https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-trump-thinks-he-s-been-given-vast-new-powers-now-he-s-going-to-use-them/ar-BB17KF0u?li=BBnbcA1

My response to another one of my insane Liberal lady friends:

You can not have it both ways, and if you took the time to properly understand what is actually going on instead of Rachel Maddow telling her MSNBC version of what is going on you would be less irrational and and better informed.

Her regarding Trumps executive orders the other day: “have his phony violation of the constitution last night ( congress controls the purse strings !!!!!!) .. Why? Why? Why ? Do you let Him get by.”

Compliments of St. Barack Obama (Full blood philosophical Marxist, Globalist and race provocateur) and Chief Justice John Roberts. When Obama knowingly made the UNCONSTITUTIONAL executive order that created DACA and the Chief Justice bent into a pretzel to accommodate it that is where all of this going around the Congress comes from. In other words, this is the result of a rouge president and Supreme Court that has decided to legislate from the bench and usurp Congress. The truth is a cold bitch.

https://metrovoicenews.com/obama-said-daca-was-unconstitutional-now-supreme-court-decides/

And I personally support some kind of solution for those children brought to America ILLEGALLY and through no fault of their own, and Trump agrees with me and would accommodate them in some reasonable manner. But Pelosi will not allow it because it gives Trump a win.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, its how the universe operates. And as we stray further and further Left and away from the Founders original intent and towards the slippery slope we all become threatened with going over the cliff.

My new tag line: BLACK LIVES MAGA. Now that is an inclusive message that I can stand behind.

Fortunately, the Senate is more thoughtful than the House, because the house emotionally impeached a president without considering any evidence — or considering that it lacked any evidence. Now the Democrats in the Senate admit that evidence is needed in order to impeach anyone. It is too bad that the House failed to think of finding any.

The House has turned itself into a kangaroo court: impeach first then worry about evidence of guilt. Perhaps the Democrats in the House thought that the Senate would follow the House’s rules and require the accused to prove his innocence, despite giving no opportunity to make his case.

This is not American. It isn’t even British. Heck, it isn’t even French, because the French at least give the accused an opportunity to make a case of innocence, hard as it is to prove.

Have you seen my country lately? I seem to have lost it.

https://usdebtclock.org/

Then this must be a big step back for them.

This whole thing was flubbed from the beginning. Schiff opened the House’s investigation by dramatically parodying (his word) the phone call that the second-hand pseudo whistle blower reported. How serious can he and the House be if their report of the phone call is a parody? How smart is it to open an investigation with a parody of the supposed crime rather than emphasizing its seriousness?

I’m sticking with these guys being incompetent, stupid buffoons, causing more damage than help to their cause. As I recall, Pelosi agreed to an impeachment just to appease Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When it all went south, Ocasio-Cortez sort of dropped off the radar, as though she is hiding from the damage that resulted from her words. Clearly, the Democrats know less about what they are doing than the Republicans — and that is saying something!

Why? Because then both Bidens will be called to testify, in addition to president Obama. And who in the Democrat party would want that?

https://youtu.be/6QT_mVKV4wc

Trump defense team: “Mr. president (Obama), did Joe Biden, who you put in charge of Ukraine and who’s son Hunter was immediately hired by the corrupt gas company Burisma and paid millions of dollars have your authority to threaten the Ukrainians with withholding the $Billion dollars in aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was not fired?”

There is no executive privilege here since Biden freely communicated what he actually said and intended while threatening the Ukrainians, and he included president Obama in his threat. “Go ahead, call him”.

Will the Democrats be willing to trade John Bolton who will certainly come under Trumps executive privilege, for both Bidens and president Obama? And the Bolton executive privilege will take months to litigate, and Trump and his executive privilege will certainly prevail. And it is plain to anyone what went on between Burisma and the vice presidents son and the access to power that he facilitated to the vice president himself. And there is soooo much more where the Biden family leveraged the Senator then vice president political power. Sooo much more.

I really do not think so, that will result in a cascading effect of multiple witnesses, an Armageddon of witnesses.

Are the Democrats that crazy? Stay tuned, but I do not think so. This is all IMO posing and posturing and just about dirtying up a president that the Democrats have no other strategy to deal with. Do you really think that Trump being the president had no justification to ensure that the existing corruption that plainly existed in Ukraine and related to U.S. aid was being dealt with? Really?

And as to the charges of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of power, that is any presidents job related to Congress when he or she disagrees with them. A 1 on a scale of 10, and you need a 10 to remove a president from office. Trump has been impeached related to political strategy and not for anything he did that threatened the integrity of his office and fiduciary responsibility or the country.

The long term game the Progressives are playing is is the slow and steady disassembly of American institutions, Constitutional safeguards, and Liberty in general. They hate The Republic and for decades have been slowly taking it apart.

I may be having a failure of imagination, but I cannot think what long term game can be played by a party that insists that the impeachment it has sent to the Senate is now unconvincing and is part of a cover-up. Where does the advantage come in when the Democrats claim that they helped cover up some sort of impeachable offence? This would be an offence that they still cannot find.

How does a series of idiotic moves help a long term game?

Instead, I believe that they have become too emotional and are no longer thinking straight. They are not planning any farther ahead than the current move, which is why right after the 2016 election they declared that they would impeach, why they eventually started impeachment investigation despite Pelosi insisting that it was the wrong thing to do, impeached on two clearly unsupportable articles, waited a month before sending to the Senate the sloppy impeachment that they had claimed to be too urgent to do right, and now are claiming that they don’t have any supporting evidence and that their own impeachment investigation was a cover-up.

It seems to me that none of these actions are the actions of people who know what they are doing. What is the long term goal, and how do these moves get them there?

I am well acquainted with the push for the CoS.
I read Levin’s book on proposed amendments as well.
Good idea’s, in principle.

I empathize. My point would be, however– progressive statist’s from both party’s spent 100 years dragging us to the edge, the least we can do is spend 10 years pushing for a Convention of States.

Mark Levin talks to Glenn Beck
“The Liberty Amendments”
2013
https://youtu.be/ZjFBdmHF2TI
16:28

Wayne, in principle I agree.

However, getting a new amendment that imposes congressional term limits is more likely than repealing the 17th. I would be totally in favor of that repeal, and agree that the Senate was meant to be the State legislatures’ check on the Federal government.
However, it is not a popular notion at this time.

pivoting….

“Kings are Bad—Politician’s Are Terrible” (so to speak…)
Hans Hermann Hoppe
https://youtu.be/ZsIUjxOXFkE
2:45

And Congress has drastically shorter sessions.
They were not paid as much, not enough for it to be a full time job.

The design was for a time that no longer exists.

The guy was a great govenor? Awesome, he will be a good senatorial candidate. Or President. Or, he can go help his state in the private sector.

Idiots get elected now. Term limits will not change that. 35 states agree. I

My candidate is in currently office, at all levels. I am on the winning side. And I still want term limits. So keep your ad hominem to yourself.

All of the talk about term limits just creates a new problem with the new solution. And usually they become more and more corrupt with each new solution because of the newly introduced complexity.

Keep it simple, just like it was designed, everyone seems to forget the most important part of the equation, the people.

Sorry, but that is what is required be design.

What if the guy was a really great governor? And the next election just has idiots running? Is a corrupt idiot better than a second term politician who is liked and trusted?

We already have term limits. They are called elections. Just don’t elect the guy you don’t like.

Like I said. term limits are the loosing sides answer to not winning.

I disagree.

Ending the practice of career congressional jobs will change the definition of what is popular and therefore electable.
Money will always be there.
There is no getting away from it.

And Parties pick them now. Look at how Hilary was anointed as the candidate. The entire 2016 Dem Primary was a foregone conclusion.
Locally, the Dems pulled an incumbent candidate from the 2020 ballot and appointed a candidate to replace him in the elections, because they were mad at him. He was popular across party lines and would have won otherwise (probably why the pulled him).

So what you suggest already happens now.

And there will always be money raised. Its there now also.
There are 15 states with term limits at the State House. 35 Limit the Governor.
There is no significant change in how candidates are picked, or the money raised.

The longer any of them are there, though, the longer they become institutionalized.
The US Congress, as a career option, needs to end.

“Term limits are the loosing sides answer…”
This is ad hominem. I will not address it.

Term limits are the loosing sides answer to not having a popular candidate or platform and thus not being able to raise enough cash as the other sides.

Tullock and Buchanan co-authored The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy in 1962. In it, they laid the groundwork for what is today known as public choice theory and constitutional economics.

“…one big question in economics is why the world isn’t even more corrupt than what we observe. It’s not such an easy question to answer…”

“LEADERSHIPS CORE PRIME DIRECTIVE: Above all else the securing, promotion and survival of the society, culture, territory, power and treasure.”

Just keep it simple, S.O.M. is the boiled down essence of the nature of man related to power and governance and every scenario either “good”, “bad” or “corrupt” in any governance model that you can think of will emanate and grow from these simple stated rules of operation. This is fundamental, S.O.M. has been true for every power structure that has ever existed, from the first two cave men sitting around a fire and making decisions for the group, to Gengis Khan, to Napoleon, etc, etc, right up to and including every president that is, has been or will ever be. The exercise of power and self interest are inseparable.

The Founders understood S.O.M. precisely and the nature of man related to power and governance. The Constitution through their efforts is simply the direct counter balance to that tendency of man to abuse power.

It is the core responsibility of leadership, any leadership throughout history, to ultimately ensure the continuation of their society / civilization and at that level there exist two realities and leadership speaks to these two realities, but ultimately the political realm and survival and taking care of business is the prime directive.

And that is why in the case of any president of the United States the president MUST have confidence in executive privilege in the exercise of the established policy and strategy. When the fiduciary dirty work must be done to ensure the prime directive and that “dirty” business must be taken care of where people both outside and within may lose their lives someone must be able to make those subjective decisions and move on.

Its cold, and is disturbing especially to those totally immersed in the relatively comfortable American Pedestrian realm, but its how things at their foundation in the real world of survival operate.

The best is when I hear people say ” The president is a liar, and he is Immoral!”. Makes me laugh.

Leadership has little to do with either.

One area I disagree with – The Leadership Core Prime Objective. I see the Prime Objective as two things:
– the Outward goal of securing and promoting the culture, territory …etc (This also keeps the overall structure in place to support the model)
– But also the goal of protecting the ever increasing flow of money and power to the Leadership and NEVER revealing the relationship of Leadership and Public.

To my mind this is why Trump has been so deeply opposed. Anyone or anything (organization for example) that threatens the ever increasing flow of money and power to Washington; or -Heaven forbid – threatens to decrease that flow; must not be stopped, no they must be utterly destroyed. Their family must be destroyed and the “story” of their success and efficacy discredited.
In addition, Trump has also entered into this office without the anointing of any of the Leadership. He has no “training” in how to act and what the role is. He may do anything – how dangerous is that?

This I agree with. Do not underestimate them or think them dumb. There are several that know exactly what they are doing. Never ever ever think your opponents stupid or incompetent. If they truly are, let it surprise you.

They are playing a very long term game.

—

Cotour, politicians will always find a way to get money in their pockets. Graft is ubiquitous. To hold out against this to find a perfect solution would be pointless. “The enemy of ‘good’ is ‘better'”.
It will never be a perfect system. Please accept that and seek workable solutions.

My point is this:
We have “ruling class” in the Republic. We were never meant to have such a thing.

We shed aristocracy through blood. And yet here we are 237 years later, with an Ignoble American Aristocracy. Politicians for life (Harry Reed, Chuck Schumer, even McConnell). Families (Clintons, Kennedys Bushes, Quayles, Gores). Children who are untouchable (Chelsea Clinton, Hunter Biden), and names that Shall Not Be Impugned (Obama, McCain, Roosevelt).

Term limits are the only answer to end the ruling class. It is not a complete solution to the Republic’s ills, but its a very good start. As long as there are people, and families, that believe they are entitled to those positions, the rest of us will be subjects to the laws they pass while they are held to a lesser standard. We will be subjects to the morality (or lack of) they impose, while our values are mocked and discarded. We will be subject to follow the leaders they choose for us.

No. In my context, the leaders think that they do not need a crime in order to impeach, while the followers think that Clinton was impeached for having sex, not for the actual crimes of perjury and suborning perjury. This is the game that they are playing, as you describe it. Most of the country understands that the Democrats are abusing their power, the exact same thing that they are accusing President Trump of having done. It doesn’t require being an idiot to misunderstand the majority of the country, but the Democratic leaders are idiots nonetheless.

Although it is true that they are playing to their crowd, their crowd is people who still have a three-year-old’s desire that fairness means that everything goes only their way (what is “fair,” anyway?), and that someone should take care of them and should control them so that they don’t do the wrong things, meaning someone to protect them from themselves. Their crowd is people who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves.

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, etc. want to be those protectors, the ones who take control of everyone else’s lives. Obamacare is one such control. However, these ignoramuses do not realize that there is no “one size fits all” solutions, which is why we each must find our own solutions — the ones that fit ourselves. When government solves a problem for one person, it creates problems for everyone else. For those who want to be the master problem-solvers, this is a good thing, because it means that they get to solve an ever increasing number of problems, but for those who want to live free, this is a bad thing, because it means that we have less freedom to solve our problems properly.

These leaders also have the same three-year-old attitude that nothing should go against their desires, just as Hillary is still unable to accept that she lost her election to the presidency — especially since she had rigged an unfair advantage for herself, the bogus document now referred to as “The Dossier” (in order to give it undeserved credibility: if it is
a dossier then it must be true), which she used as the Democrat Party’s usual “October Surprise.”

Before Schiff entered California politics, he was a failed Screenwriter.