I have almost no use for this Administration.

https://www.themeateater.com/c...tions-historic-gains


They also knew public lands and robust natural resources are neither eternal birthrights nor divinely protected. All can be soiled or ruined, and the free market’s invisible hand won’t create or protect them. Such treasures require holding our state and national lawmakers accountable, ensuring they make long-term investments in research, protections, and renewals in our natural resources to invigorate our health, spirit, and education.
Lessons from Lampreys
For instance, when unfettered human enterprise helped sea lampreys invade the Great Lakes and decimate its fisheries by 1950, the government — not profit motive — restored balance. The private sector didn’t fund the 1951-1957 research in which scientists tested over 6,000 chemicals to find one that selectively kills sea lamprey larvae with little or no harm to other lifeforms.
If the U.S. and Canadian governments hadn’t jointly funded that research — and didn’t spend $25 million annually on lampricide treatments since then — the Great Lakes region wouldn’t have the tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries that provide 75,000 jobs and $7 billion in value each year to society,

Yet, we should let unelected, not supported by an enabling statute, fool tell ya what gets funded. I’ll take Congress. When I do not agree with them does not change that.

quote:

President Trump’s attacks negatively impact conservation

And the environment.

It's inevitable, predictable. I figure not one Trump voter gave it any thought or really gives a shit.

Name anything he's improved.

Can lies be improved?

Humm

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Name anything he's improved.

you have to give a chance to the runner he just started ...

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

President Trump’s attacks negatively impact conservation

And the environment.

It's inevitable, predictable. I figure not one Trump voter gave it any thought or really gives a shit.

The conversation is broader. The real issue is, “ What is the Legitimate Power of the Presidency?” The issue can be framed “Whether the President has the unilateral power to ignore the apportions duly approved by Congress?”

More broadly we can define the scope of inquiry thusly, “Which branch of government has the authority to set national, domestic policy?”

The old maxim was we have 3 co-equal branches of government where upon no entity held exclusive political power over any area of government. Our recent conversation la in treaties is a prime example. The President is our chief diplomat. The Executive Bramch negotiates treaties. However, no treaty has the support of law unless 2/3rds of the Senate (Congressional Role) approves it. Likewise, the Senate has to confirm nominations for Sec of State and Ambassadors. Again, we see a power general construed as being executive that is international diplomacy, international policy making chipped away and vested elsewhere to insure the Executive branch does not have full autonomy. Likewise, both Chambers of Congress must approve apportionment of funds for international policy to be implemented. Congress must declare war. Congress must sanction troops in a combat role overseas after so many days. This being legislative, (Congressional Role) push back post Vietnam.

We have seen it with the Executive Branch exercising a vested check on the Judicial Branch w the vested pier of the pardon. This particular gesture of the Executive over the Judicial is a microcosm of the greater principle being Co-Equal Branches with that equal status maintained by Checks and Balances. No one branch has exclusive, vested, legitimate power over any one aspect of government. Another easy example is legislation. The legislature is balanced by the veto. The veto bring the Executive Branch’s role in legislation. Or the choice not to veto.

It does not matter how a personally feel about a topic, policy. What matters is the process. If I do not like something. I can debate. I can vote or give money. I can withhold money or vote.

We have to get beyond I don’t like something. Therefore, any means is justified in ending what I do not like. Likewise, if the process is valid. The debate win. I tip my hat.

All the above is why I am a real conservative. That is why others who claim conservatism on here are not.


No President, whether I agree with him or her on the end goal, has the authority to usurp any all inclusive role of government. Such a president requires our strongest, legal rebuke. Sadly, there will always be those who seek to remove constitutional barriers to the end goal they desire. I find the current state of the right to be more engaged in such behavior, more willing, and more guilty of this. This is because they have lost so often through due channels provided by the Constitution. We see this on the cries of those to remove federally guaranteed individual rights (but only those rights they do not like or feel that today they have local support that such a removal will not harm them with the future be damned as they cannot conceive themselves to ever be in the minority). When the matter is viewed through the framing as above, the political affiliation of the president becomes immaterial.

Ultimately, the majority of voters number one mover of the vote is the wallet. Dems need to frame this Administration’s actions as an attack on our concept of liberty organized by the Constitution that is causing economic harm. Harm you are suffering while they try to govern your bedroom, your body, and your relationship to god. The attack is upon the voter’s economic well being. The others are what the Administration is focused on while your economic future hangs over a roasting fire. The others cannot be the harm. It is easy to s are people concerning trans when they fear buying groceries. It is much more difficult when they are not worried about losing their economic stability. To that end, it is much more different to scare people about government and let banks do wherever they want when folks feel their own economic house is secure.

The dissolution of power among our 3 branches is what guarantees liberty. The founders knew one person could not possibly represent the competing intent of such a wide and diverse makeup of states and citizens.

We needed both Hamilton and Jefferson. When Jefferson got elected he became much more Hamilton like. We do nut exist in Liberty with one faction, one region, one person, nor one branch collectivizing political power into its self. Without that liberty our individual stability in this Union is destroyed.

I'm trying to figure the best way to focus on the thesis of this thread. Your scope is broad. But there is a central thesis - I'll get to that. IMO, this is very thought provoking - almost too much. This has potential to get scattered and miss a central point.

I read your post above, carefully, twice.

I went back to the OP and the linked article and read it too. It is a good article, BTW, and anyone posting in this thread should read it first, IMO.

Conservation and environment are often conflated. I'm guilty of that too. The overall concern is the same, though.

It's difficult to say concisely where the problem is. I'll try. In the above post you describe what I call a breakdown, and describe the Founder's constitutional contract between the branches. There is an equally important Social Contract, although not as explicitly written, but generally abided and guided by the constitutional principles.

So, our situation today directly relates to a fundamental disrespect, disregard, if not violation of both contracts stated above. There are all sorts of excuses and rationalizations, but the effect, fact, remains. IMO, the basic reason Trump got elected, again, was for the exact effect we are seeing, knowing this would happen and wanted it.

You say that you have no use for this administration and that you are a "real conservative". I won't disagree. I have always thought of "real conservatives" as honoring the constitutional contract between the branches and even the Social Contract to some reasonable degree, although to a lesser degree than liberals.

Trump and Trumpism are actively breaking down both contracts, while self-deemed real conservatives are cheering.

You say:

quote:

they cannot conceive themselves to ever be in the minority

They also cannot conceive themselves to ever be wrong.

But, it doesn't matter whether it's majority or minority. Wrong is still wrong.

=============================================================

I'll throw this article in to show my concerns for the environment/conservation and to show how the "real conservative" trajectory applies:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12...ollback-deregulation

The Environmental Protection Agency announced yesterday plans to target more than two dozen rules and policies. The agency is reconsidering rules that limit climate pollution from cars and power plants, regulations that limit soot and mercury in the air, and more.

Any effort by the EPA to rollback environmental rules will almost certainly face legal challenges.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called it the "most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history." It's not yet clear whether the EPA plans to weaken these regulations or eliminate them entirely.

"EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin today announced plans for the greatest increase in pollution in decades," Amanda Leland, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "The result will be more toxic chemicals, more cancers, more asthma attacks, and more dangers for pregnant women and their children. Rather than helping our economy, it will create chaos."

NPR's climate desk correspondent Jeff Brady tells Up First that one of the most significant regulations on the list is called the "endangerment finding." The EPA determined in 2009 that human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare. It's the basis for many of the country's climate regulations. Brady adds that this EPA announcement is even more dramatic than what climate groups expected — and certainly more aggressive than the politics President Trump pursued during his first administration. The Environmental Integrity Project said the EPA is driving "a dagger straight into the heart of public health."

Leland said her group "will vigorously oppose Administrator Zeldin's unlawful attack on the public health of the American people that seeks to tear down life-saving clean air standards – putting millions of people in harm's way."

I would say each post has its own thesis. Or the last post scales up to the macro issues that all Trump is engaged in to explain the central issue with his actions. By his actions I refer to the Administration.

If you read that I have no issue w the Administration, you misread. My likes, preferences become irrelevant. This is because we stop looking at ends based policy and loo toward constitutionally process.

quote:

the last post scales up to the macro issues

Yes, I got that. Thanks for explaining. Discussions like this have a tendency to run askew.

Your conservation example, the positive and/or negative impact, depending on the in office "Administration" agenda and ideology, can be scaled up to represent the big picture.

We can see and predict the effect.

What's the cause?

Let me expand the question. For example, the effect of govt spending in the OP article had significant conservation/environmental and economic effect or return on investment, as well as well-being for many people. The same can be correctly said for EPA regs.

So, it's easy to see the values satisfaction from conservation. The effect is tangible, practically and otherwise. It's rational.

The thing I don't see is the ideological satisfaction for those who claim the abstract notion of "small government" and arbitrary methods of achieving that abstract. The effect and perhaps intent is dysfunction, practically, tangible, and intangible ideologically. It's irrational.

So, again I ask - what is the cause in that context?

The cause is a desire to concentrate politically power, control.

quote:

The cause is a desire to concentrate politically power, control.

I continued to edit my above post while you responded to the first part.

But really the answer is the same.

It's an interesting answer.

We can ID examples of that - Putin, China, Orban, N. Korea, Philippines ex-leader Duterte.

==================
BTW - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9ykn85401o Philippines ex-leader Duterte on plane to The Hague after arrest
===============================

Bottom line - that's not the way the Founders envisioned it.

The way I view it is that "freedom" is through (by means of) the constitutional contract of the branches, AND through (by means of) the Social Contract. The desire to concentrate power and control, and exclusion, is contrary to the notion of freedom. Freedom has to be shared or it's not freedom and the outcome has been proven. IOW, freedom is not zero-sum.

May go without saying that it is not just the concentration of political power from and to individuals. The concentration of political power extends to the exclusion of diffusing political power to other branches of government.

quote:

The concentration of political power extends to the exclusion of diffusing political power to other branches of government.

And, ultimately, the exclusion of political power to opposition.

That really is the purpose and intent and goal of "the exclusion of diffusing political power to other branches".

Correct.

That last list by me looks to destroy those constitutional checks and balances that prevents one person, one group from obtaining unilateral power.