• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Destroying The Party

DamnYankee said:
Dennis Kucinich: Dems' 25th Amendment Proposal 'Destroying the Party' - 'Not Good for the Country' - Breitbart

Destroying the leftist ideology would assure the nation will prosper. As it stands now, the radicalized left is doing everything within it's limited power to create chaos to disrupt the country and prevent it from moving forward.
Click to expand...

Kucinich is a hypocrite. He's the nut who unilaterally brought an impeachment discussion to the House floor during W years. He read some stupid paper for hours all by himself, to an empty chamber.

dennis-kucinich-211x300.jpg
 
ocean515 said:
Unchecked? Chomsky, what do you think the left and their MSM partners are doing?
Click to expand...
I'm speaking of an checked President/government, Ocean.

The media is free speech. It is protected by the Constitution, for good reason. The government should not be "checking" our speech. It's our protected right.

It's our job to keep government in check, not the other way around.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm speaking of an checked President/government, Ocean.

The media is free speech. It is protected by the Constitution, for good reason. The government should not be "checking" our speech. It's our protected right.

It's our job to keep government in check, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

The left, and their MSM partners, are engaged in fraud, deceit, and lies. They have a right to do that, and others have a right to call them out for it.

I imagine you support that right.
 
ocean515 said:
The left, and their MSM partners, are engaged in fraud, deceit, and lies. They have a right to do that, and others have a right to call them out for it.

I imagine you support that right.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your characterization of the media, but yes I firmly support the 1stA. Don't you?

But my problem is with a President that lies (constantly) in his official capacity. That's a separate issue from his 1stA rights.
 
Chomsky said:
I think there's much truth here.

But beyond their oligarchical dreams and manifestations, the GOP have social agendas. And Trump lacking in ideology, will likely sign anything that comes his way in order to present political wins to his populace.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal response; disparage Trump for what you think he might do.
 
Chomsky said:
I don't agree with your characterization of the media, but yes I firmly support the 1stA. Don't you?

But my problem is with a President that lies (constantly) in his official capacity. That's a separate issue from his 1stA rights.
Click to expand...

We certainly don't see eye to eye on the media, and I don't accept the left's MSM efforts to push the "Trump Lies Constantly" propaganda.

However, I do believe in the 1st Amendment, and I do believe the media can lie if it chooses to, and people can call them on it.

Going a step further, a President can lie as well. Certainly the EX President did so, while the bulk of the MSM ignored or covered for him during the frequent times he did so.
 
ocean515 said:
We certainly don't see eye to eye on the media, and I don't accept the left's MSM efforts to push the "Trump Lies Constantly" propaganda.

However, I do believe in the 1st Amendment, and I do believe the media can lie if it chooses to, and people can call them on it.

Going a step further, a President can lie as well. Certainly the EX President did so, while the bulk of the MSM ignored or covered for him during the frequent times he did so.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not in official capacity as a natural matter of political recourse.

That's my standard, though. Others may have theirs.

But of all my problems with Trump, it's the lying (often for no need, nor gain) that may bother me the most. I have a very low tolerance for deceit, and exorcise it out of my personal life whenever possible. Unfortunately I can't so easily ignore my government or my President, so I'm pretty stuck here.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Yes, but not in official capacity as a natural matter of political recourse.

That's my standard, though. Others may have theirs.

But of all my problems with Trump, it's the lying (often for no need nor gain) that may bother me the most. I have a very low tolerance for deceit, and exorcise it out of my personal life whenever possible. Unfortunately I can't easily ignore my government or my President, so I'm pretty stuck here.
Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to view the Presidents comments any way you wish.
 
Chomsky said:
Well yeah, it does come from the top.

But we don't have (at this moment) a system of checks and balances, as much as we have party control of our government. Trump, at this moment, is unchecked.
Click to expand...

I like divided government, at one chamber of congress controlled by the party who doesn't hold the white house. It used to not matter all that much until the Senator Harry Reid's Nuclear Option destroyed the filibuster and minority party rights.
 
Perotista said:
I like divided government, at one chamber of congress controlled by the party who doesn't hold the white house. It used to not matter all that much until the Senator Harry Reid's Nuclear Option destroyed the filibuster and minority party rights.
Click to expand...
I agree.

We need the President held in check by Congress.

Congress by it's nature, even if single-party controlled, still has direct atonement to the People. Note the current difficulty in the GOP run Congress in attaining healthcare reform; we still see active checks and balances there. But besides Congress, there's no such check on the President. If he were to become a tyrant, he's still there in power for 4 years acting tyrannical, unless Congress stops him either by legislative over-ride or impeachment. It's much harder to get a majority of the Congress critters to agree on acting singularly tyrannical for long periods of time. (though it may not always seem it!)

If the Dems did not control Congress in '74, it is not clear the Republican Nixon would have been forced to resign. That's an extreme case, but it is illustrative.
 
Chomsky said:
I agree.

We need the President held in check by Congress.

Congress by it's nature, even if single-party controlled, still has direct atonement to the People. Note the current difficulty in the GOP run Congress in attaining healthcare reform; we still see active checks and balances there. But besides Congress, there's no such check on the President. If he were to become a tyrant, he's still there in power for 4 years acting tyrannical, unless Congress stops him either by legislative over-ride or impeachment. It's much harder to get a majority of the Congress critters to agree on acting singularly tyrannical for long periods of time. (though it may not always seem it!)

If the Dems did not control Congress in '74, it is not clear the Republican Nixon would have been forced to resign. That's an extreme case, but it is illustrative.
Click to expand...

If the Republicans controlled congress back in 1973 there may not even been an investigation. Usually congress is pretty weak kneed even if controlled by the other party. They realize it takes 2/3rds of each chamber to over ride a presidential veto. Over the years congress has ceded so much of its power to the administration and to other government agencies that it is pathetic.

These days the party in congress that is of the party that holds the white house has become more part of the administration than congress. Party doesn't matter. A House Speaker like Sam Rayburn, Mike McCormack or Carl Albert wouldn't allow a president to usurp power from congress even if that president was of their own party. They guarded congressional power closely and wouldn't let anyone even think of taking power from congress. those days are long gone.
 
Perotista said:
If the Republicans controlled congress back in 1973 there may not even been an investigation. Usually congress is pretty weak kneed even if controlled by the other party. They realize it takes 2/3rds of each chamber to over ride a presidential veto. Over the years congress has ceded so much of its power to the administration and to other government agencies that it is pathetic.

These days the party in congress that is of the party that holds the white house has become more part of the administration than congress. Party doesn't matter. A House Speaker like Sam Rayburn, Mike McCormack or Carl Albert wouldn't allow a president to usurp power from congress even if that president was of their own party. They guarded congressional power closely and wouldn't let anyone even think of taking power from congress. those days are long gone.
Click to expand...
Well said, particularly the bolded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom