John Thune - Democracy Greatest Hope

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).

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.