(07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:00 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]This guy is an absolute disgrace, but some of you will defend him no matter what he says or does. That makes you cult members.
You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
(07-18-2018, 06:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, stop.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
(07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:00 AM)Kotite Wrote: [ -> ]This guy is an absolute disgrace, but some of you will defend him no matter what he says or does. That makes you cult members.
You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
(07-18-2018, 06:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, stop.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
Such a drama queen. They're saying bad things about my boy!
"Voice of the American people". ??? You do know that Clinton received more votes, don't you. You're surprised that a minority president has minority support?
You've never seen a president under such attack? You don't know much American history I guess. You also must have slept through the Obama era. No recollection of the Tea Party and all the racist attacks against Obama? Many by your boy Donald.
They say love is blind. You are exhibit #1.
(07-18-2018, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
What do find discomforting about that statement, that he uttered in in public? Do you not think there were democratic congressmen thinking that and saying that behind closed doors in 1980 as Reagan's presidency began? I watched for 8 years as the media ignored any hint of impropriety by the Obama administration until the volume was deafening. By contrast, watching I believe ABC news this morning the talking heads were conjecturing that the Queen of England was sending a message about Trump because she wore a brooch that the Obama's had given her in the past, the day before her meeting with Trump.
The rest of your statement is pure truth, the problem I see is that congress is so in bed with the lobbyist and donors that fixing the problem would be akin to cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
(07-18-2018, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
Congress stopped doing their job almost two decades ago. They’d rather the President have a bit more power so they can’t be chastised in the public eye.
(07-18-2018, 09:21 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
What do find discomforting about that statement, that he uttered in in public? Do you not think there were democratic congressmen thinking that and saying that behind closed doors in 1980 as Reagan's presidency began? I watched for 8 years as the media ignored any hint of impropriety by the Obama administration until the volume was deafening. By contrast, watching I believe ABC news this morning the talking heads were conjecturing that the Queen of England was sending a message about Trump because she wore a brooch that the Obama's had given her in the past, the day before her meeting with Trump.
The rest of your statement is pure truth, the problem I see is that congress is so in bed with the lobbyist and donors that fixing the problem would be akin to cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
I find things McConnell definitely said openly to be more concerning than things Democrats may have said behind closed doors 30+ years ago, yes.
If Democrats in Congress said those kinds of things at that time, that's not good, but at least they said it behind closed doors. Saying it privately indicates more respect for both the traditional role of Congress and the traditional role of the President.
Congressmen aren't supposed to be grandstanding to influence the Presidential election. Should they hold the current President accountable? Yes. Do they have the power to remove the current president from office for any improper behavior? Yes. But theyre supposed to do that by passing laws and issuing subpoenas and ultimately starting impeachment proceedings if the first two options don't work. You know that. They aren't supposed to be electioneering for or against a candidate for president or the reelection of the current president.
One thing is certain, Trump flushed out all the fair-weather friends.
(07-18-2018, 09:10 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
Such a drama queen. They're saying bad things about my boy!
"Voice of the American people". ??? You do know that Clinton received more votes, don't you. You're surprised that a minority president has minority support?
You've never seen a president under such attack? You don't know much American history I guess. You also must have slept through the Obama era. No recollection of the Tea Party and all the racist attacks against Obama? Many by your boy Donald.
They say love is blind. You are exhibit #1.
Lol, you really think Obama had to deal with his own administration acting as a shadow government and undermining him at every turn? You're so delusional I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
(07-18-2018, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 09:10 AM)Adam2012 Wrote: [ -> ]Such a drama queen. They're saying bad things about my boy!
"Voice of the American people". ??? You do know that Clinton received more votes, don't you. You're surprised that a minority president has minority support?
You've never seen a president under such attack? You don't know much American history I guess. You also must have slept through the Obama era. No recollection of the Tea Party and all the racist attacks against Obama? Many by your boy Donald.
They say love is blind. You are exhibit #1.
Lol, you really think Obama had to deal with his own administration acting as a shadow government and undermining him at every turn? You're so delusional I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
Is there any actual evidence he does get out of bed in the morning?
(07-18-2018, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You hate him (and at a visceral, personal level I might add) no matter what he says or does. Pot meet Kettle.
You know, I do believe we have a very unusual circumstance here. I've never seen a President under such outright attack from all sides, including from within his own Administration, from the moment he won the election, with the sole purpose being to overturn his win the way Trump has been. It may not be outright civil war, but it's certainly an attempt to thwart the voice of the American people and stop Trump from governing in any meaningful way.
I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
It's expected that the Opposition Party, you know, oppose. It's unusual that the people who work for Trump directly and those who nominally belong to his party are actively trying to get him impeached for the sin of being elected.
And the Executive Branch is supposed to be
as powerful as Congress through different means, check and balances and all that. I do agree that Congress has ceded to much to the other branches, but they shouldn't be more powerful than the others either.
(07-18-2018, 10:07 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you really think Obama had to deal with his own administration acting as a shadow government and undermining him at every turn? You're so delusional I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
Is there any actual evidence he does get out of bed in the morning?
Point taken.
(07-18-2018, 10:07 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see anything in the last two years that's worse than Mitch McConnell declaring that his #1 goal was to make Obama a one-term President.
The President doesn't appoint Congress.
The Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President. They have deferred so much of their power to the president and his appointees over the last 100 years. They may have to start taking it back.
It's not going to be pretty, and it will come across as disloyal to those of us who like the President at the time.
That said, this is just where I see things headed. Congress has yet to pass major reforms to limit the President's power. They are just talking about it.
It's expected that the Opposition Party, you know, oppose. It's unusual that the people who work for Trump directly and those who nominally belong to his party are actively trying to get him impeached for the sin of being elected.
And the Executive Branch is supposed to be as powerful as Congress through different means, check and balances and all that. I do agree that Congress has ceded to much to the other branches, but they shouldn't be more powerful than the others either.
(07-18-2018, 10:07 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Is there any actual evidence he does get out of bed in the morning?
Point taken.
The Founders didn't envision parties, opposition or otherwise, being a lasting feature of their system.
If party affiliation is becoming less of a predictor of support for a President's policy choice, the Founders would probably see that as a positive development.
(07-18-2018, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you really think Obama had to deal with his own administration acting as a shadow government and undermining him at every turn? You're so delusional I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
They didn't have too. Trump does so many screwed up things that everyone one of his actions needs to be monitored (by the reps of both parties) at the micro level.
(07-18-2018, 10:07 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 10:04 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, you really think Obama had to deal with his own administration acting as a shadow government and undermining him at every turn? You're so delusional I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
Is there any actual evidence he does get out of bed in the morning?
Is there any actual evidence that you get off your knees? Do you ever leave Mar-a-Lago?
(07-18-2018, 06:43 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 11:14 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]They didn't have too. Trump does so many screwed up things that everyone one of his actions needs to be monitored (by the reps of both parties) at the micro level.
What screwed up action has Trump done? You may disagree with some of his policy, but his policy decisions have been pretty much mainstream. For example, he has yet to facilitate a government take over of 20% of the US economy.
OTOH, I can think of at least two cases where Obama sent US taxpayer's money to foreign leaders (Iran, UN Climate Commission) without congressional approval.
The money returned to Iran was not U.S. taxpayer's money, it was paid according to law, and did not require congressional approval.
(07-18-2018, 08:20 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2018, 08:15 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]The money returned to Iran was not U.S. taxpayer's money, it was paid according to law, and did not require congressional approval.
I was referring to the $400M Obama shipped to Iran not for hostages.
That $400 million was an advance payment from the Shah's government for aircraft and other military supplies. When the embassy employees were taken hostage, we barred shipment of the equipment and kept the money in a trust. The repayment was made according to law. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but facts are facts.
If anything, it's now apparent that those who support Trump are officially in too deep to back out. If after publicly, in a globally televised press conference, you watch the man side with a foreign power over his own intelligence community and still support him, it's clear the man could actually shoot someone dead in the street and still receive your vote.