That is exactly what you said (in support of your “deep state” conspiracy beliefs.
You may feel free to refute me by posting what I said, and compare it to what you assumed my statement meant. If they are EXACTLY THE SAME, then I will grant you the point.
But, you won’t do that, because it would show that you instead made a rather creative interpretation of what I originally said. To say the least.
“ And, the fact that it was “floated by Mattis” is a bit of a digression… then it really doesn’t matter who floated the strategy by which the projection was accomplished, does it?”
“ the idea, to various degrees, that the “post-WW2 order” which requires massive levels of US spending to maintain, may NOT require as much intervention and investment as it has in the past.”
Yet that’s not what you said.
It is always possible that I expressed myself poorly. It is also possible that you didn’t understand what I wrote. Do you want to have a debate over who has the worst literary shortcomings, or do you want to discuss the actual point under debate? You pick.
You made a claim that the notion that American military power is critical to world order is a “deep state” notion; that is simply ludicrous.
I agree that that is ludicrous, which is why I made no such claim. AGAIN (and I am getting a bit bored repeating myself) the question on the table is the extent to which the deep state which has an investment in that notion might try to manipulate an inexperienced president.
If you want to discuss a conspiracy theory, that’s the one I’m laying out on the table.
And if your argument is actually (and simply) that we should intervene less, you’re essentially equivocating; it’s a completely different idea than the idea that American military power is not necessary to world stability.
I am not advocating for either position. I am simply pointing out that there exists a substantial investment (both in money and people’s careers) in the projection of American power, and musing on the extent to which that investment will tolerate criticism.
If the former was what you intended to say, then perhaps you shouldn’t have actually stated, “there’s a deep state column in the government devoted to the continuance of the view that world stability depends on the projection of American power’
How about we do NOT remove that statement from context? Here it is in its entirety:
If you believe, as some do, that there’s a deep state column in the government devoted to the continuance of the view that world stability depends on the projection of American power, then it really doesn’t matter who floated the strategy by which the projection was accomplished, does it?
The problem is clearly your reading comprehension. You have completely ignored the first six words in that statement, which clearly indicate that I am not expressing a personal opinion; I am speculating on something that others believe, and what the consequences of that POV might be on the situation at hand. This is why I agreed with you in our original go-round that the notion is rather terrifying.
Despite the obviousness of all that, you choose to impute that belief to me without justification. An amusing debate tactic, but not a winning one.
Three of the things you just referenced have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the term “government authority,” which is the term you actually used. The second term, “the President,” is too vague to be meaningful.
Well, it certainly meant something to the Democrats who voted against him. Many of them cited the fact that they believed Mr. Gorsuch would be insufficiently independent of the President.
And oddly, they are lawyers as well, for the most part.
It depends on the type of executive action whether it carries the force of law; clearly, executive order can and do impose regulatory frameworks that must be respected by the judiciary as long as they fall within general principles of constitutionally and legislatively-delegated authority.
Uh…..right. That’s not the point being made by the Dems in Congress. The point they were citing as a reason for opposing Mr. Gorsuch was their concern that he would give deference to the President the law nonwithstanding. To get back to the ORIGINAL point, an authoritarian would like a judge that would do what he was was told.
Listen, since you strike me as incapable of clearly expressing what you actually mean.
Well how lovely. You strike me as being unable to comprehend a simple english sentence. But let’s just let that go for the moment.
I simply don’t have time or patience to continue any discussion with you. I suggest you more carefully frame your ideas in the future, although it strikes me that you’re not even sure what you actually mean.
I accept your surrender.