The argument 'but the right dismantling the shadow left, and the left dismantling the shadow right hopefully provides some balance' is merely a symmetric balance principle.
The person pretending to ask questions used an underhanded socratic method to assert what was happening about line-by-line and then demanded analog for their own premise as if it were mine instead of theirs. Youve fallen for a trick.
My claim is that symmetric behavior is balanced. You went on the goose chase dismissing the first example of your entirely different demand, then pretended I never said it. Your argument is a disingenuous fraud.
No I frankly have never heard of anything like this, and it doesn't appear the dozens of federal budget experts, Constitutional law experts, political historians, or policy legal analysts I follow closely have heard of anything similar either.
I don't think anyone at any location on the political spectrum would describe what's going on right now as "business as usual," but apparently you believe that's the case. So please share evidence. Definitionally, it should be abundant.
But uhhh… Isn’t that process actually going on currently in Congress, where/when/how it normally happens, and this process is going on separately, very atypically, and already changing government outflows prior to any congressional decisions?
I don’t think “every year a totally different branch of government argues over the budget” is analogous at all, and I don’t think you do either.
Im suggesting doing different non-analogous things can provide balance. At no point did I assert they must be analogous nor am I obliged to prove your own assumptions.
Got it, so the other party may some day eventually do something similar to what is happening today, and at that point, the two would be equal and symmetrical.
And if this were Congress passing a budget then people would be upset but wouldn't be calling it illegal.
There's a huge difference between Congress passing a budget (within its constitutional powers) and the Executive just killing anything and everything that seems "woke" them with no legislative authorization.
The unlawfulness is the part that is newsworthy and incredibly frightening. That's the part that matters.
If the executive can unilaterally decide to allocate funds to wherever it wants while ignoring Congress, then Congress is no a coequal branch and our constitutional order is dead.
> Every year's appropriation bill, there is a line by line partison fight over funding
And who normally does that, a billionaire with grudges loosely appointed by the executive branch mostly doing it on his own in secret or the representatives in Congress?
No it's not normal. What is normal is say congress and bankers meeting in secret under assumed identities on an (Jakyll) island to create institutions like the federal reserve that 'eases' massive inflation in while purposefully firewalled from democratic representation, and jammed through by their own admission before popular will can stop them.
So doing what was actually advertised is far less secret than much of what congress does.
