Hail, Caesar, But Which One?

[SevMax2]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...r&cvid=0d308b69632540178b4f586c8226bc38&ei=18

This article somewhat reinforces my growing anxiety about the "Imperial Presidency" and the tendency to consolidate far too much power in the office. Leave aside our agreement or disagreement over which candidate should have the office in question. Should the powers of the highest office in the land be pared back a bit? Should a greater balance of power be restored to the separation of powers and the checks and balances of our tripartite system? Any thoughts on this issue? I am leaning more and more toward the idea of curtailing the more extreme expansion of Presidential authority. Am I alone here or do other people that maybe future Presidents should be powerful enough in their lane, but basically stay there?

I should add that I don't have any particular issue with the student loan cancellation myself, but the general point or principle stands.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Personally, I'd love if Trump carried through with gutting the Federal government and drastically cutting back its power. But sadly I think the inertia of the whole system is just too much for one man to change to the degree we really need, at least not quickly.

But hopefully the people he's gathering around himself will be enough to get the ball rolling. We'll just have to see when he gets into office.

 

[Bn2f]

Sheez. It’s rather simple: Republicans advocate for a curtailment of executive, legislative, and judicial powers whenever they’re in the minority and for an expansion when they’re not.

For over 200 something years folks were respecting the checks and balances outlined in the constitution. IMO, the pardoning of Nixon signaled to many to look for gaps and flaws to be exploited and here we are now in 2024 with a SCOTUS granting kingly powers to a president.

 

[Bn2f]

Trump Threatens To Impose Risky Tariff Scheme Whether Congress Approves Or Not

“Number one, I don’t need them. I don’t need Congress, but they’ll approve it,” Trump said.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...isky-tariff-scheme_n_66f1f822e4b02f84278bd8f1

 

[Bn2f]

Leave aside our agreement or disagreement over which candidate should have the office in question.

I’ve faith that at some point before November 5th the OP will stop wondering the intentions of trump and republicans.

 

[SevMax2]

I’ve faith that at some point before November 5th the OP will stop wondering the intentions of trump and republicans.

I've had less uncertainty over them than about the other guys. I don't think that there is any doubt that the GOP has been hijacked by its most extreme and dangerous elements. It has been, frankly, more a concern over the kind of usual suspects running to the Democrats that tend toward the surveillance state, toward a reckless, adventurist foreign policy, toward neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and toward the excessive power of the administrative state. That has been the crux of my concern over the Blue Team. One team is given to MAGA extremism and the other toward a very dangerous hawkishness that worries me to no end. Given that the kind of Republicans who have defected to Harris tend toward that element within the GOP hasn't been as reassuring as many Democrats seem to expect. Prime examples are the Cheneys and Mitt Romney (I keep wanting to quote Obama to him at times...."The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back.").

Remember, the Presidency is far more connected to foreign and defense/security policy than economic policy, anyway. Those are the most urgent issues related to the White House and the Executive Branch.

 

[Bn2f]

I've had less uncertainty over them than about the other guys. I don't think that there is any doubt that the GOP has been hijacked by its most extreme and dangerous elements. It has been, frankly, more a concern over the kind of usual suspects running to the Democrats that tend toward the surveillance state, toward a reckless, adventurist foreign policy, toward neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and toward the excessive power of the administrative state. That has been the crux of my concern over the Blue Team. One team is given to MAGA extremism and the other toward a very dangerous hawkishness that worries me to no end. Given that the kind of Republicans who have defected to Harris tend toward that element within the GOP hasn't been as reassuring as many Democrats seem to expect. Prime examples are the Cheneys and Mitt Romney (I keep wanting to quote Obama to him at times...."The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back.").

Remember, the Presidency is far more connected to foreign and defense/security policy than economic policy, anyway. Those are the most urgent issues related to the White House and the Executive Branch.

I’m sorry but you’re talking to the wrong liberal if you’re trying to convince one that the “they’ve got yellow cake, Patriot Act lovin, WMD, bomb bomb bomb Iran” crew are suddenly flower carrying peaceniks because they are siding with Putin against American global interests in Ukraine.

To my forever consternation, you continually give republicans a benefit of doubt where alarm bells ring out in your ears whenever you see democrats practicing diplomacy.

 

[SevMax2]

I'm simply expressing my worries about the Democratic establishment and their new, chicken hawk Republican friends. That's my whole point. I would love to see Democrats practicing diplomacy, to be frank. That would be a nice change.

As for Ukraine, I'm a bit more convinced of late that we're not wrong to intervene, given that every bullet and munition used there doesn't go to waste and every bullet that they catch spares an American/Pole/German, etc. Defeating Putin at so little cost seems more practical than having to fight him directly.

 

[Bn2f]

You and I would be in agreement on the fact that American presidents have played semantics with military excursions and congress has seemed no longer to be able to constitutionally approve of war. Obama implementing drone style warfare was something I disapproved of but I believe that every president would have signed off on that program as well.

Here is my post from September of last year. I stand by it still today.

David Rothkopf: “We’ve spent 40 billion, a tiny fraction of our 800 billion dollar defense budget, and we’ve destroyed half of the Russian army.
This tiny US investment has probably advanced our national security interests more than any other in the past 80 years.”

 

[SevMax2]

You and I would be in agreement on the fact that American presidents have played semantics with military excursions and congress has seemed no longer to be able to constitutionally approve of war. Obama implementing drone style warfare was something I disapproved of but would I believe that every president would have signed off to as well.

Here is my post from September of last year. I stand by it still today.

Fair enough. Far more effective than the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya, or any other recent (in the past two decades) endeavors.

 

[Chernosoth]

The nation can't continue with so much federal power. Power will become more local, in states, counties, communities, and other local organizations, or centralized bureaucratic incompetence will finish the job of destroying the nation.

 

[adrina]

The nation can't continue with so much federal power. Power will become more local, in states, counties, communities, and other local organizations, or centralized bureaucratic incompetence will finish the job of destroying the nation.

So why are you a trumper then? GOP wants to consolidate even more power around the executive branch. Trump does too.

 

[Chernosoth]

So why are you a trumper then? GOP wants to consolidate even more power around the executive branch. Trump does too.

He wants to use more of the power already in the executive branch that is currently misused by the vast executive branch bureaucracy. By intent or inevitability, I expect he will eventually fire or defund large numbers of feds and delegate their duties back to states, or erase as wastes of taxpayers' money. What the rest of the party wants may be irrelevant. They can get on board with what must and will happen or watch and cry from the sidelines.

 

[adrina]

He wants to use more of the power already in the executive branch that is currently misused by the vast executive branch bureaucracy. By intent or inevitability, I expect he will eventually fire or defund large numbers of feds and delegate their duties back to states, or erase as wastes of taxpayers' money. What the rest of the party wants may be irrelevant. They can get on board with what must and will happen or watch and cry from the sidelines.

So he will decrease executive power by eliminating various federal departments.

How does eliminating various federal departments - most of which operate independent of executive authority - decrease power at the executive level?

 

[Rebel5soul]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...r&cvid=0d308b69632540178b4f586c8226bc38&ei=18

This article somewhat reinforces my growing anxiety about the "Imperial Presidency" and the tendency to consolidate far too much power in the office. Leave aside our agreement or disagreement over which candidate should have the office in question. Should the powers of the highest office in the land be pared back a bit? Should a greater balance of power be restored to the separation of powers and the checks and balances of our tripartite system? Any thoughts on this issue? I am leaning more and more toward the idea of curtailing the more extreme expansion of Presidential authority. Am I alone here or do other people that maybe future Presidents should be powerful enough in their lane, but basically stay there?

I should add that I don't have any particular issue with the student loan cancellation myself, but the general point or principle stands.

If you've been watching the Supreme Court you're concerns are being addressed. The various edicts being handed down by either EO's or by 'rules' issued by the various administrative agencies are being thrown out one after the other. Basically the court is telling the administrative branch that they can't usurp the power of congress.

What's interesting here is how the various parties are reacting to this turn of events. The Republicans, for the time being, are embracing this turn of events while the democrats are going apoplectic and talking about 'packing the ' court so they can rule by fiat again.

The battle will never end but for the time being some semblance of balance is being returned.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I don't think that there is any doubt that the GOP has been hijacked by its most extreme and dangerous elements.

What are these most dangerous and extreme elements you're worried about?

 

[Bn2f]

Folks here doing the the Project 2025 Do-Si-Do Two Step while trying not to act like they're dancing to the music.

 

[Chernosoth]

So he will decrease executive power by eliminating various federal departments.

How does eliminating various federal departments - most of which operate independent of executive authority - decrease power at the executive level?

Long before eliminating them, he could start with reducing their funding in his budget proposals to congress By standard practice, that will probably include giving some of that money to the states of fence sitters to get their votes.

 

[Rebel5soul]

What are these most dangerous and extreme elements you're worried about?

1. He hasn't been watching the court.

2. He seems to be assuming that the court will let a republican president to get away with the shit they're preventing the democrats from doing.

Summary; We finally have a court that is primarily following the Constitution as opposed to populist/progressive whims.

 

[adrina]

Long before eliminating them, he could start with reducing their funding in his budget proposals to congress By standard practice, that will probably include giving some of that money to the states of fence sitters to get their votes.

You have a lot of predictions for things he will do which he has never said he will do.

Budgets have to be passed by Congress.

Additionally the GOP in general has embraced the unitary executive theory.

 

[ll74]

The issue is that Congress is more interested in political theater than doing their job.

We need more accountability for them. And Americans need to hold their feet to the fore to do so.

 

[Chernosoth]

You have a lot of predictions for things he will do which he has never said he will do.

Budgets have to be passed by Congress.

Additionally the GOP in general has embraced the unitary executive theory.

I predict what will probably happen, not what politicians say will happen. They go on at great length about trivial BS, so I mostly ignore the BS.

 

[adrina]

I predict what will probably happen, not what politicians say will happen. They go on at great length about trivial BS, so I mostly ignore the BS.

Your prediction flies in the face of reality. Again the Republicans are embracing the unitary executive theory. This is the exact opposite of what you state you want.

From what I can tell your support of trump seems to be based around wishful thinking. And potentially a great deal of delusion.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The nation can't continue with so much federal power. Power will become more local, in states, counties, communities, and other local organizations, or centralized bureaucratic incompetence will finish the job of destroying the nation.

The absolute chaos of the Dobbs decision is proof that the Balkanization of 50 states is a very poor idea in the long run for the United States.

 

[Bray123]

When I was in school and learning (failing to learn) Latin, I was told that Caesar was pronounced 'Kaiser'.

And that seems relevant to Trump's ambitions.