Disappointed in Democratic Field

[MisterBeale]

To the best of my knowledge…no prominent Democrat running for their party’s nomination for President has addressed fundamentally changing the game so that we don’t have another wanna-be dictator like the blob 10-20 years from now.

Currently we have an administration that instructs it’s appointed officials to not cooperate with Congress. Currently we have an administration that obstructs justice in ways that are both modest and overt.
Currently we have an administration that simply refuses to honor the rule of law.

The Next President’s thesis should be to return the power to the Congress.

Congress should also amend it’s rules so that party appointees are stripped of their power and the membership is able to vote on measures passed by the other chamber.

Why didn't you make this post while Obama was president?

I did.

Liberals and Democrats... a simple question for you.

While I technically agree with you, I found the previous two presidents abuses of power for more heinous than this current administration.

The continuing concentration of power, and congress' refusal and inability to act, ceding power to what has been termed by scholars as, "the imperial presidency," go back decades now.

Which is all the more reason for the next President to reduce the power of the presidency.

Only now, that the corporate media have essentially conditioned and brainwashed the public at large, with what amounts to irrational hate of the current oval office occupant, when all of these powers were enjoyed previously. . .

It is nothing new.

To stand on a soap box and say you are just now worried? It seems partisan and highly disingenuous.

Where was your outrage after Libya and Benghazi?

Oh…you mean the ones that Secretary of State Clinton testified about twice? We can’t even get the AG to show up when he is subpoenaed.

To stand ona soap box and say you are satisfied with these antics seems partisan and highly disingenuous.

Sorry, I have a hard time taking you serious now.

As I do you.

I agree with most of your post, except the partisan part which refuses to remember history.

William Barr & Eric Holder: When to Hold an Attorney General in Contempt | National Review

This bridge has been crossed, nothing happened then when it mattered and there was legal reason, why should it now?


As far as "no good candidate?"

The corporate press gives you that illusion. I watched the wrap up. They make you believe that by who they focus on.

I have seen this shtick before.

The public knew who they wanted more input from, but the pundits and the comedy show hosts ignored and belittled those candidates.

You will be steered toward the "no good candidates."

Drudge poll shock: Tulsi Gabbard runaway winner of first Democratic debate

POLL: Who do you think won the second night of the Democratic debate? Vote now

WATCH: Yang’s Mic Appears Muted During Democratic Debate | Heavy.com

The corporations did this type of crap to Ron Paul, and they did it to Dennis Kucinich. Anyone that stands against the fascist paradigm is a threat. You know this. They are the ones that will tell the voters who to vote for.

 

[Jets]

What’s needed is a President that is above the parties. It is a shame that politics is so polarized that men like Eisenhower will never be embraced again.

 

[candycorn]

To the best of my knowledge…no prominent Democrat running for their party’s nomination for President has addressed fundamentally changing the game so that we don’t have another wanna-be dictator like the blob 10-20 years from now.

Currently we have an administration that instructs it’s appointed officials to not cooperate with Congress. Currently we have an administration that obstructs justice in ways that are both modest and overt.
Currently we have an administration that simply refuses to honor the rule of law.

The Next President’s thesis should be to return the power to the Congress.

Congress should also amend it’s rules so that party appointees are stripped of their power and the membership is able to vote on measures passed by the other chamber.

Why didn't you make this post while Obama was president?

I did.

Liberals and Democrats... a simple question for you.

While I technically agree with you, I found the previous two presidents abuses of power for more heinous than this current administration.

The continuing concentration of power, and congress' refusal and inability to act, ceding power to what has been termed by scholars as, "the imperial presidency," go back decades now.

Which is all the more reason for the next President to reduce the power of the presidency.

Only now, that the corporate media have essentially conditioned and brainwashed the public at large, with what amounts to irrational hate of the current oval office occupant, when all of these powers were enjoyed previously. . .

It is nothing new.

To stand on a soap box and say you are just now worried? It seems partisan and highly disingenuous.

Where was your outrage after Libya and Benghazi?

Oh…you mean the ones that Secretary of State Clinton testified about twice? We can’t even get the AG to show up when he is subpoenaed.

To stand ona soap box and say you are satisfied with these antics seems partisan and highly disingenuous.

Sorry, I have a hard time taking you serious now.

As I do you.

I agree with most of your post, except the partisan part which refuses to remember history.

William Barr & Eric Holder: When to Hold an Attorney General in Contempt | National Review

This bridge has been crossed, nothing happened then when it mattered and there was legal reason, why should it now?


As far as "no good candidate?"

The corporate press gives you that illusion. I watched the wrap up. They make you believe that by who they focus on.

I have seen this shtick before.

The public knew who they wanted more input from, but the pundits and the comedy show hosts ignored and belittled those candidates.

You will be steered toward the "no good candidates."

Drudge poll shock: Tulsi Gabbard runaway winner of first Democratic debate

POLL: Who do you think won the second night of the Democratic debate? Vote now

WATCH: Yang’s Mic Appears Muted During Democratic Debate | Heavy.com

The corporations did this type of crap to Ron Paul, and they did it to Dennis Kucinich. Anyone that stands against the fascist paradigm is a threat. You know this. They are the ones that will tell the voters who to vote for.

Oh brother. Where did I say “no good candidate”? Not once.

Meanwhile back in reality….whomever is elected President can apparently take whatever Money congress has approved and use it for her/his pet project as we saw with wall funding….

There may not be anything in the Constitution that prevents this or any federal statute…but there sure as shit should be something that prevents President Harris or President Biden or President Warren or President Sasse or President Cortez in 2024, 2028 or whomever/whenever from doing so.

Its crazy that it was ever tried…true. But it is crazier that there isn’t something written down to expressly prevent this from happening. Whats even crazier, in my view, is that from year to year, Congress just decides not to fund something it approved the year before; allocate money….etc….

 

[Care4all]

To the best of my knowledge…no prominent Democrat running for their party’s nomination for President has addressed fundamentally changing the game so that we don’t have another wanna-be dictator like the blob 10-20 years from now.

Currently we have an administration that instructs it’s appointed officials to not cooperate with Congress. Currently we have an administration that obstructs justice in ways that are both modest and overt.
Currently we have an administration that simply refuses to honor the rule of law.

The Next President’s thesis should be to return the power to the Congress.

Congress should also amend it’s rules so that party appointees are stripped of their power and the membership is able to vote on measures passed by the other chamber.

I trust Trump more than the jackasses in the House.

I certainly don't trust Congress, but why do you trust Trump? Everything about him just screams conman to me. I have read a bit, and have - maybe - some academic understanding of why people are drawn to him. But ultimately, I don't get it. He's the kind of person who makes me ashamed to be human.

You're aware that he's dragging down a whole one dollar per year of course.

Eh?

That's what he takes for a paycheck.

NOPE, we pay him 100%

he takes his full paycheck, paid by us tax payers.... then he donates it to his personal choice cause, then he gets the tax write off for it.

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay…show me where the Constitution says (one way or the other) that political parties can appoint a Senate Majority Leader and this person can stop the entire body from considering bills passed by the House of Representatives, leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court for nearly a year, etc…

Congress is powerless. As it turns out…you can as President take money from any program that Congress funded and apply it to campaign promises. As it turns out….your administration officials (who Congress approved) can simply refuse to submit to congressional scrutiny. As it turns out….if they do and are held in contempt of Congress….they suffer no penalty.

Both the Senate and the House are self-regulating bodies; they elect their officials (not appointed by parties) and vest in them the powers they have. The Executive has nothing to do with that, and the Democratic candidates would be well advised to stay out of it, for any interference is going to backfire.

The latter issues are complex, but your gripe is basically with Congress not using its power to the fullest extent possible. They could actually incarcerate officials who wouldn't submit to Congressional subpoenas, but they don't. The reason for that is easy to see, isn't it? The next time a Democratic President refuses to make available government officials for Congressional scrutiny, they are going to face the same treatment. So, Democrats are moving cautiously, and I can't fault them for that. As to the funding issue, I seem to remember that's before the courts and will be resolved one way or another, and so far not exactly in Trump's favor.

 

[Care4all]

Why don't you just make conservatism illegal?....dems always want to change the rules win they lose....LMAO.....

there is NOTHING about this administration that is even remotely close to being conservative

 

[wamose]

What ever happened to Avenotti, Hillary and Oprah, all one time CNN and DNC faves?

 

[candycorn]

Okay…show me where the Constitution says (one way or the other) that political parties can appoint a Senate Majority Leader and this person can stop the entire body from considering bills passed by the House of Representatives, leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court for nearly a year, etc…

Congress is powerless. As it turns out…you can as President take money from any program that Congress funded and apply it to campaign promises. As it turns out….your administration officials (who Congress approved) can simply refuse to submit to congressional scrutiny. As it turns out….if they do and are held in contempt of Congress….they suffer no penalty.

Both the Senate and the House are self-regulating bodies; they elect their officials (not appointed by parties) and vest in them the powers they have. The Executive has nothing to do with that, and the Democratic candidates would be well advised to stay out of it, for any interference is going to backfire.

The latter issues are complex, but your gripe is basically with Congress not using its power to the fullest extent possible. They could actually incarcerate officials who wouldn't submit to Congressional subpoenas, but they don't. The reason for that is easy to see, isn't it? The next time a Democratic President refuses to make available government officials for Congressional scrutiny, they are going to face the same treatment. So, Democrats are moving cautiously, and I can't fault them for that. As to the funding issue, I seem to remember that's before the courts and will be resolved one way or another, and so far not exactly in Trump's favor.

While Congress can make its own rules, candidates for President can comment on what they feel should be changed.

While it is convenient for the Executive to resist oversight, candidates for President can pledge that as POTUS, their administration will not.

None of the Dems are doing that.

 

[Third Party]

To the best of my knowledge…no prominent Democrat running for their party’s nomination for President has addressed fundamentally changing the game so that we don’t have another wanna-be dictator like the blob 10-20 years from now.

Currently we have an administration that instructs it’s appointed officials to not cooperate with Congress. Currently we have an administration that obstructs justice in ways that are both modest and overt.
Currently we have an administration that simply refuses to honor the rule of law.

The Next President’s thesis should be to return the power to the Congress.

Congress should also amend it’s rules so that party appointees are stripped of their power and the membership is able to vote on measures passed by the other chamber.

I agree, the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency is a serious matter, and Trump is testing the limits in ways and to an extent probably without precedent in U.S. history. So, my two cents or so:

1. Remember the years of presidential harassment Bill was subjected to over the years of his presidency, all but bankrupting him by the time he left office? I'd say, Congress is more powerful than you seem to believe.

2. Congressional power is slow to unfold. There are processes to follow, court decisions to await, members of Congress to be herded behind Congressional moves and whatnot. The impression might be, Congress is powerless. This, I think, is a misperception.

3. It is not to be expected that candidates for the Presidency seek to empower Congress beyond what the Constitutional design affords them. The Founders set up a system so that the balance is being maintained by the respective branches eagerly guarding their turf. That's how it is, and should be. That is so not least because a Democratic President may face yet another retarded Congress interfering into Presidential work, and he needs all the Constitutional power he has to perform in his job.

4. While I agree Trump is a lawless crook, I opt for Congress stiffen their spine and use the power at their disposal, vigorously but within the limits of the Constitution, to perform their Congressional duties and get to the bottom of Executive malfeasance. It's not for Presidents and Presidential candidates to give up power to facilitate Congress's work.

And if Nadler and his gang don't find any wrong doing, will you still call Trump a crook or be reasonable?

 

[Third Party]

I trust Trump more than the jackasses in the House.

I certainly don't trust Congress, but why do you trust Trump? Everything about him just screams conman to me. I have read a bit, and have - maybe - some academic understanding of why people are drawn to him. But ultimately, I don't get it. He's the kind of person who makes me ashamed to be human.

You're aware that he's dragging down a whole one dollar per year of course.

Eh?

That's what he takes for a paycheck.

NOPE, we pay him 100%

he takes his full paycheck, paid by us tax payers.... then he donates it to his personal choice cause, then he gets the tax write off for it.

So? Does Biden do that? We know AOC does not.

 

[Rambunctious]

Why don't you just make conservatism illegal?....dems always want to change the rules win they lose....LMAO.....

there is NOTHING about this administration that is even remotely close to being conservative

That's right...Trump is a pragmatist and puts America first....neither the GOP or the Dems resemble Trump and that is why we voted for him....but you go ahead and continue to be a swamp dweller and guberment butt licker........

 

[Care4all]

I certainly don't trust Congress, but why do you trust Trump? Everything about him just screams conman to me. I have read a bit, and have - maybe - some academic understanding of why people are drawn to him. But ultimately, I don't get it. He's the kind of person who makes me ashamed to be human.

You're aware that he's dragging down a whole one dollar per year of course.

Eh?

That's what he takes for a paycheck.

NOPE, we pay him 100%

he takes his full paycheck, paid by us tax payers.... then he donates it to his personal choice cause, then he gets the tax write off for it.

So? Does Biden do that? We know AOC does not.

Biden and AOC do not have allegedly $10 BILLION in net worth, nor are they making hundreds of millions a year, as this president is, with his personal holdings.... while sitting as president.

that's not an apples to apple example, that you give?

And he said he was NOT going to take a salary from us tax payers, but he did.

 

[Third Party]

You're aware that he's dragging down a whole one dollar per year of course.

Eh?

That's what he takes for a paycheck.

NOPE, we pay him 100%

he takes his full paycheck, paid by us tax payers.... then he donates it to his personal choice cause, then he gets the tax write off for it.

So? Does Biden do that? We know AOC does not.

Biden and AOC do not have allegedly $10 BILLION in net worth, nor are they making hundreds of millions a year, as this president is, with his personal holdings.... while sitting as president.

that's not an apples to apple example, that you give?

And he said he was NOT going to take a salary from us tax payers, but he did.

By LAW, he has to. And your apples to apples is not relevant-they DON"T give.

 

[Care4all]

By LAW, he has to.

I did not know that??

 

[Care4all]

By LAW, he has to.

I did not know that??

ok, just did a search on it, here is what Pres elect Trump said in this interview...


In his first broadcast interview as president-elect, Donald Trump pledged that he will accept as little of the presidential salary as he can get away with. “I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year,” he told CBS’ Lesley Stahl. “$400,000 you’re giving up,” she responded, as if this were some sort of public-spirited sacrifice.

Why Donald Trump Needs to Take a Salary