Post-Trump.

[Torus34]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

 

[TheParser]

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.

What a coincidence! I was just thinking about that matter this morning.

I bet a change could sail through quickly in a few years -- so that the 44th president could run again and stay in office as long as he wishes.

Such an event would warm the cockles of many a Democrat's heart.

 

[code1211]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

The only correction is to re-establish the Federal part of the Federal Government.

Get the power out of Washington and return it to "the people or the various states".

Let the a-holes in DC fight among themselves leave the rest of us alone.

Wouldn't it be great if the governmental budgets we cared about were ones that we could do something about?

 

[Torus34]

The only correction is to re-establish the Federal part of the Federal Government.

Get the power out of Washington and return it to "the people or the various states".

Let the a-holes in DC fight among themselves leave the rest of us alone.

Wouldn't it be great if the governmental budgets we cared about were ones that we could do something about?

Hi! I do not see the consolidation of power in the federal government being reversed. As with the natural world, for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. I see no causal mechanism.

Regards.

 

[Torus34]

What a coincidence! I was just thinking about that matter this morning.

I bet a change could sail through quickly in a few years -- so that the 44th president could run again and stay in office as long as he wishes.

Such an event would warm the cockles of many a Democrat's heart.

Hi! It's but a small step from considering a constitutional amendment being pushed through by a party which controls the administration, the legislature and sufficient state governments to a one party 'democracy'. There are any number of examples extant.

 

[TheParser]

It's but a small step from considering a constitutional amendment being pushed through by a party which controls the administration, the legislature and sufficient state governments to a one party 'democracy'.

Oh, yes!

By the year 2100, the United States of America (if it still exists) may easily have become a one-party state.

 

[WCH]

What a coincidence! I was just thinking about that matter this morning.

I bet a change could sail through quickly in a few years -- so that the 44th president could run again and stay in office as long as he wishes.

Such an event would warm the cockles of many a Democrat's heart.

Too bad many on the Left have decided Obama wasn't quite the change they were hoping for.

 

[Mach]

The only correction is to re-establish the Federal part of the Federal Government.

To fix the Republican party you want to destroy the Federal government? Sounds like a Republican idea alright.

 

[Mach]

Too bad many on the Left have decided Obama wasn't quite the change they were hoping for.

It was. It was the right wing crazy that was the issue. After losing twice to a black man, they voted in a reality TV show con-man who has taken a huge dump on the institution of government and 60% of the population.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hi! It's but a small step from considering a constitutional amendment being pushed through by a party which controls the administration, the legislature and sufficient state governments to a one party 'democracy'. There are any number of examples extant.

At the point of single party (mob?) rule, there could well be a constitutional rewrite eliminating the additional overhead of state governments (thus the US Senate) entirely. We would then have (the people's?) house passing bills and (the people's?) supreme ruler enacting them into law with the SCOTUS simply agreeing that whatever they agreed on is, by definition, the new law of the land.

 

[WCH]

It was. It was the right wing crazy that was the issue. After losing twice to a black man, they voted in a reality TV show con-man who has taken a huge dump on the institution of government and 60% of the population.

Obviously the government you wanted wasn't the great institution you worship.

 

[Torus34]

Oh, yes!

By the year 2100, the United States of America (if it still exists) may easily have become a one-party state.

Hi! If that's where we're headed, it won't take anywhere near that long. Check any of the rallies held by President of the United States Donald Trump and pay attention to the crowd.

Regards.

 

[Torus34]

At the point of single party (mob?) rule, there could well be a constitutional rewrite eliminating the additional overhead of state governments (thus the US Senate) entirely. We would then have (the people's?) house passing bills and (the people's?) supreme ruler enacting them into law with the SCOTUS simply agreeing that whatever they agreed on is, by definition, the new law of the land.

Consider the following. Once a single party has control of the administration, preferably with a highly charismatic president, and control of both houses of the legislature with a 2/3 majority in the Senate, there's nothing to stop packing the Supreme Court with party loyalists. From there, a sngle party controls the Constitution.

Our democracy is stable because of two things. 1) Legislature members consider members of the other party as equals, and 2) neither party makes use of the full powers available to them but, rather, act with deliberate moderation.

Regards.

 

[HumblePi]

We will, either in 2020 or in 2024, see a change of president.* We may even see a change in the party in charge of the Administration. There is, however, little possibility of seeing a change -- a reversal, if you please -- of the current lack of compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats in the legislature.** A winner-takes-all attitude in which a compromise is seen as a loss has taken hold. Opponents are vilified and no longer seen as equals.

It is difficult to see how we can escape from this situation. Its effect is that our government will lurch from extreme to extreme, with the swings of the pendulum increasing with time.

* The possibility of an annulment of the 22nd Amendment is small, but cannot be completely ruled out.
** Or, for that matter, between the president and the members of the other party in the legislature.

I think there's going to be a huge change in the republican party, that's evidenced in the results of the elections in Kentucky with a democrat as governor, Virginia --which solidified their democratic control of government, and to a large extent a deeper control by democrats in parts of Pennsylvania. Kentucky was always a deep red state in 2016 and they elected a democrat for governor. Not only did Kentucky elect a democrat but people went to the polls the very next day that Trump and Mitch McConnell held a rally where Trump begged for support. By the time the 2020 election rolls around there's going to be a lot of republican Senators that will be packing their bags and heading home.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Consider the following. Once a single party has control of the administration, preferably with a highly charismatic president, and control of both houses of the legislature with a 2/3 majority in the Senate, there's nothing to stop packing the Supreme Court with party loyalists. From there, a sngle party controls the Constitution.

Our democracy is stable because of two things. 1) Legislature members consider members of the other party as equals, and 2) neither party makes use of the full powers available to them but, rather, act with deliberate moderation.

Regards.

That stable democracy is continually expanding federal power and expense. We the sheeple are offered the choice of voting for viable candidates put forth by the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government. The new "trick" seems to be to pass federal laws like expanded Medicaid where for each $1 spent by the state government the federal government tosses in $9 - the new 'turn public K-12 schools into daycare centers' bill by Harris uses that same "bribe the states" funding formula.

 

[Torus34]

I think there's going to be a huge change in the republican party, that's evidenced in the results of the elections in Kentucky with a democrat as governor, Virginia --which solidified their democratic control of government, and to a large extent a deeper control by democrats in parts of Pennsylvania. Kentucky was always a deep red state in 2016 and they elected a democrat for governor. Not only did Kentucky elect a democrat but people went to the polls the very next day that Trump and Mitch McConnell held a rally where Trump begged for support. By the time the 2020 election rolls around there's going to be a lot of republican Senators that will be packing their bags and heading home.

Hi! President of the United States of America Donald Trump put his oar in the water in the Virginia gubernatorial race. You might wish to see the polling data for the two candidates leading up to the election and compare that to the actual vote to gauge the 'Trump' effect. I don't believe that it was insignificant.

Regards.

 

[Torus34]

That stable democracy is continually expanding federal power and expense. We the sheeple are offered the choice of voting for viable candidates put forth by the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government. The new "trick" seems to be to pass federal laws like expanded Medicaid where for each $1 spent by the state government the federal government tosses in $9 - the new 'turn public K-12 schools into daycare centers' bill by Harris uses that same "bribe the states" funding formula.

Hi! You're drifting from the OP. Regards.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hi! You're drifting from the OP. Regards.

Perhaps a bit, but is the large, and growing ever larger, impact of federal control over our daily lives (never envisioned by the founders) which makes it such a valuable political prize for a political party to gain control of the federal government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hi! I do not see the consolidation of power in the federal government being reversed. As with the natural world, for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. I see no causal mechanism.

Regards.

The founders tried to supply one - a limited list of specific federal government powers, leaving all else up to the several states or to the people.

 

[Torus34]

The founders tried to supply one - a limited list of specific federal government powers, leaving all else up to the several states or to the people.

The operative word, I believe, is 'tried'. That there are any number of ways of finessing around this is borne out by the present federal structure.

Regards.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The operative word, I believe, is 'tried'. That there are any number of ways of finessing around this is borne out by the present federal structure.

Regards.

Yep, using only the broadest possible interpretation of the federal powers to levy taxes, regulate commerce and/or to provide for the general welfare. The rest is now viewed as procedural window dressing which needs to be relaxed (just a bit at a time) to allow for even more federal power.

 

[Mach]

Obviously the government you wanted wasn't the great institution you worship.

When your party is so trashy, you have to claim the other side "worships government", based on no evidence, reaosn, or even common sense.
That's how you support your party isn't it, with nonsense and lies, because...because any group so pathetic you have to lie 24/7 to defend, is surely doing good stuff...right?

 

[code1211]

Hi! I do not see the consolidation of power in the federal government being reversed. As with the natural world, for there to be an effect, there must be a cause. I see no causal mechanism.

Regards.

Trump is the causal mechanism.

He has already reduced the number of pages in the Federal Registry of Regulations by about a third.

That is real removal of power from the zealots in Washington DC.

 

[TomFitz]

Oh, yes!

By the year 2100, the United States of America (if it still exists) may easily have become a one-party state.

I hope not.

But the Trump experience shows how it could happen.

We have never had a politicial leader who cultivated the cult of personality that Trump has.

His supporters blindly cheer for their “lifestyles of the rich and famou” image, and his chest beating jingoism. Racism gets its turn,

In a true mark of fascism, the cult of personality emphasizes the racism by promoting the notion that their supporters are victims of an “other” the must be dealt with. At the same time, the would be tyrant, is obsequious and fawning toward the money class, and makes sure the media is doing well promoting his message.

If you doubt the dark underbelly of American political culture, and if you feel (as I do), that this cult of personality that Trump has built could be a real threat to democracy in the hands of a smarter and more focused dictator, read Sinclair Lewis.

“It Can’t Happen Here” was written 80 years ago, but the story resonates easily in the present.

 

[code1211]

To fix the Republican party you want to destroy the Federal government? Sounds like a Republican idea alright.

Why do posters edit the post of others for no other reason than to change the meaning and then present them as if they have not been edited?