KaiserJeep wrote:I heartily agree, Populism is a good thing and provides something that the two party system does not: real choice.
But I have never been a registered D or R, and am distinctly anti-partisan.
Trump as a Populist can make real changes. The establishment candidate from either the D's or the R's can not. That Trump chose too assume the mantle of one of the two parties, rather than form a third party as did both Teddy R and Perot, reflects pragmatism - there was a talent vacuum in both parties, which will still be true in 2020, he has no real competition. But whoever runs as a Populist must oppose the incumbent establishment, which was at the time a Democrat named Obama, who had generated massive dissatisfaction - a perfect setting for a Populist to run as a member of the opposition party.
Revi wrote: We need someone who can campaign. I am obviously not a fan of our present leader, but he does know how to campaign.
Cog wrote:
At the heart of the matter is a question. Was the investigation into the Trump campaign the result of a legitimate concern over foreign meddling in our election or was it a tool used by the former administration to destroy the incoming one? Guess it depends on who you trust as to what you believe.
My take on it is if this was a legit investigation, then someone should have been charged with colluding or conspiring with the Russians. Mueller did not find that nor did he charge anyone with it. So why was the investigation even began if there was no definitive evidence that such collusion existed?
This moment is genuinely historic, an “inflection point” as described by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-California). “Either the Trump camp’s claims about executive power stand,” writes Esquire blogger Charles P. Pierce, “or the Constitution does.” What began with Richard Nixon and accelerated through Dick Cheney has come to full noxious bloom under Donald Trump. It is time for Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats to salvage this thought experiment we call a country, and to salvage the institution they serve while they still can. Impeachment is the way.
jedrider wrote:Impeachment....impeachment.....
Plantagenet wrote:jedrider wrote:Impeachment....impeachment.....
What do you imagine Trump will be impeached for?
Thanks to the Mueller report we know there was no collusion with Russia and we know Mueller had insufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice, especially in the absence of an underlying crime whose investigation Trump was supposedly obstructing.
Do you have some other crime in mind that Trump should be impeached for, or do you think the Ds will just continue on with the conspiracy theory nonsense that Trump is a Russian asset, even though Mueller has now thoroughly debunked that D silliness?
Cheers!
Cog wrote:What unconstitutional behavior might that be? That sounds very vague to start impeachment proceedings. Where are the high crimes and misdemeanors that the Constitution refers to and to which Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with anything. Somehow I don't believe "Orange Man Bad" is something the American people are going to accept as a sufficient charge and specification. If the Democrats want Trump out so badly, we have an election next year to decide that.
It is not the role of the legislative branch to decide if the president's policies and executive orders are unconstitutional. That is the role of judiciary. The Congress has the power of the purse strings and that is sufficient to either fund the president's policies or to deny that funding.
Newfie wrote:Try reading a good bio of LBJ if you want to know sleazy. Or Nixon if you want to know narcissism.
But back to constraining the Presidents powers, it strikes me that every President since Carter (and maybe him) has expanded these powers to where they are far beyond what was intended by the Constitution. Obama’s attack on Libia and the drone strikes (assignation on a foreign countries soil) come to mind as excesses.
Cog, you have an opinion on that?
In any case I would be more impressed if Congress were to push in that front. Because they don’t I consider this all just s real time “Game of Thrones”. And we the people willing support which ever lord we are accustomed to.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests