Biden Won't Acknowledge His Granddaughter, Navy Joan

[ajax18]

The deep state believes they should determine who is president or be able to stop a democratically elected president's agenda they disagree with, not the voters and they've basically done that since 2015 and continue to interfere in presidential elections today. Don't pretend that Democrats want to preserve democracy when their side doesn't win. The real authoritarians are the deep state.

Yet another prime example of extreme projectionism by extreme right-wingers.

Checks and balances on the executive branch of government come from the legislative branch and judicial branch of government, not career bureaucrats in the executive branch. Democrats who believe that are not following the constitution. In fact they're usurping the rights of voters. That's the antithesis of democracy. And somehow they want to claim that they're trying to save democracy. The gas lighting is so absurd it's laughable.

[drumdude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTv0R_dr_ZA

"This is not a political issue, it’s a family matter," President Biden said in a statement provided to People magazine. "Jill and I only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including Navy.”

[Gunnar]

The gas lighting is so absurd it's laughable.

Not nearly as laughable as you are!

[Some Schmo]

The gas lighting is so absurd it's laughable.

Not nearly as laughable as you are!

It's a troll job. There's no way there's someone that stupid for real. If he was really as stupid as he appears, he wouldn't be able to find the power button to his computer.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Not nearly as laughable as you are!

It's a troll job. There's no way there's someone that stupid for real. If he was really as stupid as he appears, he wouldn't be able to find the power button to his computer.

My brother in Christ. You should’ve been raised by one of these people. So much to shake off…

Don’t believe me? Try listening to rants about the ‘Bilderbergers’ (the Bilderberg Group) and tRiLaTeRaL cOmMiSsIoN as a nine-year-old kid, and come away from that a normal human being. There are Ajaxes all over the place.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Yet another prime example of extreme projectionism by extreme right-wingers.

Checks and balances on the executive branch of government come from the legislative branch and judicial branch of government, not career bureaucrats in the executive branch. Democrats who believe that are not following the constitution. In fact they're usurping the rights of voters. That's the antithesis of democracy. And somehow they want to claim that they're trying to save democracy. The gas lighting is so absurd it's laughable.

There's no gaslighting at all. The federal government as set up in the Constitution is accurately describes as weak executive-strong legislative. After all, having just gone to war to escape Monarchy, setting up a new King would make little sense. Among its other enumerated powers, Congress has the specific authority to set the rules of the Government. Not just the rules of Congress -- the rules of government. The executive branch is not given that power. The executive branch is the body that enforces or "executes" the laws. But only Congress has the power to constitutionally legislate.

The Civil Service that was created by Congress is part of the Rules of Government. Congress included in the Rules for Government a distinction between political appointees and non-political employees who were protected from political swings. The President has more control over "executive agencies" than it does "independent agencies," but Congress sets the rules for both -- the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative agencies are necessary in a complex world because neither the President nor Congress has the time or the experience necessary to decide each and every issue that arises. Most of the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions, so all three branches have an interest in and constitutional authority to be involved in how the operate. The "unitary executive" theory that you seem to be describing is a radical view of the powers of the executive branch that is inconsistent with the weak executive branch created by the founders.

[ajax18]

Checks and balances on the executive branch of government come from the legislative branch and judicial branch of government, not career bureaucrats in the executive branch. Democrats who believe that are not following the constitution. In fact they're usurping the rights of voters. That's the antithesis of democracy. And somehow they want to claim that they're trying to save democracy. The gas lighting is so absurd it's laughable.

There's no gaslighting at all. The federal government as set up in the Constitution is accurately describes as weak executive-strong legislative. After all, having just gone to war to escape Monarchy, setting up a new King would make little sense. Among its other enumerated powers, Congress has the specific authority to set the rules of the Government. Not just the rules of Congress -- the rules of government. The executive branch is not given that power. The executive branch is the body that enforces or "executes" the laws. But only Congress has the power to constitutionally legislate.

The Civil Service that was created by Congress is part of the Rules of Government. Congress included in the Rules for Government a distinction between political appointees and non-political employees who were protected from political swings. The President has more control over "executive agencies" than it does "independent agencies," but Congress sets the rules for both -- the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative agencies are necessary in a complex world because neither the President nor Congress has the time or the experience necessary to decide each and every issue that arises. Most of the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions, so all three branches have an interest in and constitutional authority to be involved in how the operate. The "unitary executive" theory that you seem to be describing is a radical view of the powers of the executive branch that is inconsistent with the weak executive branch created by the founders.

Well I may not agree with you. But you've made a good argument there. Thanks for your perspective.

[Res Ipsa]

There's no gaslighting at all. The federal government as set up in the Constitution is accurately describes as weak executive-strong legislative. After all, having just gone to war to escape Monarchy, setting up a new King would make little sense. Among its other enumerated powers, Congress has the specific authority to set the rules of the Government. Not just the rules of Congress -- the rules of government. The executive branch is not given that power. The executive branch is the body that enforces or "executes" the laws. But only Congress has the power to constitutionally legislate.

The Civil Service that was created by Congress is part of the Rules of Government. Congress included in the Rules for Government a distinction between political appointees and non-political employees who were protected from political swings. The President has more control over "executive agencies" than it does "independent agencies," but Congress sets the rules for both -- the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative agencies are necessary in a complex world because neither the President nor Congress has the time or the experience necessary to decide each and every issue that arises. Most of the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions, so all three branches have an interest in and constitutional authority to be involved in how the operate. The "unitary executive" theory that you seem to be describing is a radical view of the powers of the executive branch that is inconsistent with the weak executive branch created by the founders.

Well I may not agree with you. But you've made a good argument there. Thanks for your perspective.

You’re welcome.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

There's no gaslighting at all. The federal government as set up in the Constitution is accurately describes as weak executive-strong legislative. After all, having just gone to war to escape Monarchy, setting up a new King would make little sense. Among its other enumerated powers, Congress has the specific authority to set the rules of the Government. Not just the rules of Congress -- the rules of government. The executive branch is not given that power. The executive branch is the body that enforces or "executes" the laws. But only Congress has the power to constitutionally legislate.

The Civil Service that was created by Congress is part of the Rules of Government. Congress included in the Rules for Government a distinction between political appointees and non-political employees who were protected from political swings. The President has more control over "executive agencies" than it does "independent agencies," but Congress sets the rules for both -- the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative agencies are necessary in a complex world because neither the President nor Congress has the time or the experience necessary to decide each and every issue that arises. Most of the agencies exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions, so all three branches have an interest in and constitutional authority to be involved in how the operate. The "unitary executive" theory that you seem to be describing is a radical view of the powers of the executive branch that is inconsistent with the weak executive branch created by the founders.

Well I may not agree with you. But you've made a good argument there. Thanks for your perspective.

What was good about it - please expound on that.

- Doc

[ajax18]

Well I may not agree with you. But you've made a good argument there. Thanks for your perspective.

What was good about it - please expound on that.

- Doc

Res Ipsa had substance and told me a few things I didn't know from listening to Ben Shapiro. Given our polar opposite beliefs and values, this doesn't mean I'm now a democratic socialist nor do I even believe Keynsian economics works. And after what the deep state has done to Trump I'd still be in favor of firing every single partisan anti Trump employee. But at least I have some idea why it may have been worth a try in 2016 to work together on nonpartisan issues. Notice Res Ipsa didn't, curse, berate, and make it about me being racist which is how most with little intellect or self discipline operate on this board.