Our Timidity is Killing the Constitution

[Brochacholomigo]

what exactly did I ask?????????????????????????????

When another poster said congress can spend money on anything, you asked him if they can spend money on a military to overthrow Trump of SCOTUS. I then informed you that they already do, and one of the purposes of the executive branch's standing forces is to kick out unruly politicians like an impeached President or member of the Supreme Court. Here's a link, in case you don't remember that. https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...y-killing-constitution-35.html#post1070702546

 

[Perotista]

That demonstrates a low IQ. Behind the headlines remains the eternal choice is between a weak conservative ,Trump, and the libcommie Green New Deal Great Depression. Now do you understand?

It's like 2016, my disdain for both Trump and Clinton was so high, I didn't give an owl's hoot who won. In fact I voted against both of them by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. With all the Joseph Goebbels's type political propaganda coming from both sides on this, I also don't give a coyote's howl if Trump is impeached or not.

I'm sick and tied of the polarization, of the ultra, high partisanship, of all the political party firsters. Far as I'm concerned, Trump, all Republican and all Democrats can head directly to Hades, don't stop, don't pass go, head directly to Hades. then perhaps we can get some politicians and a couple of parties that might just put America first.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's like 2016, my disdain for both Trump and Clinton was so high, I didn't give an owl's hoot who won. In fact I voted against both of them by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. With all the Joseph Goebbels's type political propaganda coming from both sides on this, I also don't give a coyote's howl if Trump is impeached or not.

I'm sick and tied of the polarization, of the ultra, high partisanship, of all the political party firsters. Far as I'm concerned, Trump, all Republican and all Democrats can head directly to Hades, don't stop, don't pass go, head directly to Hades. then perhaps we can get some politicians and a couple of parties that might just put America first.

The problem is that a third party candidate would draw more support from one major party than from the other - handing assured victory to that other major party. We seem to be stuck with the choice of voting for viable candidates from either the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government.

 

[NWRatCon]

Oversight is a function of Congress.

This is a central concept that seems to elude so many. Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme (National Review)

Congress is not coequal. It is superior. The notion of coequality of the branches is a myth that has been popularized over the past half century, during the rise of the imperial presidency, as a way to boost the executive’s standing in the eyes of the public.

There are three main reasons that Congress is supreme. First, Congress can get itself involved in the actions of the other branches. It can override presidential vetoes. It can deny appointments to the executive and judicial branches. It can impeach officers of the executive and judicial branches. It can set legislative and judicial pay. It also has wide discretion in determining the size and shape of the executive and judicial branches. Every executive department and indeed every officer except the president and vice president are creations of Congress. And Congress also has total authority to design the court system as it sees fit.

 

[NWRatCon]

It's like 2016, my disdain for both Trump and Clinton was so high, I didn't give an owl's hoot who won. In fact I voted against both of them by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. With all the Joseph Goebbels's type political propaganda coming from both sides on this, I also don't give a coyote's howl if Trump is impeached or not.

I'm sick and tied of the polarization, of the ultra, high partisanship, of all the political party firsters. Far as I'm concerned, Trump, all Republican and all Democrats can head directly to Hades, don't stop, don't pass go, head directly to Hades. then perhaps we can get some politicians and a couple of parties that might just put America first.

I confess, I once thought this way too. In 1980, after my candidate (George H.W. Bush) was beaten by Reagan, I looked outside for a candidate that best represented my views. At the time it was John Anderson. I had concluded that Carter had demonstrated his inability as President, and Reagan was both incompetent and dangerous (which ultimately proved unfortunately quite true). Today, however, I follow Ttwtt's approach. I like neither party, but my fear of the Republican party outweighs any mischief the Democratic party may get up to, and better represents my views on most subjects. The GOP has demonstrated a level of corruption and incompetence in governance that has no parallel in modern US history. Pick an historical Republican icon - Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater - they would be stunned to see what has become of their party.

 

[bongsaway]

And even with the Mueller interview with Congress behind us and the dire warning Mueller gave the US about ongoing Russian interference, Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any new election-security legislation. I'm telling you, they're all hooked up with the Russians.

The democrats are making a huge mistake not beginning the process of an impeachment inquiry. They wasted time issuing subpoenas then wasted time issuing contempt citations, which are meaningless anyway. Now those cases are collecting mold and mildew in the court dockets while time is passing by. The only thing that forced Richard Nixon to turn over his Watergate tapes was the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry and that's the only thing that will force these reluctant witnesses to testify before Congress. I've emailed and tweeted to members of Congress that have been reluctant to commit to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry to let them know how I feel about it. If enough people pressure their own congressman, they'll start listening.

I would like to think the leadership of the democrats are well of what they are doing. I was just listening to maxine waters and from what I took of what she said we could see an impeachment charge from each of the six committees looking into this mess. Once facts that can no longer be denied come to light it's all over and people will be going to jail. If this president thinks he can block a democratic led house forever from seeking the truth he is once again deluding himself.

 

[Perotista]

The problem is that a third party candidate would draw more support from one major party than from the other - handing assured victory to that other major party. We seem to be stuck with the choice of voting for viable candidates from either the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government.

Not really and not always. The third party vote actually helped Hillary Clinton if one believes the CNN exit polls. Asked third party voters whom they would have voted for if it was just a two candidate race, no third party. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton with 65% stating they would not have voted. The later, 65% is a huge number that were driven to the polls so they could vote against both Trump and Clinton. To officially register their anti-Trump, anti-Clinton vote.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Being 9 million folks voted third party, that's 5.9 million voters that wouldn't have voted if there hadn't been any third party candidate on the ballot to register their disdain for both major party candidates. Trump would have picked up an additional 1.7 million votes, Hillary an additional 1.4 million. So in 2016 the third party vote actually cost the winner, Trump more than Clinton.

2016 was an abnormal election, an anomaly. Trump and Clinton set the record for the lowest favorable rating of any two major party candidates at 36 and 38% in our history beating out Barry Goldwater who held the lowest favorable record prior to Trump and Clinton at 43%. Trump and Clinton also set the record for the highest unfavorable at 56% and 60%. The only two major party candidates ever to have an unfavorable ratings above 50%. Not even Goldwater back in 1964 broke that mark. His 47% was the highest unfavorable until Trump and Clinton came along. Also have 25% of all Americans wanting neither on to become the the next president is also a record.

What are the odds of the two most despised major party candidates facing each other in the same election. Has to be astronomical.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a central concept that seems to elude so many. Congress Is Not a Coequal Branch of Government — It’s Supreme (National Review)

You confuse the Power of the Purse under our form of Government with the concept of equality and co-equal branches of Government.

What you claim, is the actual political authority granted to effectually be able to Govern even with a "stubborn chief magistrate of the Union."

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not really and not always. The third party vote actually helped Hillary Clinton if one believes the CNN exit polls. Asked third party voters whom they would have voted for if it was just a two candidate race, no third party. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton with 65% stating they would not have voted. The later, 65% is a huge number that were driven to the polls so they could vote against both Trump and Clinton. To officially register their anti-Trump, anti-Clinton vote.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Being 9 million folks voted third party, that's 5.9 million voters that wouldn't have voted if there hadn't been any third party candidate on the ballot to register their disdain for both major party candidates. Trump would have picked up an additional 1.7 million votes, Hillary an additional 1.4 million. So in 2016 the third party vote actually cost the winner, Trump more than Clinton.

2016 was an abnormal election, an anomaly. Trump and Clinton set the record for the lowest favorable rating of any two major party candidates at 36 and 38% in our history beating out Barry Goldwater who held the lowest favorable record prior to Trump and Clinton at 43%. Trump and Clinton also set the record for the highest unfavorable at 56% and 60%. The only two major party candidates ever to have an unfavorable ratings above 50%. Not even Goldwater back in 1964 broke that mark. His 47% was the highest unfavorable until Trump and Clinton came along. Also have 25% of all Americans wanting neither on to become the the next president is also a record.

What are the odds of the two most despised major party candidates facing each other in the same election. Has to be astronomical.

Looking at the total popular vote is meaningless. Since I live in Texas, my third party POTUS vote in 2016 made no difference in Trump's getting all of the Texas EC votes.

 

[Perotista]

I confess, I once thought this way too. In 1980, after my candidate (George H.W. Bush) was beaten by Reagan, I looked outside for a candidate that best represented my views. At the time it was John Anderson. I had concluded that Carter had demonstrated his inability as President, and Reagan was both incompetent and dangerous (which ultimately proved unfortunately quite true). Today, however, I follow Ttwtt's approach. I like neither party, but my fear of the Republican party outweighs any mischief the Democratic party may get up to, and better represents my views on most subjects. The GOP has demonstrated a level of corruption and incompetence in governance that has no parallel in modern US history. Pick an historical Republican icon - Eisenhower, Reagan, Goldwater - they would be stunned to see what has become of their party.

I think that true of both parties. Truman, FDR, JFK wouldn't recognize the Democratic Party along with IKE and Reagan not recognizing the GOP. The big tent democratic party is a thing of the past. That was more or less a home for me for many years. But back in those days both parties had their conservative and liberal wings.

Parties evolve and change, I certainly don't recognize either party from my younger days. I first became interest in politics watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV back in 1956. It seems to me that the Republican Party has become a home for extreme rightist and the Democratic Party for extreme leftist. That's my take anyway.

 

[NWRatCon]

You confuse the Power of the Purse under our form of Government with the concept of equality and co-equal branches of Government.

What you claim, is the actual political authority granted to effectually be able to Govern even with a "stubborn chief magistrate of the Union."

I have to admit, I am not sure I follow your point, but maybe I can be more clear:

The branches of the government are coordinate, but not co-equal. There is a reason Article I is about the legislature. The other branches are reactive to what the legislature does. Yes, there are checks and balances (e.g., vetoes), and they should be rigorously applied, but ultimately what the law is comes from the legislature. The Executive executes those laws, and the Judiciary interprets those laws, but the legislature makes the laws.

And, yes, I do claim that it is "the actual political authority granted to effectually be able to Govern even with a 'stubborn chief magistrate of the Union.'" Unfortunately, we have a feckless (and in some respects, corrupt) legislature that has proven they are not up to the task.

 

[Perotista]

Looking at the total popular vote is meaningless. Since I live in Texas, my third party POTUS vote in 2016 made no difference in Trump's getting all of the Texas EC votes.

There's very few states left that aren't automatically red or blue. Somewhere between 6-10 states are actually in play. The big one is Florida with 29 electoral votes and the smallest is New Hampshire with 3. This is a far cry to pre-Reagan when most states were in play with the exception of the solid Democratic South. So you're talking about 40 states that have pre-determined results regardless of who is running.

I was shocked that Trump was able to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. But that was more a result of Hillary ignoring those supposedly blue wall states in favor of trying to win Georgia, Arizona and Utah. Not that I would place any of the three in the swing state category. Michigan, Pennsylvania had gone to the Democratic presidential candidate six straight elections prior to 2016 with Wisconsin going Democratic in seven straight elections. Hillary just blew it, Trump paid attention to them, Hillary didn't.

Myself, I want a viable alternative to the two major parties. In fact a good majority of Americans want the same thing. We're not going to get that by constantly voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate or the candidate we least want to lose.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

 

[ttwtt78640]

There's very few states left that aren't automatically red or blue. Somewhere between 6-10 states are actually in play. The big one is Florida with 29 electoral votes and the smallest is New Hampshire with 3. This is a far cry to pre-Reagan when most states were in play with the exception of the solid Democratic South. So you're talking about 40 states that have pre-determined results regardless of who is running.

I was shocked that Trump was able to carry Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. But that was more a result of Hillary ignoring those supposedly blue wall states in favor of trying to win Georgia, Arizona and Utah. Not that I would place any of the three in the swing state category. Michigan, Pennsylvania had gone to the Democratic presidential candidate six straight elections prior to 2016 with Wisconsin going Democratic in seven straight elections. Hillary just blew it, Trump paid attention to them, Hillary didn't.

Myself, I want a viable alternative to the two major parties. In fact a good majority of Americans want the same thing. We're not going to get that by constantly voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate or the candidate we least want to lose.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

IMHO, reforming (bending?) one of the existing major political parties to better conform to the peoples' wishes is more practical than forming a new political party.

 

[Perotista]

IMHO, reforming (bending?) one of the existing major political parties to better conform to the peoples' wishes is more practical than forming a new political party.

That's not going to happen. First the Democrats got rid of their conservatives, the Republicans their liberal. Then both have gone after their moderates wanting to eliminate them. So each party can be very conservative or very liberal, progressive if you will with the hard core that is left in each party making all the decisions.

From 1940-1970 approximately 80% of all Americans identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. From 1970-1984 that dropped to 70%. Around 2006 that dropped to 60% and today you have roughly 55% of all American's who identify with the two major parties. Of course independents have grown, those who don't identify with either party from 30% in 2006 up to 42% today. While you have some independents way to the right of the GOP, some way to the left of the Democrats, most fall in-between the two ideological wise. Or they support one party views on certain issues, policies while opposing that parties views on other issues and policies. It this latter I category I fall into.

The hard core conservatives don't want those who aren't hard core, the hard core progressives the same. This way they are free to choose the candidates they want, control the political process in the way they want, consolidate power unto them. The two major parties are even more powerful in our two party system today when they are under 60% than when 80% of all Americans identified with them.

I have often said that if one or the other major party moved more toward the center, recouped some of their moderates, say the center left or center right leaning folks, they would become the dominate party for the next 20-30 years. Neither is interested in that. Or so it seems. They're interested in only their hard core ideology.

With the far left and far right in control, they're not about to give that up. I don't think neither party cares if they shrink down to 10% of the electorate, as long as they control the two party system, how many or what percentage they make up is irrelevant. The choice will always be between the R and the D. They don't care if you don't like their candidates, if you hate their party even. You're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, for the candidate or party you least want to lose or to rule this nation even if you want neither one. It will only get worse. My take anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's not going to happen. First the Democrats got rid of their conservatives, the Republicans their liberal. Then both have gone after their moderates wanting to eliminate them. So each party can be very conservative or very liberal, progressive if you will with the hard core that is left in each party making all the decisions.

From 1940-1970 approximately 80% of all Americans identified or affiliated themselves with the two major parties. From 1970-1984 that dropped to 70%. Around 2006 that dropped to 60% and today you have roughly 55% of all American's who identify with the two major parties. Of course independents have grown, those who don't identify with either party from 30% in 2006 up to 42% today. While you have some independents way to the right of the GOP, some way to the left of the Democrats, most fall in-between the two ideological wise. Or they support one party views on certain issues, policies while opposing that parties views on other issues and policies. It this latter I category I fall into.

The hard core conservatives don't want those who aren't hard core, the hard core progressives the same. This way they are free to choose the candidates they want, control the political process in the way they want, consolidate power unto them. The two major parties are even more powerful in our two party system today when they are under 60% than when 80% of all Americans identified with them.

I have often said that if one or the other major party moved more toward the center, recouped some of their moderates, say the center left or center right leaning folks, they would become the dominate party for the next 20-30 years. Neither is interested in that. Or so it seems. They're interested in only their hard core ideology.

With the far left and far right in control, they're not about to give that up. I don't think neither party cares if they shrink down to 10% of the electorate, as long as they control the two party system, how many or what percentage they make up is irrelevant. The choice will always be between the R and the D. They don't care if you don't like their candidates, if you hate their party even. You're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, for the candidate or party you least want to lose or to rule this nation even if you want neither one. It will only get worse. My take anyway.

That argument can easily be shot down by pointing out that Trump, far more of a populist (moderate?) than a conservative, barged right on in, and not only ran for POTUS using the republicant label during the primary, but won the office of POTUS using the republicant label in the general election. While many initially objected (some quite loudly) most of the alleged conservatives within the republicant party calmed down rather quickly after his electoral success over the (alleged shoe in?) Hillary.

 

[danielpalos]

I have to admit, I am not sure I follow your point, but maybe I can be more clear:

The branches of the government are coordinate, but not co-equal. There is a reason Article I is about the legislature. The other branches are reactive to what the legislature does. Yes, there are checks and balances (e.g., vetoes), and they should be rigorously applied, but ultimately what the law is comes from the legislature. The Executive executes those laws, and the Judiciary interprets those laws, but the legislature makes the laws.

And, yes, I do claim that it is "the actual political authority granted to effectually be able to Govern even with a 'stubborn chief magistrate of the Union.'" Unfortunately, we have a feckless (and in some respects, corrupt) legislature that has proven they are not up to the task.

The problem is, Congress needs some form of (political) majority to achieve its supremacy.

 

[Perotista]

That argument can easily be shot down by pointing out that Trump, far more of a populist (moderate?) than a conservative, barged right on in, and not only ran for POTUS using the republicant label during the primary, but won the office of POTUS using the republicant label in the general election. While many initially objected (some quite loudly) most of the alleged conservatives within the republicant party calmed down rather quickly after his electoral success over the (alleged shoe in?) Hillary.

As I said, 2016 was an anomaly. Trump won the nomination with approximately 35% of the GOP vote. After he had locked up the nomination that shot up to 40% when he was basically the only candidate on the ballot. Having 18 candidates and even when the field shrank, the rest of the GOP being unable to decide on a candidate to oppose Trump handed him the nomination. You may have close to that same scenario with the Democrats this time around. Biden, the more moderate might be able to pull it off as long as Warren and Sanders divide up the more progressive vote. I doubt it, but it is possible. Biden is getting 26% of the democratic primary vote, but adding up Warren and Sanders, the progressive vote is at 41%. If you add up the rest of the progressives in the field, that at least another 20%.

I don't think Trump was a populist. He was an opportunist. Quite a lot of Republicans were made at the GOP congress for what they viewed as not standing up to Obama. They were in a very angry mood, Trump was a fighter, hence they went with Trump. His politics or ideology I don't think had a thing to do with it. Trump really didn't and doesn't have a political ideology or philosophy.

 

[James972]

Trump really didn't and doesn't have a political ideology or philosophy.

Thats absurd!! He's not a Nazi communist fascist progressive liberal socialist or monarchist. That narrows it down quite a bit. He is pro capitalist, pro family, pro defense, pro borders, and pro European melting pot. He a great and traditional conservative American much like our genius Founders. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

That argument can easily be shot down by pointing out that Trump, far more of a populist (moderate?) than a conservative, .

Actually conservatives love him for tax cuts, regulation cuts, military build up, SCOTUS picks, booming economy, and support for European melting pot rather than racist Hispanic nationalism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Actually conservatives love him for tax cuts, regulation cuts, military build up, SCOTUS picks, booming economy, and support for European melting pot rather than racist Hispanic nationalism.

Don't forget those $1T annual deficits, winning the "war on terror" (and bringing the troops home), all of those federal spending cuts and the repeal of PPACA that did not happen. BTW, where is that infrastructure improvement plan and why are there still 12M (to 20M?) illegal immigrants still here?

 

[James972]

Don't forget those $1T annual deficits, all of those federal spending cuts and the repeal of PPACA that did not happen. BTW, where is that infrastructure improvement plan and why are there still 12M (to 20M?) illegal immigrants still here?

Trumps conservative record of accomplishment is very very impressive indeed considering the whole govt hates him and wants to impeach him for wanting to impeach Biden

 

[ttwtt78640]

Trumps conservative record of accomplishment is very very impressive indeed considering the whole govt hates him and wants to impeach him for wanting to impeach Biden

Keep kidding yourself - and Mexico will soon pay for the Great Wall Of Trump, let him tell you. BTW, are you enjoying your TrumpCare benefits yet? How is our "most stable genius" doing on his trade wars?

 

[James972]

Keep kidding yourself - and Mexico will soon pay for the Great Wall Of Trump, let him tell you.

no idea what you are trying to say here. If you have any idea please let us know.

 

[James972]

BTW, are you enjoying your TrumpCare benefits yet?

dear, there is no Trump care. What planet have you been on???

 

[James972]

How is our "most stable genius" doing on his trade wars?

Far better than Obama who did not even know we were under attack. 1+1=2