President Trump Has Shown the Way


Tecumsehsbones
+2
#1  Top Rated Post
Seriously. In a Congressional system, the President is a one-person coequal branch of government. So why should the President be of either party?

In a time when partisan rancor is at unprecedented highs, and the Congress is incapable of passing an act to name a post office, why should the President be beholden to one party or the other?

Sure, parties are probably a smart way to organize the Congress, in an attempt to herd cats, but the Supreme Court at least puts up a pretense of non-partisanship. And not being affiliated with a party gives the President the ability to work with either party, or both.

Parties have no place in the Constitution, they're not mentioned at all.

Given my druthers, I'd amend the Constitution thusly:

1. The President is elected by direct nationwide popular election. All candidates are listed by name only, no party affiliation. The rules for the Presidential election are set by the Federal Election Commission, not by the states.

2. On the first Tuesday of November, we have an election (plus early voting, absentee voting, all that good stuff).

3. If nobody gets a majority, on the third Tuesday of November, we have a run-off among the candidates who received 10% or more of the vote.

4. If nobody gets a majority, on the fourth Tuesday of November we have a run-off between the top two from the second round.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
#2
Sadly, the core of your post points towards our current system(s) of democratic governance is, well, too internally politicized
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Sadly, the core of your post points towards our current system(s) of democratic governance is, well, too internally politicized

I'm sorry, I disagree. Your system effectively has the legislature (or rather, the majority party/coalition in the legislature) elect the executive. Your "President" (PM) is more tied to a party than ours. Untying the president entirely from any party would give her a unique ability and flexibility to form interest coalitions in the Congress.

I can think of a few individuals who might have been able to become President as independents. Colin Powell. Trump himself. Oprah Winfrey. Taylor Swift (if we lower the voting age to 12). Cal Ripken.
 
White_Unifier
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Seriously. In a Congressional system, the President is a one-person coequal branch of government. So why should the President be of either party?

In a time when partisan rancor is at unprecedented highs, and the Congress is incapable of passing an act to name a post office, why should the President be beholden to one party or the other?

Sure, parties are probably a smart way to organize the Congress, in an attempt to herd cats, but the Supreme Court at least puts up a pretense of non-partisanship. And not being affiliated with a party gives the President the ability to work with either party, or both.

Parties have no place in the Constitution, they're not mentioned at all.

Given my druthers, I'd amend the Constitution thusly:

1. The President is elected by direct nationwide popular election. All candidates are listed by name only, no party affiliation. The rules for the Presidential election are set by the Federal Election Commission, not by the states.

2. On the first Tuesday of November, we have an election (plus early voting, absentee voting, all that good stuff).

3. If nobody gets a majority, on the third Tuesday of November, we have a run-off among the candidates who received 10% or more of the vote.

4. If nobody gets a majority, on the fourth Tuesday of November we have a run-off between the top two from the second round.

I'd amend it this way, in brief:

1. The members of the House of Representatives elect the President, but the powers of the executive branch would be defined more narrowly like in Germany, with the powers of the legislative branch being more widely defined. Just a wide-brush idea of course.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I'd amend it this way, in brief:

1. The members of the House of Representatives elect the President, but the powers of the executive branch would be defined more narrowly like in Germany, with the powers of the legislative branch being more widely defined. Just a wide-brush idea of course.

Nope, not interested in a Parliamentary system.
 
White_Unifier
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm sorry, I disagree. Your system effectively has the legislature (or rather, the majority party/coalition in the legislature) elect the executive. Your "President" (PM) is more tied to a party than ours. Untying the president entirely from any party would give her a unique ability and flexibility to form interest coalitions in the Congress.

Though it's tough to draw equivalences, I'd think of the monarch and Governor Generals as being the closer Canadian equivalents of the US President, with the Canadian Prime Minister being more equal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, at least on the more technical fronts.

In practice though, yes, the Canadian PM is the closer equivalent to the US President. Depending on what we're discussing, either the PM or the Governor General is the closer equivalent to the US Prez.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Nope, not interested in a Parliamentary system.

You read my mind.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I'm sorry, I disagree. Your system effectively has the legislature (or rather, the majority party/coalition in the legislature) elect the executive. Your "President" (PM) is more tied to a party than ours. Untying the president entirely from any party would give her a unique ability and flexibility to form interest coalitions in the Congress.

I get what you're driving at and do not disagree.

Where I am going here is that party politics can act as a hindrance. Unlike Trudeau, Trump can unilaterally take actions regardless of how his party leans on an issue.... Trudeau can, in no way, affect any change without his Party (or the majority of the House for that matter)
 
Tecumsehsbones
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Though it's tough to draw equivalences, I'd think of the monarch and Governor Generals as being the closer Canadian equivalents of the US President, with the Canadian Prime Minister being more equal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, at least on the more technical fronts.

In practice though, yes, the Canadian PM is the closer equivalent to the US President. Depending on what we're discussing, either the PM or the Governor General is the closer equivalent to the US Prez.

While formally the Pres may be like a monarch or the GG, for practical purposes she's much more like the PM, i.e., a genuinely powerful executive, not a figurehead.



Quote:

You read my mind.

Wasn't hard.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I get what you're driving at and do not disagree.

Where I am going here is that party politics can act as a hindrance. Unlike Trudeau, Trump can unilaterally take actions regardless of how his party leans on an issue.... Trudeau can, in no way, affect any change without his Party (or the majority of the House for that matter)

I think that's a good thing. As I said, parties have no place in the Constitutional scheme. For that matter, parties are precisely what the Federalist No. 10 argues against.
 
coldstream
+1
#9
I don't think Trump IS of either Party. Certainly not of their establishment ideologies. He doesn't submit to the conventional catch phrases and sacrosanct political icons that have buried the U.S. in debt, cultural disintegration and economic stagnation over the last 4 decades.

Which is why he's driving the leaderships of both parties and the mainstream media to distraction. Frankly, its a breath of fresh air.. especially when compared to the slimey, submissive, pussywhipped little twit we have as our head of state.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 8th, 2017 at 01:12 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I don't think Trump IS of either Party. Certainly not of their establishment ideologies. He doesn't submit to the conventional catch phrases and sacrosanct political icons that have buried the U.S. in debt, cultural disintegration and stagnancy over the last 4 decades.

No, in a revolutionary move, he proposes a budget that cuts taxes, increases spending, and explains how it'll balance based on a fantasy of GDP growth.

Quote:

Which is why he's driving the leaderships of both parties and the mainstream media to distraction. Frankly, its a breath of fresh air.. especially when compared to the slimey, submissive, pussywhipped little twit we have as our head of state.

What a terrible thing to say about Her Majesty!

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a head of state and a head of government. Not surprised, though, seeing as how you think hurricanes are cold-weather storms.
 
coldstream
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post



What a terrible thing to say about Her Majesty!

I'm sorry you don't know the difference between a head of state and a head of government. Not surprised, though, seeing as how you think hurricanes are cold-weather storms.



I like Her Majesty, and yes you are right (for a change) t-bones, she is our Head of State. I was referring to our limp wristed, lisping, bubble head of a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, where executive power rests.

And all storms are cold weather events, as attested to by Richard Lindzen, the MIT Atmospheric Professor, who poked holes in the nonsense pseudoscience of AGW, much to the outrage of the academic establishment.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 8th, 2017 at 01:18 PM..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I like Her Majesty, and yes you are right (for a change) t-bones, she is our Head of State. I was referring to our limp wristed, lisping, bubble head of a Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, where executive power rests.

And all storms are cold weather events, as attested to by Richard Lindzen, the MIT Atmospheric Professor, who poked holes in the nonsense pseudoscience of AGW, much to the outrage of the academic establishment.

Well, that certainly explains why storms form in the Arctic in winter, rather than in the tropics in summer.

Seriously, your capacity for denying the patently obvious is impressive.
 
Twila
#13
TB, it sounds far too democratic, these changes you suggest.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Twila View Post

TB, it sounds far too democratic, these changes you suggest.

Oh, right, sorry.

But think of how the money men would be scrambling around between the rounds of the election! Throwing bags of cash left, right, and center.
 
brah
-1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Well, that certainly explains why storms form in the Arctic in winter, rather than in the tropics in summer.

Seriously, your capacity for denying the patently obvious is impressive.

Pete says cold water can carry storms of this kind....Alaska and all.

The earth is cooling after all.....just ask Pete....he knows everything.

Glad I'm not on Miami beach....water must be chilly.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

And all storms are cold weather events, as attested to by Richard Lindzen, the MIT Atmospheric Professor, who poked holes in the nonsense pseudoscience of AGW, much to the outrage of the academic establishment.

If the academic establishment was outraged it was probably because Lindzen was full of BS. Another of his beliefs is that smoking does not cause lung cancer. As a scientist his conclusions leave a lot to be desired.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

If the academic establishment was outraged it was probably because Lindzen was full of BS. Another of his beliefs is that smoking does not cause lung cancer. As a scientist his conclusions leave a lot to be desired.

He's a bought and paid for "scientist".
 
DaSleeper
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

He's a bought and paid for "scientist".

Just like the global warming scientists..
 
EagleSmack
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Just like the global warming scientists..

Each and every one of them.

MAGA
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

If the academic establishment was outraged it was probably because Lindzen was full of BS. Another of his beliefs is that smoking does not cause lung cancer. As a scientist his conclusions leave a lot to be desired.

Smoking by itself does not cause lung cancer. There were many societies that used tobacco without the high incidence of cancer we have mostly because all they smoked was a leaf. No chemicals added.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Smoking by itself does not cause lung cancer. There were many societies that used tobacco without the high incidence of cancer we have mostly because all they smoked was a leaf. No chemicals added.

I suspect that the reason those societies did not suffer from lung cancer is because smoking was not linked to cancer until about the 1950s. In other words they got cancer, but they simply did not know what it was or what caused it. Lung disease was very common among so-called primitive societies due to the number of open fires that they used for heating and cooking.
 

Similar Threads

46
President Trump Has Resigned
by mentalfloss | Aug 19th, 2017
4
Is Donald Trump already the president?
by Locutus | Apr 2nd, 2017
7
Trump won't be next president: Obama
by B00Mer | Oct 12th, 2015