Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mike Lee and the Need for Discretion in Foreign Policy
Senator Mike Lee of Utah recently got hot over a Trump administration briefing that he saw as disrespectful. According to Lee, when pressed about what exactly the Trump administration needed congressional approval for, the administration responded by saying there were almost no limits. As to legal justification, the administration officials responded, “I’m sure we could think of something.” Well, Senator Lee was mad, as he should be. The power that Congress has ceded to the executive in matters of foreign policy has exceeded the time horizon envisioned in its initial approval of the war on terror. It’s well past time to reign the executive back in.
I’m afraid, however, that Senator Lee in his anger has made an unforced blunder with his bluster. When to speak is as important as what is said, particularly in matters of foreign policy. Right now, Trump is in the middle of a standoff which requires that any threat he makes, either real or implied, be credible. If the Senate or, even worse, a handful of senators even give a hint that they won’t follow through with retaliatory action, mixed messages are sent to Iran. Mixed messages lead to miscalculation, and miscalculation in foreign policy leads to bloodshed.
The Trump administration attempted to deescalate the rising problem of Iranian aggression with deterrent action. Mike Lee out of personal pique is threatening to throw this clear strategy into disarray. It’s past time for the Congress to take back the control afforded to it by the Constitution, but prudence dictates patience.
Published in General
Accounting for Gell-Mann amnesia, I stand by what I said earlier.
Tactical warning does not come from the White House.
The best assessment is that the tactical indications appeared in both places at the same time. The AADC would have been the one to trigger the take shelter command.
Oh the Democrats and the media are awful too, but Trump makes it easy for them.
No I won’t vote for him. Trump doesn’t have what it takes to be President. He shoots himself in the foot constantly. I won’t vote for a Democrat either, but I will vote for Republicans down ticket. Please spare me the binary argument. Given two bad choices I will pick “none of the above”.
And Trump hasn’t had to endure anything. He is not a victim. He loves all the attention. Even the bad attention.
He is the most conservative President since Silent Cal.
Most accomplished too.
I was referring to the idea that the executive and legislative have to agree on such actions now that Donald Trump is performing them, not that Mike Lee disapproves of Trump.
Nonsense.
From the Washington Examiner as of 2018.
The list:
Your turn.
Numbersusa.com 2016 candidate ratings:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/elections/races/presidential/2016-presidential-hopefuls.html
Oppose work permits for illegal immigrants: Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Ben Carson were rated Abysmal, the same as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Support overall reduction in annual immigration: Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, and Rand Paul were rated Abysmal, the same as Hillary Clinton with even Bernie Sanders rated a bit better.
Reduce unfair work-visa competition: Marco Rubio was rated Abysmal, the same as Hillary Clinton with even Bernie Sanders rated much better.
End automatic birthright citizenship: John Kasich was rated Abysmal with Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio rated Very Harmful.
I think Cruz, Santorum, and Trump were the only GOP candidates of the later stages of the race to have favorable ratings.
…
However, when I say establishment, I also largely mean donors and those few Republicans living within the Washington DC area.
Can’t be a Conservative and support increases in number and ease of immigration? Would you characterize any increase as ”flooding the country with immigrants.” If yes, then fair enough.
Well, I don’t get to decide what “conservative” means, but until we have the borders under control, I definitely do not want to increase the number of immigrants we take in. And, why increase the number at all? We’re seeing that having more jobs than workers, for example, is a benefit to workers here — with high demand and lower supply, their wages are going up. Huh. Whodathunk?
Also, the problem with making it easier to immigrate is cultural. Having a rigorous immigration process weeds out the uncommitted. I don’t want more immigrants. I want better ones — immigrants committed to becoming American. I would do away with the tolerance of dual citizenship, for example. You come here to live permanently? You adopt our (founding) principles and outlook on free enterprise, hard work, and distaste for government dependence. You’re here to do your part to make (keep) America great.
All right.
Kudos on a well sourced argument. That said, its still lots of “truecon”. NumbersUSA based Trumps grade on nothing more than his rhetoric in a GOP primary…..which surprise surprise…..is more truecon than what others who have been actually close to enacting legislation have said. Giving people credit for supporting ideas that can’t/won’t be enacted isn’t too helpful for the overall cause.
Bottom line, outside of ending birthright citizenship( good luck) and lowering immigration levels(which even Trump has reversed on)…the GOP field wasn’t too disimilar and WAY right of the Democrats.
Your factual premises
Sorry Mark. I said that he is the most conservative President since Silent Cal. Julia called BS.
I then gave you a list of accomplishments showing “Conservative” outcomes.
So yes. Conservative outcomes when associated with an individual Presidency does lead to the conclusion that one is “The Most Conservative President”.
My argument was not “Most Conservative individual” or “Conservative Person”.
Don’t read more into what is already there.
Instugator,
Thanks for your reply.
Our goal is to understand each others ideas, and we are making only negative process, so I suggest we set this effort aside for now.
I thought our goal was one-upmanship? Well, that’s mine anyhow. Consider yourself one-upped. 😂
I don’t know what a truecon is. It sounds like a disparaging remark which contains the word con — an instance of deceiving or tricking someone such as with a con artist. Google says that truecon refers to a Powercon True1 Truecon Female NAC3FX, Viking Lighting. Does this mean I am a Viking Lighting? A valkyrie?
If that were true, Marco Rubio or perhaps Jeb Bush would be president today. Remember that Marco Rubio only won 11% of the presidential primary vote in 2016 while Jeb won less than 1% of the presidential primary vote. Rubio even lost his home state of Florida and 66 of the 67 counties in Florida — after former Florida governor Jeb Bush had already left the race. Even Ted Cruz and John Kasich won their home states by over 10 percentage points. Rubio lost his home state by almost 20 percentage points. What other big issues would have caused Rubio to perform so badly other than the immigration issue?
Most elected Republicans had been ignoring the issue of enforcing the border for years. One could say that this goes all the way to President Eisenhower as the other elected Republican presidents had been from the two large Mexican border states of Texas and California; even Eisenhower was born in Texas, and Gerald Ford moved to California.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott seems to be a bit different as he has just announced Texas’s refusal to accept any additional refugees for fiscal year 2020. He is one of only 9 Republican governors to do this as the rest essentially seem to be owned by low-wage business lobbies who seem to care little about the fabric of the country or its communities.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-texas-governor-abbott-boldly-rejects-additional-refugee-resettlement
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/03/the-list-17-gop-governors-approve-more-refugees-for-their-states/
Now who’s talking nonsense? They’ve got nuthin‘. They would be trying to impeach any Republican who beat Hillary Clinton and they’d use any excuse to do it. Know your enemy. It isn’t Trump.
They should have nothing. They have plenty because Trump made a stupid phone call when he KNEW they were listening. They would try to impeach any Republican but they HAVE impeached Trump. They don’t have to try with Trump. He gives them what they want every time.
Trump is not my enemy. He is his own worst enemy. Luckily for him the Democrats are putting up just about the worst bunch of candidates possible. So Trump might pull off the inside straight again. But if he had enough sense to NOT talk to a foreign leader about Joe Biden, he’d be in a much better position. But he simply is not smart enough.
Trump could have done all the good things and not the BS coming out of his mouth. Why doesn’t he?
Well, I’d rather have the good things and the BS than not have the good things or the BS.
Totally disagree. Why is it not in America’s interest to find out if the former VP was engaged in quid pro quo in Ukraine for the benefit of his ne’er do well son with a notoriously corrupt energy company? Does running for high office exempt one from investigation into one’s potentially corrupt foreign dealings? Apparently, only if one is running as a Republican. It certainly shielded Hillary and now it’s shielding Biden. Sad.
Trump could have bypassed the Ukrainian investigation and just asked the FBI to look into it. . .
I think you’re wrong about Trump’s methods being bad for Trump. He has roughly 90% approval with Republicans and even blacks and Latinos are giving him props. It looks like he’ll dramatically increase support among minorities in the next go around.
Trump’s boorishness makes all the right heads explode. Don’t be one of them.
Edited to add: It is completely within the president’s (any president’s) right to determine if foreign aid is a good use of American tax dollars. Trump was doing his job on that phone call.
It also takes some hubris to call a man as successful as Trump, “stupid.” He obviously has a form of intelligence Nevers don’t appreciate. Too bad.
I am glad to have roused a new voice for these discussions. You do have an understanding that good things are happening with Trump in the White House. The things that he says mostly, as opposed to does, that you call stupid really help the opposition to DO stupid things. He has been impeached, bad on the record of any POTUS, but it is a shameful act wholly on the part of the Democrats. We can hope it hurts them as it should. Welcome to the discussions.
All the “BS”, as you call it, a lot of people like that “BS”. And we need them voting for him, instead of the other side.
The funny thing is, every time someone says Trump said something really stupid, every time I go and I look and I find that, in context, no it isn’t. It might be crude, un-rehearsed, a bit rough, but it is never what they said it was. So I’ve quit listening to them.
I disagree that he is impeached on technical grounds, but for the sake of argument I’ll go along.
Since when is what someone says a “high crime or misdemeanor”?
My point is that they had an election coming up and campaign promises to fulfill so they voted on party lines to impeach. They have rendered impeachment meaningless.
Still – if that is the worst thing he has done, then I rest my case.
Reagan gave us amnesty. Bush elder gave us taxes. Bush junior gave us medicare part D.
President Trump has managed to avoid two of those traps. The third isn’t on the table.
You’re one-upped, I declare no come-backs, Dome of Silence so I can’t hear you, and it’s made of unbreakable laser-proof plastic.
I think you meant the “Cone of Silence.” Do you also have a shoe phone?
But I invoke the UnBlock of Upmanship, which prevents all of your no-come-back defenses.
I hate this. The amnesty that you refer to was and is the defecto norm. Reagan didn’t give them to us; he went along with something that he probably shouldn’t have. But the legislature gave it to us.
Same goes for this. Only congress can raise taxes. Would that Bush would have stood his ground on shutting the government down. But again, your ire is better directed at Congress.
This made me smile