Kamala Harris: Democracy Is "Incredibly Strong And Incredibly Fragile"

One could argue that the scarecrow’s appointment as the dem candidate for potus represents another event diminishing the US democracy.

 

Derp derp...flush.

 

Hate to be the feelings police, but, yep those are - once again - just your feelings. Oh, & energy independence - LOL, Komrade.

I also note that neither of these measures include Trump's worst regulation - &, I am sure you agree - New NAFTA, the S. Korean trade deal & his tariffs. Also, as the article pts out, most of his “dereg” was lazy admin actions that were insta-reversed.

https://www.cato.org/regulation/winter-2023-2024/was-trump-deregulator
There are some indirect indicators of the level of federal regulation. One is the total number of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the existing stock of all federal regulations. A reasonable conjecture is that if the regulatory burden increases on net, the number of pages of the CFR would increase—and mutatis mutandis if the number of pages decreases. Admittedly, it is a rough indicator.

A new and more sophisticated measure of federal regulation, devised by economists at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, consists in counting the number of CFR “restrictions” indicated by the keywords “shall,” “must,” “may not,” “required,” and “prohibited.” Interestingly, both the CFR page count and restriction count show a strikingly similar evolution of federal regulation, bolstering our confidence that they provide a reliable indicator of the phenomenon.

Figure 1 compares the two series since 1970. The total number of CFR pages, measured on the right vertical axis, was 54,834 at the end of 1970, and 188,346 at the end of 2021 (the last year available). The number of restrictions, measured on the left axis, stood at 409,520 in 1970 and increased to 1,089,462 by 2022. Both measures show a nearly non-stop rise in federal regulation, with only very short periods of deregulation. The two series don’t exactly match but show similar bumps in the trend.

Trump’s record / These data help us evaluate Trump’s claim to be a deregulator. Both indicators show a rough plateauing of the upward trend, with a very small increase between the last year of Barack Obama’s administration (2016) and the last year of Trump’s (2020). Between these landmark years, the number of pages in the CFR increased 0.8 percent (to 186,645), as did the number of restrictions (to 1,083,001). According to both series, then, the net effect (new regulations, including deregulatory rules, minus abrogated or simplified ones) of the Trump administration has not been deregulation but, at best, a plateau in the upward historical trend. At best, 0 percent of federal regulation did “go,” to use Trump’s expression.

 

She's ahead in every national poll and enough of the "battle ground" states to win the EC. Betting odds have also shifted to favoring her to win. Her lead will grow this week of the Democratic Convention.

Diaper Drumpf will finally, finally go away after he loses again this November and the country will be so, so much better off!

 

MAGA Cope is growing by the day

 

I just heard Schrodinger’s Cat barking.

 

Tell me you know absolutely nothing about US history without telling me that you know nothing about US history (hint: there weren't primaries at all for much of this country's history and primaries didn't have any sort of power until the 1970s).

 

Tell us you own 14 cats without telling us.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liz-ch...ump-abuse-of-power-jan-6-second-term-219cc7b7

As we approach the 2024 primaries, some Republicans have begun arguing that the checks and balances constructed by the framers of our Constitution make our republic invulnerable to whatever illegal or unconstitutional acts Donald Trump might attempt in a second term. The framers explicitly warned us that the checks and balances are only as effective as the people responsible for carrying them out. Those who try to dismiss the risk of a second Trump term do our country a grave disservice.

By design, a president’s awesome executive power must be checked by both Congress and the courts. Since Jan. 6, 2021, we have learned that our current Congress won’t play this role. Republican senators such as Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and J.D. Vance have shown that they won’t step forward to check Mr. Trump’s power. Even Sen. Mike Lee, who explicitly agreed on Jan. 6 that Mr. Trump’s plan to seize power was unconstitutional, now pushes crackpot conspiracy theories about the nature of the attack.

House Republicans are even worse. Some were personally involved in Mr. Trump’s Jan. 6 plans. Others were too fearful of losing their primaries or of threats of violence to stand up and stop him. Although Congress could check Mr. Trump’s power by impeaching, convicting and removing him, this would require sufficient Republican cooperation to reach the required two-thirds supermajority in the Senate. Given recent history, it would be foolish to expect Republicans to impeach and convict in a second term, no matter what Mr. Trump does. We also know from recent history that Mr. Trump can operate the executive branch with “acting” officials who would never be confirmed by the Senate.

That leaves the courts. But almost every day, Mr. Trump and his allies declare that our judiciary and our Justice Department are “weaponized,” illegitimate and corrupt. Mr. Trump ignored judicial rulings in dozens of cases rejecting his stolen-election claims, including several rulings by federal judges he appointed. The rulings of our courts have force only because the chief executive respects, obeys and enforces them. You can bet that in a second term Mr. Trump would continue to demonize judges and would refuse to comply with or enforce judicial rulings he opposes. Once that happens, our system of checks on presidential power unravels.

 

So weird.

 

You missed the point.
That’s actually weird.

 

Most Trump supporters haven't read or studied and, thus, know diddly-squat about the Constitution. I suspect most of them couldn't even pass the test for citizenship, e.g.:

• How many amendments does the Constitution have?
• What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?
• What is the economic system in the United States?
• How many U.S. Senators are there?
• Who vetoes bills?
• Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.
• Name one US territory.
• Why does the flag have 50 stars?

 

No where in my post did I mention or defend Donald Trump. But then you try to defend Harris by saying Trump does the same thing.

Trump

You are correct. The election is Kamala’s to win. However, like they have the last 3 1/2 years, Dems need to continue to keep her hidden and out of the spotlight as to avoid any drastic mistake or situation similar to what occurred to Biden at the debate.

The question is can Harris avoid saying or doing something really stupid over the next few months? Because we all know, she has the potential to do exactly that.

 

You said "No one can toss out a “word salad” quite like Kamala." It seems relevant to your claim if her opponent throws out "word salads" that are substantially worse.

You don't even have to leave today to find one. "Electronics is peanuts"

 

Sadly I doubt he just goes away…

 

The democracy in Chi-town must be collapsing if the demofreaks needed to hide their show behind a wall.

Protesters Breach DNC’s ‘Wall’ Before First Speaker Takes The Stage

 

I don’t think we have had one man so control a party like this in my lifetime

 

Ronnie?

JFK?

 

Confession by projection