.

And what is happening in reality?

 

[CUTiger1977]

 

[dbjork6317]

If potus over extends then scotus will stop it. You leftwards were more than happy when your lib heros like China Joe took every rule and broke it.

Business as usual will not get it done. Everyone should be happy that Trump is attempting to stop this freight train running downhill out of control which no one ever has before. 36T and incrementing up exponentially fast.

Can you cite the “rules” that the Biden admin “broke” with examples of what action was taken that broke them? Thanks.

 

[TequilasForLoss]

Show me where Trump said he will ignore the judiciary.

Actions speak louder than words, and judge’s orders have been ignored already on TROs for EOs, such as funding that was ordered released instead remained frozen. But here you go, Trump’s words and Vance/Miller’s.

“…when U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ordered the Trump administration to prevent Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing payment systems within the U.S. Treasury.
In response, Trump said on Sunday that "no judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision." Vance fleshed out that idea in a post on X, arguing that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance wrote. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal."
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has taken the argument a step farther. In a post on X, Miller said "a lone unelected district judge" cannot "assume decision-making control over the entire executive branch." Later, he wrote that "if a district court judge wants control over the entire executive branch…he should run for president."
Trump, Vance, and Miller have a First Amendment right to disagree with a judge's ruling and to criticize what they see as the implications of that ruling, of course. Those criticisms might even have legal merit. Indeed, under the U.S. Supreme Court's "political question doctrine," the entire judiciary system is generally expected to steer clear of making policy decisions or otherwise infringing on the powers vested in the executive and legislative branches. It's certainly fair to argue that Engelmayer may have violated that doctrine with his ruling on Saturday.
But there is a difference between disagreeing with a judge's ruling and questioning whether the judicial system as a whole has the authority to decide such things. Anyone who believes a judge's ruling is wrong is free to appeal that decision to a higher court. The final decision still rests in the judicial branch.”

Presidents should not ignore court rulings

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, so the story goes, President Andrew Jackson responded by

reason.com

For the Executive Branch

He is not supposed to bypass internal Executive Branch review but has been doing that anyway. Which is probably the biggest reason, or second-biggest behind plain common sense, why 20 or more of his EOs have been subject to TROs and dozens more are subject to lawsuits.

“the Department (of Justice) had “no comment” when asked whether its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had reviewed any of the executive orders issued by the new Administration to date. In the vast majority of cases, the answer to this question should be a straightforward “yes.”
As you are well aware, the Department of Justice’s website states that:
“All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality”

Senate Judiciary Members: Is DOJ Doing Its Job to Review Trump’s Executive Orders? - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Washington, DC – Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to know whether the Justice Department lawyers charged with ensuring that the President is following the law are actually reviewing Donald Trump’s executive actions. On Friday, when asked if its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was...

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Show me where Trump said he will ignore the judiciary. I will say that the majority of the injunctions will be overturned as its just activist judges trying to slow down the Trump Train. You are wildly exaggerating here.

Behind a paywall. But you can see the highlights.

Trump Signals He Might Ignore the Courts

Yesterday, the president said that no judge “should be allowed” to rule against the changes his administration is making.

www.theatlantic.com

"You are wildly exaggerating here." I can't believe someone from the "Trump train" would feel comfortable making that statement...lol.

Most of what you post are wild exaggerations...lol.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

View embedded media

She's obviously distraught. But has no relevance to this discussion.

Try to be more relevant.

 

[CUTiger1977]

 

[DrTigerGoob]

View embedded media

Again, it's irrelevant to this conversation. It was a better try than the last one.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Can you cite the “rules” that the Biden admin “broke” with examples of what action was taken that broke them? Thanks.

Not going to regurgitate for you.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Not going to regurgitate for you.

Then you don't have proof that he broke laws.

Remember my comment about "wildly exaggerated" statements? That was one.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Actions speak louder than words, and judge’s orders have been ignored already on TROs for EOs, such as funding that was ordered released instead remained frozen. But here you go, Trump’s words and Vance/Miller’s.

“…when U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ordered the Trump administration to prevent Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing payment systems within the U.S. Treasury.
In response, Trump said on Sunday that "no judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision." Vance fleshed out that idea in a post on X, arguing that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance wrote. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal."
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has taken the argument a step farther. In a post on X, Miller said "a lone unelected district judge" cannot "assume decision-making control over the entire executive branch." Later, he wrote that "if a district court judge wants control over the entire executive branch…he should run for president."
Trump, Vance, and Miller have a First Amendment right to disagree with a judge's ruling and to criticize what they see as the implications of that ruling, of course. Those criticisms might even have legal merit. Indeed, under the U.S. Supreme Court's "political question doctrine," the entire judiciary system is generally expected to steer clear of making policy decisions or otherwise infringing on the powers vested in the executive and legislative branches. It's certainly fair to argue that Engelmayer may have violated that doctrine with his ruling on Saturday.
But there is a difference between disagreeing with a judge's ruling and questioning whether the judicial system as a whole has the authority to decide such things. Anyone who believes a judge's ruling is wrong is free to appeal that decision to a higher court. The final decision still rests in the judicial branch.”

Presidents should not ignore court rulings

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, so the story goes, President Andrew Jackson responded by

reason.com

He is not supposed to bypass internal Executive Branch review but has been doing that anyway. Which is probably the biggest reason, or second-biggest behind plain common sense, why 20 or more of his EOs have been subject to TROs and dozens more are subject to lawsuits.

“the Department (of Justice) had “no comment” when asked whether its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had reviewed any of the executive orders issued by the new Administration to date. In the vast majority of cases, the answer to this question should be a straightforward “yes.”
As you are well aware, the Department of Justice’s website states that:
“All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality”

Senate Judiciary Members: Is DOJ Doing Its Job to Review Trump’s Executive Orders? - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Washington, DC – Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to know whether the Justice Department lawyers charged with ensuring that the President is following the law are actually reviewing Donald Trump’s executive actions. On Friday, when asked if its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was...

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

What you stated is true but it's not the Trump admin ignoring court rulings. They are observing the process and going through appeals at this point. I personally think the judiciary should have no say over how the Trump admin runs the executive branch. Violates separation of powers.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Actions speak louder than words, and judge’s orders have been ignored already on TROs for EOs, such as funding that was ordered released instead remained frozen. But here you go, Trump’s words and Vance/Miller’s.

“…when U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ordered the Trump administration to prevent Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing payment systems within the U.S. Treasury.
In response, Trump said on Sunday that "no judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision." Vance fleshed out that idea in a post on X, arguing that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance wrote. "If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal."
Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has taken the argument a step farther. In a post on X, Miller said "a lone unelected district judge" cannot "assume decision-making control over the entire executive branch." Later, he wrote that "if a district court judge wants control over the entire executive branch…he should run for president."
Trump, Vance, and Miller have a First Amendment right to disagree with a judge's ruling and to criticize what they see as the implications of that ruling, of course. Those criticisms might even have legal merit. Indeed, under the U.S. Supreme Court's "political question doctrine," the entire judiciary system is generally expected to steer clear of making policy decisions or otherwise infringing on the powers vested in the executive and legislative branches. It's certainly fair to argue that Engelmayer may have violated that doctrine with his ruling on Saturday.
But there is a difference between disagreeing with a judge's ruling and questioning whether the judicial system as a whole has the authority to decide such things. Anyone who believes a judge's ruling is wrong is free to appeal that decision to a higher court. The final decision still rests in the judicial branch.”

Presidents should not ignore court rulings

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, so the story goes, President Andrew Jackson responded by

reason.com

He is not supposed to bypass internal Executive Branch review but has been doing that anyway. Which is probably the biggest reason, or second-biggest behind plain common sense, why 20 or more of his EOs have been subject to TROs and dozens more are subject to lawsuits.

“the Department (of Justice) had “no comment” when asked whether its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had reviewed any of the executive orders issued by the new Administration to date. In the vast majority of cases, the answer to this question should be a straightforward “yes.”
As you are well aware, the Department of Justice’s website states that:
“All executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality”

Senate Judiciary Members: Is DOJ Doing Its Job to Review Trump’s Executive Orders? - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Washington, DC – Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to know whether the Justice Department lawyers charged with ensuring that the President is following the law are actually reviewing Donald Trump’s executive actions. On Friday, when asked if its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) was...

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

This one, as well.

Federal judge says Trump administration ignoring his order to pause funding freeze

A federal judge said that President Trump has violated his order to lift a blanket freeze on federal spending and again directed the administration to release the funds. That comes as top prosecutors in nearly half the country sued the administration for withholding medical research funding...

www.pbs.org

 

[DrTigerGoob]

What you stated is true but it's not the Trump admin ignoring court rulings. They are observing the process and going through appeals at this point. I personally think the judiciary should have no say over how the Trump admin runs the executive branch. Violates separation of powers.

So, your first sentence is probably not accurate. In some cases, like restoring federal funding, I just posted, neither Trump nor the DOJ has filed an appeal. They are just ignoring it.

Your personal opinion is not how the separation of powers is supposed to work. The founding fathers set it up that way so no one could become all-powerful.

Let's face it. Trump loves power. He will do whatever it takes to get it and rule the U.S.

 

[Willence]

So, your first sentence is probably not accurate. In some cases, like restoring federal funding, I just posted, neither Trump nor the DOJ has filed an appeal. They are just ignoring it.

Your personal opinion is how separation of powers is supposed to work. The founding fathers set it up that way so no one could become all-powerful.

Let's face it. Trump loves power. He will do whatever it takes to get it and rule the U.S.

Surely you understand some of these judicial rulings are not constitutional? Also I'm hoping that you understand a lot of these rulings are partisan and in appeal will be overturned? That being said please explain exactly what you're so upset about right now. I would like to know what you see going on that is of such great concern for you?

 

[dbjork6317]

Not going to regurgitate for you.

Had a feeling you wouldn’t be able to provide any specific examples.

 

[HarleyTiger]

Isn't there a separate forum on TI for this bull junk? Asking for a friend that does not give one shite about it.

 

[dpic73]

View embedded media

Holy hell, how did you think it would be a good idea to drop a random TikTok actress playing dumb into this thread?

 

[Spencer_York]

Steve Bannon is saying Trump should be president for life and Trump is teasing about running again, these Trumpers won't care though

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Surely you understand some of these judicial rulings are not constitutional? Also I'm hoping that you understand a lot of these rulings are partisan and in appeal will be overturned? That being said please explain exactly what you're so upset about right now. I would like to know what you see going on that is of such great concern for you?

You are wrong about that. Judges rule on their interpretation of the law given what plaintiffs and, in this case, DOJ bring with their arguments. The law is grounded in the U.S. Constitution. So, what the judiciary is doing is constitutional.

In some cases here in the last few days, the Judiciary has thrown out lawsuits against The Trump administration for firing people because the law was on Trump's side. The same law is based on the same U.S. Constitution.

To your last question...I have already stated my argument. I don't need to do that again. Go to the top of the thread.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Isn't there a separate forum on TI for this bull junk? Asking for a friend that does not give one shite about it.

Then don't read it.

 

[Willence]

You are wrong about that. Judges rule on their interpretation of the law given what plaintiffs and, in this case, DOJ bring with their arguments. The law is grounded in the U.S. Constitution. So, what the judiciary is doing is constitutional.

In some cases here in the last few days, the Judiciary has thrown out lawsuits against The Trump administration for firing people because the law was on Trump's side. The same law is based on the same U.S. Constitution.

To your last question...I have already stated my argument. I don't need to do that again. Go to the top of the thread.

And their interpretation is formed by their political view so often. If you want to do everything strictly by what the Constitution says with no room for interpretation, I am 100% for that. Let's do it now!

Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Where in the Constitution does it protect government boondoggles that waste money and establish a permanent, unelected governing class?

 

[DrTigerGoob]

And their interpretation is formed by their political view so often. If you want to do everything strictly by what the Constitution says with no room for interpretation, I am 100% for that. Let's do it now!

Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Where in the Constitution does it protect government boondoggles that waste money and establish a permanent, unelected governing class?

Judges perspectives and interpretations are supposed to be objective. All of us are supposed to be objective. However, our life and experiences work to make us subjective.

Sure...here you go.

The Judiciary’s role under Article III of the Constitution is to interpret the law and determine its constitutionality. Note it doesn't say anything in Article II that the president can do that. Only the Judiciary.

As far as boondoggles...not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Willence]

Judges perspectives and interpretations are supposed to be objective. All of us are supposed to be objective. However, our life and experiences work to make us subjective.

Sure...here you go.

The Judiciary’s role under Article III of the Constitution is to interpret the law and determine its constitutionality. Note it doesn't say anything in Article II that the president can do that. Only the Judiciary.

As far as boondoggles...not relevant to this discussion.

And with respect to these decisions, what is there in the Constitution to say the President can't remove employees from the Executive Branch?

 

[Dadar]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

A lot of things have happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

Maga blindness from the Trump orange glow exposure with a maga stacked supreme court that is off the rails

 

[DrTigerGoob]

And with respect to these decisions, what is there in the Constitution to say the President can't remove employees from the Executive Branch?

I didn't say there was something that prevented him from doing that. I was just sharing as an example that one judge ruled in the Trump administration's favor on that.

 

[Willence]

I didn't say there was something that prevented him from doing that. I was just sharing as an example that one judge ruled in the Trump administration's favor on that.

Trump will inevitably go too far with all this. It's just who he is. IMO, he's doing that now with his bluster about Ukraine.

That being said, a lot of what's being done is good. Lowering waste is good. All the boondoggles for various interest groups being taken away is good. I can't imagine any reasonable person not being in favor of those things. Government being smaller is good. I suspect there will be many who would disagree with me on that.

We need to look at our military spending. What we get for the massive amount of money we spend isn't what it should be. There's a lot of people getting rich off the massive waste of taxpayer dollars in our government. Government is a necessary evil and it should be as limited as we can possibly make it. Again, I am sure a lot of people would disagree with my view on that as well.

 

[gardentiger]

The separation of powers is something built into the U.S. Constitution by our founding fathers and has stood for nearly 250 years. Congress makes laws and appropriates money. Judicial rules on disagreements in the laws. The President approves or vetoes laws, submits the budget and abides by judicial judgments.

A lot of things have happened in a short period of time. This includes the Trump administration floating trial balloons that they don’t have to abide by judicial judgments.

What is the first true sign of the Trump administration becoming a dictator was his new EO today stating that the President and Attorney General will interpret the law…not the Judicial. This should concern everyone, however, I know it won’t.

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

Do we really want a President that is a dictator?

I know I don’t.

Typically they take you guns and censor first.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Trump will inevitably go too far with all this. It's just who he is. IMO, he's doing that now with his bluster about Ukraine.

That being said, a lot of what's being done is good. Lowering waste is good. All the boondoggles for various interest groups being taken away is good. I can't imagine any reasonable person not being in favor of those things. Government being smaller is good. I suspect there will be many who would disagree with me on that.

We need to look at our military spending. What we get for the massive amount of money we spend isn't what it should be. There's a lot of people getting rich off the massive waste of taxpayer dollars in our government. Government is a necessary evil and it should be as limited as we can possibly make it. Again, I am sure a lot of people would disagree with my view on that as well.

I agree. DoD spending is a whole other beast.

There are many weapon programs that DoD has wanted to stop, but Congress hasn't allowed it. This is a case of the Executive branch wanted to stop spending on a weapon system and Congress appropriating the money to pay for it anyway. DoD's has to spend the money on what Congress says. A great example of the A-10 Warthog that used to be base in Myrtle Beach. Air Force has been trying to kill that plane literally for years. I think Congress finally relented in last year or so.

 

[DrTigerGoob]

Typically they take you guns and censor first.

Sorry. Not relevant to this discussion.

 

[PawsFan_]

Behind a paywall. But you can see the highlights.

Trump Signals He Might Ignore the Courts

Yesterday, the president said that no judge “should be allowed” to rule against the changes his administration is making.

www.theatlantic.com

"You are wildly exaggerating here." I can't believe someone from the "Trump train" would feel comfortable making that statement...lol.

Most of what you post are wild exaggerations...lol.

The Atlantic.....yeah that's not an unbiased source is it? LOL.