patrick.net

Nobody cares what George Will says anyway. Voters have never heard of him.

He's probably hoping Trump will turn his attention to him and make him slightly more known. I doubt it however.

He's also obsessed with baseball. Sports fanaticism is sometimes a sign.

Yes, it's so sad that there are any true conservatives out there, worried about the preservation of our republic, and concerned that the separation of powers defined by our constitution be allowed to continue to exist.

What's next, a movement of real liberals ?

Why not read the actual George Will article referenced, for those of you that are curious what a real conservative looks like. Or for that matter the workings of an analytical mind, rather than the ramblings of emotional nitwits at Brietbart or Fox.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-the-gop-this-november/2018/06/22/a6378306-7575-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf03283c59ec

George Will is the kind of conservative that agreed with concerns about the deficit when Obama was President, and wasn't going to flip like an asshole with no convictions for a tax cut that puts a few dollars in his pocket, when everyone knows those tax cuts explode the deficit. The man has principles, something that's not allowed in todays GOP.

I always respected George Will as a true conservative, even when he was a little overly defensive of Reagan.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Nevermind Unsecure Borders

Like the border were less secure under Obama ? Or as if there was an increasing immigration of illegals under Obama ?

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

Nevermind Taxcuts

In the actual Will editorial your article referenced, WIll says this about the tax cuts.

Consider the melancholy example of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), who wagered his dignity on the patently false proposition that it is possible to have sustained transactions with today’s president, this Vesuvius of mendacities, without being degraded. In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Thomas More, having angered Henry VIII, is on trial for his life. When Richard Rich, whom More had once mentored, commits perjury against More in exchange for the office of attorney general for Wales, More says: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!” Ryan traded his political soul for . . . a tax cut. He who formerly spoke truths about the accelerating crisis of the entitlement system lost everything in the service of a president pledged to preserve the unsustainable status quo.

Ryan and many other Republicans have become the president’s poodles, not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. As explained in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.” Congressional Republicans (congressional Democrats are equally supine toward Democratic presidents) have no higher ambition than to placate this president. By leaving dormant the powers inherent in their institution, they vitiate the Constitution’s vital principle: the separation of powers.

Ok, Marcus, I read the article. It started off with an extremely dense and overly verbose call to elect more democrats with purpose of impeaching Trump. Oh and he tosses in a reference to families being “shredded” at the border... just to hype up the hyperbole. He bemoans the failure of a bill by lame duck Corker to wrest tariff powers from the executive branch and award them to the legislative branch, clearly failing to foresee a day when his party holds the White House and would be severely hampered by congressional obstinacy.

At no point in this diatribe were any facts present, nor any clearheaded analysis of policy. All Will offers is obtuse language, boring play references, and diatribe. This article probably made me dumber for having read it.

Quigley says

It started off with an extremely dense and overly verbose call to elect more democrats with purpose of impeaching Trump

"extremely dense and overly verbose." How do you know if you apparently skipped reading that part.

It wasn't about impeaching Trump, it's about having the federal government do less (something Will has consistently advocated for), becasue the congress should be performing its function of preventing Trump from abusing the powers of the Presidency.

The principle: The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.

A lot of people complained about the Imperial Presidency under Obama, but Trump is on track to have more than twice as many executive orders as Obama.

Quigley says

At no point in this diatribe were any facts present

Yeah, I guess all the facts he references in some cases less directly than others are ones that are commonly known by informed citizens. A mistake if his goal were to inform a certain subset of the population. For example when he refers to the Imperial Presidency, you're supposed to be not only aware of what that means, but also informed about what Trumps been doing.

Breaking the argument down to Trumpeters wouldn't do any good, they generally either don't know, or don't want to know or just don't care. You know becasue of all "the winning" that they perceive to be happening.

Quigley says

nor any clearheaded analysis of policy. All Will offers is obtuse language, boring play references, and diatribe

IN other words, too difficult of a read for you. Well, I'm glad you tried. Maybe this will help you understand his point ?

Liberals-any conservative who differs from Trump is a true conservative-LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

At least you might be able to acknowledge that there are people that everyone labels as tried and true conservatives that despise everything about Trump.

When was the last time that happened, with a sitting republican President ?

Even recent republican Presidents that publicly renounce the Current republican President.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/26/conservative-resistance-rightwingers-trump

When has that happened in your lifetime ? There's something very different about this President, other than that he's an outsider, or supposedly not part of the "deep state."

The way you deny it ? "LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" Yeah, very impressive.

marcus says

It wasn't about impeaching Trump, it's about having the federal government do less (something Will has consistently advocated for), becasue the congress should be performing its function of preventing Trump from abusing the powers of the Presidency.

Clearly, you misunderstood his phrasing. He was calling for people to elect more Democrats to bolster “Article I” to remove the person who’s invoking “Article II.” Don’t feel badly that you didn’t get it. I already criticized his writing style as being too difficult to read and understand. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t understand it. It means that it’s just written very poorly if the writer wants to be understood by the 95% of people who didn’t get 1500s on their Verbal SAT scores.

marcus says

hen was the last time that happened, with a sitting republican President ?

Even recent republican Presidents that publicly renounce the Current republican President.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/26/conservative-resistance-rightwingers-trump

When has that happened in your lifetime ? There's something very different about this President, other than that he's an outsider, or supposedly not part of the "deep state."

The way you deny it ? "LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" Yeah, very impressive.

Haha -now liberals adore the shrubs-LOLzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lostand confused says

now liberals

No. Although I will admit that I no longer see GWB as the worst President of the modern era.

I get it. You aren't going to respond to what I'm talking about. But my guess is you know Trump isn't a true conservative. Sure he knows what to say about things like immigration, or NFL players kneeling during the national anthem, to get a significant subset of republicans worked up. To get their vote, and their continued support. Who knew it was so easy ?

Quigley says

Clearly, you misunderstood his phrasing.

I understood. He's referring to the powers of the legislative (article 1) versus the powers of the Presidency (article 2) and he's arguing simply that the intended "checks and balances" aren't working.

Recently Sen. Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is retiring , became an exception that illuminates the depressing rule. He proposed a measure by which Congress could retrieve a small portion of the policymaking power that it has, over many decades and under both parties, improvidently delegated to presidents. Congress has done this out of sloth and timidity — to duck hard work and risky choices. Corker’s measure would have required Congress to vote to approve any trade restrictions imposed in the name of “national security.” All Senate Republicans worthy of the conservative label that all Senate Republicans flaunt would privately admit that this is conducive to sound governance and true to the Constitution’s structure. But the Senate would not vote on it — would not allow it to become just the second amendment voted on this year .

This is because the amendment would have peeved the easily peeved president. The Republican-controlled Congress, which waited for Trump to undo by unilateral decree the border folly they could have prevented by actually legislating, is an advertisement for the unimportance of Republican control.

Sometimes an ever so slightly challenging read is worth the trouble. I think Will's digression in to "A Man for all Seasons" bothered you, I didn't mind being reminded of it. I liked the movie which is worth watching (IMO). I'm sure that in 1966, the play was a big deal.

Part of the beauty of George WIll is that he's writing to his audience, even if it's shrinking in the age of Trump. He's 77 and doesn't have to worry about his numbers, or how wide his appeal is, or his editor. He's just going to write the opinion piece that he wants to write.

marcus says

But my guess is you know Trump isn't a true conservative.

I didn't know you considered conservative to be a good thing. Is that why you support team neocon: Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton?

I'm glad we agree that Trump is not on team neo-con.