Hasn't Trump coined the "failing New York Times" phrase during his first presidential candidacy?I don't believe anything the failing NY Times published unless there is real incontrovertible proof from other sources.
I read the piece and it's just a hit piece to stir up fear on Trump - who may or may NOT even be the nominee.
That was a principle of *small-government* conservatism, but that era is gone and we now have large-government "conservatism", though you may find other labels more illustrative.
Imagine how much worse it would be if even more power were concentrated in Biden's hands. Of course, Donald has made it crystal clear that if he ever gets into office again, he intends to stay there come hell or high water.I knew this was a NYT slant when I saw the first few words. NO, correcting serious overreach is NOT being a dictator. Biden has been more dictatorial than Trump ever was, issuing mandates as to what new drug with no long term data one must take just to go to work, and transferring loans to taxpayers which he had ZERO authority to do, for just two examples.
I read the piece and it's just a hit piece to stir up fear on Trump - who may or may NOT even be the nominee.
Hasn't Trump coined the "failing New York Times" phrase during his first presidential candidacy?
This is very true. The majority of people don't want the conservative laws. And now Conservatives are trying to pass extreme Conservatives laws. That they can't obey. The moral belief should stay in Church.Conservatism is nearly dead in American politics.
Shouldn't the proper, conservative, non-authoritarian response then be to reduce the president's power to mandate decisions best left to medical or economic experts?
Correction. Trump doesn't read.Of course, Trump doesn't read history.
Also, check Trump's own site:
Interesting: When was it removed from Presidential authority and by whom?President Trump will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under Presidential authority, as the Constitution demands. No longer will unelected members of the Washington Swamp be allowed to act as the fourth branch of our Republic.
Never. That's how they were created.Interesting: When was it removed from Presidential authority and by whom?
Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.FCC (1934): (a) The Federal Communications Commission (in this Act referred to as the “Commission”) shall be composed of five Commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.
It does sound that way, except for the involvement of the Senate. That is why Trump is not being truthful. There is no authority to reclaim. All it boils down to is to remove the Senate's endorsement from presidential appointments.Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.
I believe he has had much cleverer minds than his own helping him to figure it out.It's no surprise that his response is not to spend some time learning how the system actually works, but to remove the guardrails.
He is not stating that. you might assign motivation, but it is not in his words.It does sound that way, except for the involvement of the Senate. That is why Trump is not being truthful. There is no authority to reclaim. All it boils down to is to remove the Senate's endorsement from presidential appointments.
Well simple definitions are in play - elected means they were voted into office by the populace - appointed by the President - that is not the description of an elected official. Trump is correct, therefore not disingenuous.Of course, it's disingenuous of Trump to talk about them being 'unelected' when they are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.
Of course it isn't, because he is lying.He is not stating that. you might assign motivation, but it is not in his words.
I didn't say he was incorrect about that fact. I said he was disingenuous. Unless his proposal is for the president to give up the power to appoint commissioners, and make them elected offices. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying, since he wants them to be 'back' under presidential authority.Well simple definitions are in play - elected means they were voted into office by the populace - appointed by the President - that is not the description of an elected official. Trump is correct, therefore not disingenuous.
Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.
You assigning the motivation that he is supposedly lying is not provable, accurate, nor a good debate tactic.Of course it isn't, because he is lying.
My point remains: the only effect of the plan would be to concentrate power currently belonging to the Senate into the hands of the president. This is exactly how Putin went from being elected to President for life. Perhaps those 'cleverer minds than his own' had this in mind.
No accurate at all - the Supreme Court is a co equal branch of Government - The FTC is noIn the same fashion that the Supreme Court is. (That is both panels contain members appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?