Bill Barr earlier tonight....something is about to POP!!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: carsforkids

Got it cool!

America's Churchill I'm reminded of Churchill by his cadence.

How old are you?

I just don't even know how to respond to that at all?

originally posted by: carsforkids

I just don't even know how to respond to that at all?

With a number?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Alright I'll play 60 why?

originally posted by: carsforkids

Alright I'll play 60 why?

Same age as me..Wondering if you even knew who Churchill was...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Maybe the avatar threw ya. I was reminded of Churchill from what
I've seen from reels in school. And what I've seen on TV. I know there's
some negativity around him. But I always found his charisma and charm
likable.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

He makes a strong argument for returning the presidency to strong monarchical power. Having a strong executive is almost as important as having corporatist judges. Like the theory of evolution, the separation of power theorists are just stating a theory. He's right in showing the legislative branches of our government cause the most harm. The strong executive is the only answer. He makes a very good argument for a totalitarian government based on authoritarianism.

a reply to: carewemust

No not shocked or disappointed.
Just surprised. Because thats all a fantasy.
I remember hearing this same song over and over again.
Sure they are revealing it slowly.
Why? Americans can't absorb bad news?
We are the nation of hurricanes and earthquakes and mass shootings give me a break.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: carewemust
Yes. Sounds like a man saying sure, Trump isn't what his mentalist cult followers wanted him to be, the great failed white hope. They put their eggs in a billionaires basket. 😁😁🥚
They should not have... Slime and sleeze and assumptions of complete power weren't the best tactics if one wanted to undo Obama cluster forks.

Barrs basically saying Trump had no "business" in the executive branch of the United States of America.

The fact is, that, yes, while the president has certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio, he was upfront about what he was going to do and the people decided that he was going to serve as president."

..............

New sig predictions for ya : REDICTION : HILLARY & HUMA pCell Block-H. WILLIAM(Bill) & WEINER Roger " the rage" stone, pAuL Mann! Flinzyshizzle, and Don "the Don" D-block daddy = Cell Block 9 (cohens just a janitor in this hypothetical)

Opposite day for LEFTISTS!

But the rest of us will stay in the real world, thank you for playing.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Vasa Croe

He makes a strong argument for returning the presidency to strong monarchical power. Having a strong executive is almost as important as having corporatist judges. Like the theory of evolution, the separation of power theorists are just stating a theory. He's right in showing the legislative branches of our government cause the most harm. The strong executive is the only answer. He makes a very good argument for a totalitarian government based on authoritarianism.

Cherry picked out that part and forgot to mention the lengthy discussion on the Separation of Powers portion eh?

That is how we get the lefty spin as they have to resort to cherry picking out the sound bites while ignoring the context.


They put their hands over their ears, eyes but not their mouths.

We still have a strong president. Just none have used the presidential powers to their extent in a long time. I think we do need a President to come into office that can really lay the smack down that is long overdue. And I will tell you, Trump is not that President.

Could I do it, yes but only because I don’t care about the repercussions. I wouldn’t even seek a second term because I would hold it over them as a threat to keep their act together. However, the odds of me actually becoming President are next to zero, so that takes care of that.

If it happened, would I be impeached? There would be talk before the Inauguration Parties got going that night. After the next day that conversation would yield to straight up assassination. I place the over/under odds on six months. Which their shoot better hit, conspirators would be found and executed within three weeks.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I might actually beg to differ.

Trump has to get his 2nd Term and then you'll see Trump unleashed.

How, why? Voters. Trump needs his support and he has it.

Bannon once said that when Trump gets his second term, you will see a Trump, not bound by anymore votes, once that has nothing to pursue beyond his 2nd term political wise and given the experience he is getting, I think we will see a very different Trump 2nd round.

Mark my words.

As for the OP, in a nutshell....the other two branches are becoming too powerful and check the Presidency, because the Framers knew that they would jostle for power.
The resistance is a farce, akin to an occupying power, which is why it is so wrong.
The courts have no say in executive decisions, at all.

Our do nothing congress has been abdicating their powers and responsibilities to the other two branches of government for decades... maybe longer.

Now that we have a president that half the Congress despises and the other half could care less about, expect shallow partisan loyalty, we have a congress trying desperately to become relevant again.

I'd cheer Congress on if I thought it was a permanent change; but I really doubt that it is. All the energy and reputation spent will be for nothing once Trump leaves and a new president, more to the liking of Congress, comes. Congress will go back to just worrying about their next election cycle.

a reply to: Arnie123

DanDanDat nailed, which is why I say Trump is not the one to pull it off. A strong President could call a joint session, go over Article 1, say this is how it is and is going to be. Think on it the rest of the day and have resignations on my desk by 8am if you can’t do it because at 9am those doors to the chamber will be locked and anyone not inside is out. Because we will be rebuilding America in here with legislation and signing bills into law.

First hundred days? The new benchmark is going to be the first hundred hours for taking care of business.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Barr is a partisan political hack job, a man who fit the bill and said nothing but yes.

America needs to wake up.

Pot meet kettle.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Arnie123

DanDanDat nailed, which is why I say Trump is not the one to pull it off. A strong President could call a joint session, go over Article 1, say this is how it is and is going to be. Think on it the rest of the day and have resignations on my desk by 8am if you can’t do it because at 9am those doors to the chamber will be locked and anyone not inside is out. Because we will be rebuilding America in here with legislation and signing bills into law.

First hundred days? The new benchmark is going to be the first hundred hours for taking care of business.

I’m interested ... where in Article II is the President given the power to imprison and inflict involuntary servitude?

I can’t seem to find that one ...

ETA: Although, I will admit you are right in line with Bill Barr’s interpretation of the Constitution, on the outside chance that you’re giving us a lesson by example (I hope...)

a reply to: Gryphon66

Same place that tells Warren she can tax people she don't like 158% of their incomes.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Same place that tells Warren she can tax people she don't like 158% of their incomes.

Okay. Where is it ... I have the Constitution right here ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

A strong President could call a joint session, go over Article 1, say this is how it is and is going to be. Think on it the rest of the day and have resignations on my desk by 8am if you can’t do it because at 9am those doors to the chamber will be locked and anyone not inside is out. Because we will be rebuilding America in here with legislation and signing bills into law.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I'd say that says where He can make two kids make nice and get snip done.

Continued.

Article II, Section 3 both grants and constrains presidential power. This Section invests the President with the discretion to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions,” a power that has been used to call the chambers to consider nominations, war, and emergency legislation. It further grants the President the authority to adjourn Congress whenever the chambers cannot agree when to adjourn, a power that no President has ever exercised.

constitutioncenter.org...

Finally, and most significantly, Section 3 contains the Faithful Execution Clause, commonly known as the Take Care Clause. The Take Care Clause is arguably a major source of presidential power because it seemingly invests the office with broad enforcement authority. Yet, at the same time, the provision also serves as a major limitation on that power because it underscores that the executive is under a duty to faithfully execute the laws of Congress and not disregard them.

constitutioncenter.org...