The Obama Legacy Deserves To Be Destroyed

[Nithavela]

Those are highlighted in yellow.

What are the green ones?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

What are the green ones?

Enviromental maybe. You know, going green... I know how staunch conservative types are against anything having to do with enviromental protection and the sticky issue of climate change.

 

[Arcangl86]

Again, so what?

When it comes to Constitutional Law, the longer a certain practice has been accepted the more and more entrenched it is. There are also good practical reasons for executive agreements.

 

[Nithavela]

Enviromental maybe. You know, going green... I know how staunch conservative types are against anything having to do with enviromental protection and the sticky issue of climate change.

I think they interpret the whole "dominion over all living things" a bit differently.

 

[theQuincunx5]

The messenger being a hypocrite, does not negate their message.

No, it makes their argument specious. If the claim is that Obama's legacy is tainted because of use of OE's but others who have used OE's are not thus tainted, it renders the claim meaningless in the absence of other reasons.

If I were to claim that cats are evil because they have four legs but I clearly do not feel that dogs are evil then my reasoning is flawed. Clearly the evil is NOT due to the condition of having four legs. There may be something else there that renders cats evil, but it cannot be due to the four-legs limitation unless it equally applies to dogs.

 

[super animator]

No, it makes their argument specious.

Neither does it make it "specious". You are committing the Tu quoque fallacy here.

 

[JackRT]

Sinclair Lewis in "It Can't Happen Here," (1935) wrote --- "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."

 

[super animator]

When it comes to Constitutional Law, the longer a certain practice has been accepted the more and more entrenched it is.

This type of thinking is fallacious as it can be used to justified slavery.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Neither does it make it "specious". You are committing the Tu quoque fallacy here.

This has nothing to do with tu quoque. Where do you get that?

If I claim a cat is evil because it has 4 legs but I don't consider dogs (which have 4 legs) to be evil, the reason I have claimed cats are evil cannot be correct, by my own reasoning. Otherwise I'd have to claim dogs are evil as well.

 

[Petros2015]

If I claim a person is evil because of his actions and I perform the same actions or worse myself, then my own words condemn me.

 

[super animator]

This has nothing to do with tu quoque. Where do you get that?

"Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument."
Person A is calming that B for reason X.
But person A is being inconsistent with regarding things that share the same reason X.
Therefore claim B is false.

Do I need to break it down even further or do I need to explain even further?

 

[DaisyDay]

I rather have him do nothing with regards to treaties then to bypass senate responsibility altogether via executive order.

According to the constitution of the United States, international treaties are made by the president (with advice from the senate).

 

[theQuincunx5]

"Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument."
Person A is calming that B for reason X.
But person A is being inconsistent with regarding things that share the same reason X.
Therefore claim B is false.

Do I need to break it down even further or do I need to explain even further?

Normally tu quoque is interpretted as "but you did it!" (hence the latin for "you also"). Normally this is a fallacious argument IF I were complaining that "others do it". But you need to read my point again (and again, if you like). My point is NOT a "but you do it too!" it is a statement that IF YOU RELY ON A SPECIFIC CONDITION TO DECREE SOMETHING TO BE EVIL, but it is not similarly applied to all classes.

Even in the link you provided there is this exception:

Example #2:
Jimmy Swaggart argued strongly against sexual immorality, yet he has had several affairs with prostitutes; therefore, sexual immorality is acceptable.

Explanation: The fact Jimmy Swaggart likes to play a round of bedroom golf with some local entrepreneurial ladies, is not evidence for sexual immorality in general, only that he is sexually immoral.

Exception: If Jimbo insisted that his actions were in line with sexual morality, then it would be a very germane part of the argument.

This is the exception I am leveraging.

I am saying that since the critics seem to rely on the use of EO's to decree the Obama legacy is imperial and needs to be destroyed, it must equally apply to all presidents' legacies. It is germane and hence not a fallacy.

 

[super animator]

I am saying that since the critics seem to rely on the use of EO's to decree the Obama legacy is imperial and needs to be destroyed, it must equally apply to all presidents' legacies. It is germane and hence not a fallacy.

I thinking we are talking pass each other.
I do not share the notation Obama legacy is imperial and needs to be destroyed, but rather the executive branch is becoming more and more imperial and badly needs reforms. We should demanding congress doing it's job instead of passing it's responsibility to the executive branch. That the pulling from iraq treaty is a much needed wake up call to American citizens here, that we shouldn't rely on the executive branch to sign treaties when the next president can withdraw for whatever reason that they seemed fit.

Blaming it all on Obama is unfair and unreasonable.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I do not share the notation Obama legacy is imperial and needs to be destroyed, but rather the executive branch is becoming more and more imperial and badly needs reforms.

And you are fine in saying that but you must then show how the Obama legacy was so tainted as to require being destroyed versus every other president's legacy since the beginning of the 20th century. Because it clearly has NOTHING to do with the prevalence of EO's.

to wit:

(Now this chart was compiled during Obama's administration, ultimately he wound up with 276 EO's. NOWHERE NEAR FDR, TR, Wilson, etc. All of whom were in the distant past. So by EO there's no reason to believe the presidency is becoming more imperial.

And that's the point of my statements. Yes, there may be some OTHER reason, but clearly it is decoupled from the number of EO's issued. I would even be willing to accept the role of EO's if it were an interaction term with some other aspect, but EO's by themselves cannot be used as the measuring stick. That is my point.

We should demanding congress doing it's job instead of passing it's responsibility to the executive branch.

Agreed.

Blaming it all on Obama is unfair and unreasonable.

I am fine with people who say Obama's legacy should be destroyed because they personally disagree with the policy direction. But it has to be couched in those terms, as a personal opinion, not an analysis of some numeric conditional.

I wholly agree that it is terrible when opposition parties act as obstructionists. It doesn't work for ANYONE but the politicians. That isn't why they are there.

But we cannot rely on arbitrary metrics that are not applied across the board evenly to decree this or that presidency is flawed and must be erased from history.

 

[super animator]

And you are fine in saying that but you must then show how the Obama legacy was so tainted as to require being destroyed versus every other president's legacy since the beginning of the 20th century.

I am not making that claim though.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I am not making that claim though.

Which is fine, and indeed my response was not to you, personally. The point I was defending was the point I had made in response to the OP's apparent contention. You asked "So what?" in relation to my point, which I explained.

 

[JackRT]

According to the constitution of the United States, international treaties are made by the president (with advice from the senate).

When international agreements are cancelled unilaterally it calls the integrity of the nation itself into question. I recall that Oklahoma and the Dakotas were given to the Indian nations as their homeland forever.

 

[DaisyDay]

When international agreements are cancelled unilaterally it calls the integrity of the nation itself into question. I recall when Oklahoma and the Dakotas were given to the Indian nations as their homeland forever.

Surely you're not that old? But yes, it means that the word of our nation is worthless.

And, on an international note, the Western Alliance has been broken, just as Putin wanted.

 

[Micah888]

If Obama's term was imperialistic, what does that make Trump's?

A breath of fresh air. Every Western nation needs a Donald Trump, who refuses to play the globalist-elitist-leftist game of destroying his own country. France almost got Le Pen, and the Netherlands almost got Geert Wilders. And Canada ended up with Trudeau, of all people.