Because you apparently want one person, not one party, to control all three branches. All three of the contenders are Republicans. But when somebody asked why one person (DJT) should control all three bodies, you responded because of the election. That is a monarchy, in which one person runs government as a whole. Here is the definition of monarchy: That is what you said the election did. We had a Revolution to get rid of a monarchy. We apparently just had an election that you are saying brought it back (i.e., no independent Senate or House, but rather rule by President and rubber stamp).
Yes, because of the election. The country elected the President, 435 House members, and 33 or 34 Senators. Those people all control the government.
And newly elected Senate Majority Leader just said there would be "no change" to the filibuster rule.
As a reminder, here was the question: Here was your answer: Was Donald Trump elected President, the US Rep for 435 districts, and the Senator from 33/34 different seats, and, apparently, also to the Supreme Court? If not, then your answer is the problem.
The only remaining " checks" are the mid terms in '26 and the next general in '28, but don't hold your breath.
That still shouldn't negate the principle of checks and balances. Even legislators of the same party as the president should be able to think independently and not be completely subservient to him.
The newly elected majority leader said no change to the filibuster rule, so there is some checks and balances. The Republican majority in the Senate apparently respect the rights of the minority, unlike Harry Reid you got rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
So the original question was why should DJT be in charge of all three branches. Should he be in charge of all three branches because of the election?
He is not in charge of all 3 branches, It will be Speaker Johnson in the House, Senator Thune in the Senate and President Trump. Did you think Obama was in charge of all 3 branches in 2009?
Okay, then you were wrong in the first place in claiming that djt should be in charge of government because of the election. And no, I didn't. Of course, Obama also didn't make loyalty to him the only issue related to office.
I said the US had an election. I did not say the US elected Trump king. I didn't think I had to be so specific in spelling out who was elected in that election but apparently I should have.
As a reminder, the question was not who was elected President. It was "why should djt control all three branches of gubmnt?" You responded to that question not by disputing the premise, but by stating that the election had done that. It seems like you are having trouble separating party from Trump personally. Which is fair, as that does seem to be the direction of the Republican/Trump Party right now.
did we throw out the system of checks and balances with it? I missed that box where we agreed that the executive branch should tell the leaders of the senate how to do their business
No different than 2008 when Obama and the Dems controlled the House, Senate, and White House. And they had a filifbuster proof majority in the Senate as well.
This is the reality. Trump has 2 years to prove his agenda deserves another 2. It’s actually a very compressed time frame and he has to get wins quickly.
you're right..not good. that sec def choice is so bad. will he let that go through with his military background Trump pressures senators, including Thune, vying to be U.S. Senate GOP leader • South Dakota Searchlight Thune wrote: “We must act quickly and decisively to get the president’s nominees in place as soon as possible, & all options are on the table to make that happen, including recess appointments. We cannot let Schumer and Senate Dems block the will of the American people.” Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, is the Senate majority leader.
That is a good way to try to check out of this (by making the issue that I analyzed your response, not your response, in the first place). I suspect the reality is that both of us know that your acceptance of the premise is uncomfortable when viewed with any depth, but feels right at a base level, which is why that was the initial response. I suspect that this causes the conflict in your responses.
He won't. He'll protect the Senate and its power, but will otherwise go along with Trump. That said, gotta love Scott getting punked again. . . by his own people no less.
