Question: Can whoever is elected after this guy leaves undo this crap he has done?
Answer: Sure. Didn't the last guy undo the unconstitutional expansions of the guy before him, dial back on the accretion of power to the executive branch, and do due diligence on the opposition's chosen appointees while emboldening his party in the Houses to oppose with all due force those whose preferred policies, as they warned their constituencies, would be definitely detrimental? Didn't he not allow the former's tax breaks to extend and not extend his public-private misappropriation of the public domain-funded information infrastructure, which thereby did anything other than broaden their movement into the public's private lives while enriching the richest of that revolving door sector? Did he not court-martial his predecessor's torturers and architects of that program, restoring the rule of law, and pursue prosecution of the financial wizards who continued well into his terms of office to sell out their clients to the ultimate ruin of an entire class of home-owner, and didn't he refuse to appoint to positions of power anyone who'd advise him to do otherwise? Didn't he curtail the dealing of destructive devises to the dominion his agency said supports the terrorism he reaffirmed was being battled, and didn't he stop toppling governments and widening the desert of misery in the very region contiguous to That One War he'd given such a moving speech in opposition to, which was after all a prominent part of the long list of audaciously hopeful assurances of restoration that largely led to his winning the office in the first place?
For that matter, did not the guy before the last guy undo the right-to-work union busting and trade policy and welfare reform and financial deregulation that would be sure to result in a pox-like foreclosure on his house's historical record, or the guy before that not resist doing those things I just listed, which had done less than undo what was anyway certainly not a rip-off of the working class by the last revolutionary tv star to dodder at the desk in the ovoid room - for wouldn't it otherwise not continually inspire the iconographic identification with the illuminated imagery channeled into its nation's living spaces, where, as far as can be plausibly discerned, at least one chosen feed maintains its resident consumers' credulous appetite?
Answer: Sure. Didn't the last guy undo the unconstitutional expansions of the guy before him, dial back on the accretion of power to the executive branch, and do due diligence on the opposition's chosen appointees while emboldening his party in the Houses to oppose with all due force those whose preferred policies, as they warned their constituencies, would be definitely detrimental? Didn't he not allow the former's tax breaks to extend and not extend his public-private misappropriation of the public domain-funded information infrastructure, which thereby did anything other than broaden their movement into the public's private lives while enriching the richest of that revolving door sector? Did he not court-martial his predecessor's torturers and architects of that program, restoring the rule of law, and pursue prosecution of the financial wizards who continued well into his terms of office to sell out their clients to the ultimate ruin of an entire class of home-owner, and didn't he refuse to appoint to positions of power anyone who'd advise him to do otherwise? Didn't he curtail the dealing of destructive devises to the dominion his agency said supports the terrorism he reaffirmed was being battled, and didn't he stop toppling governments and widening the desert of misery in the very region contiguous to That One War he'd given such a moving speech in opposition to, which was after all a prominent part of the long list of audaciously hopeful assurances of restoration that largely led to his winning the office in the first place?
For that matter, did not the guy before the last guy undo the right-to-work union busting and trade policy and welfare reform and financial deregulation that would be sure to result in a pox-like foreclosure on his house's historical record, or the guy before that not resist doing those things I just listed, which had done less than undo what was anyway certainly not a rip-off of the working class by the last revolutionary tv star to dodder at the desk in the ovoid room - for wouldn't it otherwise not continually inspire the iconographic identification with the illuminated imagery channeled into its nation's living spaces, where, as far as can be plausibly discerned, at least one chosen feed maintains its resident consumers' credulous appetite?
