User Controls
How did that work out for you?
-
2021-12-07 at 6:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ How so? That's one question you crazies can never answer.
Washington Monthly
How Trump Threatens the Constitution
The framers devised a system of checks and balances to save us from someone just like him.
by Norman I. Gelman January 10, 2020
In the nearly three years Donald Trump has occupied the White House, he has been busily installing the Imperial Presidency that writers have been warning us about for a generation, precipitating a fundamental crisis going well beyond the question of whether he has engaged in bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, or committed other “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The most serious offense committed by President Trump is not among the crimes for which he was impeached.
Since taking office, he has been seizing powers for himself that are assigned exclusively to the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution. These exclusive powers include taxing; borrowing and spending; carrying out acts of war; regulating domestic and international commerce; and others. As he has infringed on these powers, Trump has greatly accelerated a trend that has been underway—but little noticed—for the past half-century: the erosion of the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches essential to the Constitutional structure.
The seizure of legislative authority by the Executive Branch has undermined the guardrails the founding fathers designed to protect us from the accumulation of tyrannical authority in the hands of the Chief Executive. That was the fundamental feature of the “republic—if you can keep it” established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Trump is the crest of a long-term trend, augmented in recent years by the bitter ideological deadlock that has gripped Washington for the past 30 years. The question now is: how do we stop and reverse this trend? The task belongs either to the voters this November, or more likely, to the biggest governmental losers, members of Congress. After all, if Congress fails to defend its Constitutional powers, who will?
Trump has not been alone in accelerating this trend. Hamstrung by the gridlock that left his legislative proposals “dead on arrival” after his first two years as president, Obama resorted increasingly in the following six years to executive orders to achieve his objectives. Republicans objected that he was exceeding his powers, and some of Obama’s actions were successfully challenged in the courts. But Obama’s appointees to key regulatory agencies continued to pursue policies he supported. Given the deference long afforded to the expertise of government regulatory bodies, many of those policies took effect.
Obama’s regulatory successes were short-lived, however. Far more than most presidents of opposing parties, Trump has been eager to undo whatever Obama did. Even though he enjoyed majority support in Congress in his first two years, Trump often chose to issue his own executive orders to reverse those signed by Obama (Republicans, who complained loudly about Obama’s executive orders, fell silent), and accomplished very little of this regulatory agenda legislatively. But Trump appointed leaders of numerous regulatory bodies and tasked them with modifying or abolishing rules put in place by their predecessors. Several of Trump’s nominees were avowed enemies of the agencies they were chosen to head.
Alarmingly, a frequent feature of Trump’s presidency has been his increasing tendency to name political appointees as “acting” heads of departments and agencies after their predecessors depart. As of this writing, the heads of the Office of Management and Budget, the Labor Department, the Homeland Security Department, and the Director of National Intelligence are all serving in an acting capacity and were not confirmed by the Senate. So, too, are the heads of at least half a dozen other important agencies. In taking this approach, Trump has been able to avoid subjecting his chosen operatives to the Senate’s “advise-and-consent” authority.
What’s more, under GOP control, the Senate has been unwilling to reassert its prerogatives by setting a firm limit on the interim period during which “acting chiefs” can continue to serve. As a consequence, political appointees responsible for many governmental functions are answerable only to the White House.
Trump has likewise disregarded the power granted exclusively to the Legislative Branch to determine by law what funds “shall be drawn from the treasury” and for what purpose. Violation of that provision is at the crux of one of the articles of impeachment dealing with the alleged “bribery attempt” of withholding funds Congress had appropriated for Ukrainian defense against Russian incursion.
Although it has received less attention, the same idea also applies in principle to Trump’s taking funds set aside for projects on U.S. military bases in the U.S. and Europe to instead build his promised wall on the Mexican border. The latter action seems especially egregious in light of Congress’s explicit refusal on more than one occasion to approve construction of that wall.
Even more disconcerting, President Trump has instructed government officials to ignore subpoenas from committees of the House of Representatives requiring testimony and the production of data. He has laid claim to “absolute immunity” for himself as well as for present and former members of his staff and has instructed members of agencies outside the White House not to testify. That behavior led to the other article of impeachment advanced in the House—obstruction of Congress.
While Trump has not quite resorted to blocking testimony on all subjects, he appears determined to prevent Congress from inquiring into any matter that might result in bad publicity, further proof of misconduct, or additional impeachment charges. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on Trump’s assertion of unlimited authority to determine who must testify before Congress and what information must be surrendered.
Congress has also all but lost its exclusive power “to declare war.” Over the last two decades, war and foreign policy have essentially become the sole province of the Executive Branch. In authorizing the recent assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the administration chose to notify Russia, Israel, and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Notably, it excluded the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.”
Since approving the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which greatly expanded the ill-starred Vietnam War, and voting to invade Iraq based on highly questionable evidence presented by the Bush-Cheney administration, Congress has seemed willing to allow the Executive Branch to determine on its own if and when military conflict is justified. Only now is it showing some spine after yesterday’s House vote on curbing Trump’s Iran war powers.
Both Republicans and Democrats have long complained about the use of Executive Orders to bypass the legislative process. But Congress has failed to devise an effective method for delaying or cancelling implementation of orders with which it disagrees. Until it does, the status quo will continue.
The political circumstances that have led to the Executive Branch overriding Congress have deep roots going back decades. Since tracing those circumstances depends, to a certain extent, on personal experience, I hope readers will forgive my reliance on first-person narration.
I arrived in Washington in 1957 as a Congressional Fellow appointed by the American Political Science Association. Dwight Eisenhower still had more than three years left in his second term as president. Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate under the leadership of two formidable Texans: Speaker Sam Rayburn and Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson.
Although I had acquired a graduate degree in political science and had studied American Government, I quickly learned that Congress behaved very differently than my college texts had led me to believe. Our widely advertised “two-party system” had actually disguised the four-party system that ruled in the House and the Senate. In effect, each of the two major parties were split amongst themselves into two warring tribes.
Both parties were, in reality, coalitions of more liberal and more conservative elements. While some legislative matters might be decided on a partisan basis, majority support for successful bills had to be assembled among the four groupings across party lines. The much-vaunted “civility” of the day was far from incidental. It was an absolute necessity.
The nominal “two-party system” became an actual two-party system in the 1960s, following passage of the Civil Rights Act. As the South began to support Republicans over Democrats, each of the parties took on a distinctly ideological complexion. Moderation became unacceptable to the newly dominant elements on both sides of the aisle, inviting challenges in party primaries. Republican moderates retired in droves or were defeated in primaries by less-accommodating challengers or in the general election by Democrats in purple, usually suburban districts. In general elections, business-friendly Blue Dogs disappeared from the Democratic side.
Three decades later, Newt Gingrich greatly augmented this new dynamic. Before he took over as Speaker in 1995, Gingrich argued that tooth-and-nail attack was the secret to winning a Republican majority. His assault on the integrity of his opponents—the “politics of personal destruction,” as it has been described—put an end to civility as the prevailing mode of interaction across party lines.
As a consequence, bitter partisanship has emerged as the dominant condition on Capitol Hill. When the government is divided, as it is now, cooperation has become impossible. On each side of the partisan divide, compromise has become a form of betrayal. Under those constraints, Democrats and Republicans—from George W. Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump—have taken measures like those discussed to circumvent Congress.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he included a long list of “injuries and usurpations” that the British King, George III, had committed against the thirteen colonies to establish “an absolute tyranny.” Eleven years later, having experimented unsuccessfully with a Confederation, the thirteen liberated colonies sent delegates to Philadelphia to create a new form of government, unlike any previously seen.
The Constitution was a direct response to Jefferson’s Declaration. It repudiated the British model. The clear objective was to prevent any future ruler from accumulating the arbitrary powers that the British King had exercised to the detriment of American colonists. In short, it was a defense against tyranny.
Are Republicans in the House and Senate content to see that defense dismantled? Will the American public be satisfied if Donald Trump is acquitted on the impeachment charges, especially in a sham trial without witnesses? Would acquittal affirm the present-day reality that we are gradually enabling what the Founding Fathers labored to contain?
Short answer: I don’t know. But it’s long past time for the U.S. Senate—the jurors in the forthcoming impeachment trial—to acquaint or reacquaint themselves with The Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton dealt with the constitution’s critics in Articles 67-69, arguing that the powers granted to the Executive Branch in Article II were republican in character, not monarchical in scope. Monarchies of the 18th century, he wrote, recognized no limits on the powers of the king. The only recourse ordinary people had was armed rebellion. Instead, America would have the power to remove a tyrannical President in a manner consistent with the rule of law: impeachment.
Impeachment, however, was not envisioned as the main defense against the chief executive’s over-accumulation of authority. Articles 47 through 51, written by James Madison, who is generally credited with being the principal author of the Constitution itself, explained the document’s reliance on separation of powers among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. The primary assumption was that excesses by one branch would be resisted by the other two. Madison extended the assumption to include the expectation that the Senate and the House would often find it necessary to resist each other. Anyone who has witnessed one of the annual budget battles between the two bodies knows that expectation is consistently fulfilled.
That leaves us to reflect on these four facts: First, the American Revolution, as the Declaration of Independence affirms in detail, was precipitated by the tyrannies of the British king; second, preventing tyrannical government was a primary objective of the Constitution written in 1787 and approved in 1789; third, it is the obligation of each of the three branches of government to resist the excesses of the others; and fourth, keeping the Republic intact is an unfinished task that must be undertaken by every generation of Americans, not least this generation and its representatives in Congress. -
2021-12-07 at 6:21 PM UTCnow look up a right leaning trump supporting article about the same question post it here and lets compare notes then find the truth in the real answer , just posting one side in theses times is something only a fool would do, only fools will believe your quoted text.
go ahead, do the job the way its meant to be done -
2021-12-07 at 6:27 PM UTCBing search
trump trampling the constitution
12,600,000 Results
6 ways Donald Trump wants to trample the Constitution ...
https://theweek.com/articles/638478/6-ways-donald...
That's a laugh given that Trump is less wedded to the Constitution than he was to his first two wives. There is not an amendment that he has left unmolested. Consider just six of his many ...
Estimated Reading Time: 8 mins
It Looks Like Trump Will Just Trample the Constitution ...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/it-looks...
It Looks Like Trump Will Just Trample the Constitution, Military Leaders Warn. Former defense secretary James Mattis ripped his former boss as a threat to democracy, as another ex-general ...
Estimated Reading Time: 7 mins
Trump is trampling the Constitution - Las Vegas Sun Newspaper
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/mar/19/trump-is-trampling-the-constitution
Trump is trampling the Constitution. Sunday, March 19, 2017 | 2 a.m. ... Trump seems to be playing a role on TV as the president. We are seeing the actions of a vindictive, bewildered and boastful ...
Estimated Reading Time: 6 mins
How Trump Threatens the Constitution | Washington Monthly
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/10/how-trump...
Trump not only threatens the Constitution, his attacks on everything that America stands for represent a clear and present danger to the future of our republic. The dangerously deranged old ...
Estimated Reading Time: 11 mins
Trump Tramples on the Constitution, Again - The American ...
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/...
The U.S. and its allies have committed a flagrant violation of international law, and Trump has trampled on the Constitution once again. This attack probably won’t succeed on its own terms, and ...
Trump's unmatched sleaze: Grifters, women, trampling ...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/18/...
It’s also the latest reminder that he constantly violates the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which is supposed to ban presidents from accepting money from foreign governments. This while ...
Estimated Reading Time: 7 mins
Trump Is Threatening to Subvert the Constitution - The ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/...
Trump Is Threatening to Subvert the Constitution. A president cannot just make Congress disappear when he wishes. About the authors: Neal K. Katyal is the former Acting Solicitor General of the ...
Democrats: They, not Trump, are trampling on Constitution ...
https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/letters-to...
A Democrat said to me, “We have to get rid of Trump before he destroys the Constitution.” I couldn’t speak. I should’ve asked what clause. Our First Amendment right of free speech?
Estimated Reading Time: 1 min
CARTOON: "Trumping The Constitution" - The Independent ...
https://suindependent.com/flag-burning-political-cartoon
From Clay Jones on his political cartoon “Trumping The Constitution” and flag burning. Proponents of a flag-burning amendment say the Founding Fathers didn’t envision people burning flags ...
Will Trump Hang Art of Obama Trampling the Constitution?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/11/will-trump...
Will a Painting of Obama Trampling the Constitution Hang in Trump’s White House? By Adam K. Raymond. In September 2010, just over a year and a half into Barack Obama’s presidency, Utah-based ...
Estimated Reading Time: 1 min -
2021-12-07 at 6:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 Washington Monthly
How Trump Threatens the Constitution
The framers devised a system of checks and balances to save us from someone just like him.
by Norman I. Gelman January 10, 2020
In the nearly three years Donald Trump has occupied the White House, he has been busily installing the Imperial Presidency that writers have been warning us about for a generation, precipitating a fundamental crisis going well beyond the question of whether he has engaged in bribery, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, or committed other “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The most serious offense committed by President Trump is not among the crimes for which he was impeached.
Since taking office, he has been seizing powers for himself that are assigned exclusively to the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution. These exclusive powers include taxing; borrowing and spending; carrying out acts of war; regulating domestic and international commerce; and others. As he has infringed on these powers, Trump has greatly accelerated a trend that has been underway—but little noticed—for the past half-century: the erosion of the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches essential to the Constitutional structure.
The seizure of legislative authority by the Executive Branch has undermined the guardrails the founding fathers designed to protect us from the accumulation of tyrannical authority in the hands of the Chief Executive. That was the fundamental feature of the “republic—if you can keep it” established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Trump is the crest of a long-term trend, augmented in recent years by the bitter ideological deadlock that has gripped Washington for the past 30 years. The question now is: how do we stop and reverse this trend? The task belongs either to the voters this November, or more likely, to the biggest governmental losers, members of Congress. After all, if Congress fails to defend its Constitutional powers, who will?
Trump has not been alone in accelerating this trend. Hamstrung by the gridlock that left his legislative proposals “dead on arrival” after his first two years as president, Obama resorted increasingly in the following six years to executive orders to achieve his objectives. Republicans objected that he was exceeding his powers, and some of Obama’s actions were successfully challenged in the courts. But Obama’s appointees to key regulatory agencies continued to pursue policies he supported. Given the deference long afforded to the expertise of government regulatory bodies, many of those policies took effect.
Obama’s regulatory successes were short-lived, however. Far more than most presidents of opposing parties, Trump has been eager to undo whatever Obama did. Even though he enjoyed majority support in Congress in his first two years, Trump often chose to issue his own executive orders to reverse those signed by Obama (Republicans, who complained loudly about Obama’s executive orders, fell silent), and accomplished very little of this regulatory agenda legislatively. But Trump appointed leaders of numerous regulatory bodies and tasked them with modifying or abolishing rules put in place by their predecessors. Several of Trump’s nominees were avowed enemies of the agencies they were chosen to head.
Alarmingly, a frequent feature of Trump’s presidency has been his increasing tendency to name political appointees as “acting” heads of departments and agencies after their predecessors depart. As of this writing, the heads of the Office of Management and Budget, the Labor Department, the Homeland Security Department, and the Director of National Intelligence are all serving in an acting capacity and were not confirmed by the Senate. So, too, are the heads of at least half a dozen other important agencies. In taking this approach, Trump has been able to avoid subjecting his chosen operatives to the Senate’s “advise-and-consent” authority.
What’s more, under GOP control, the Senate has been unwilling to reassert its prerogatives by setting a firm limit on the interim period during which “acting chiefs” can continue to serve. As a consequence, political appointees responsible for many governmental functions are answerable only to the White House.
Trump has likewise disregarded the power granted exclusively to the Legislative Branch to determine by law what funds “shall be drawn from the treasury” and for what purpose. Violation of that provision is at the crux of one of the articles of impeachment dealing with the alleged “bribery attempt” of withholding funds Congress had appropriated for Ukrainian defense against Russian incursion.
Although it has received less attention, the same idea also applies in principle to Trump’s taking funds set aside for projects on U.S. military bases in the U.S. and Europe to instead build his promised wall on the Mexican border. The latter action seems especially egregious in light of Congress’s explicit refusal on more than one occasion to approve construction of that wall.
Even more disconcerting, President Trump has instructed government officials to ignore subpoenas from committees of the House of Representatives requiring testimony and the production of data. He has laid claim to “absolute immunity” for himself as well as for present and former members of his staff and has instructed members of agencies outside the White House not to testify. That behavior led to the other article of impeachment advanced in the House—obstruction of Congress.
While Trump has not quite resorted to blocking testimony on all subjects, he appears determined to prevent Congress from inquiring into any matter that might result in bad publicity, further proof of misconduct, or additional impeachment charges. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on Trump’s assertion of unlimited authority to determine who must testify before Congress and what information must be surrendered.
Congress has also all but lost its exclusive power “to declare war.” Over the last two decades, war and foreign policy have essentially become the sole province of the Executive Branch. In authorizing the recent assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the administration chose to notify Russia, Israel, and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Notably, it excluded the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.”
Since approving the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which greatly expanded the ill-starred Vietnam War, and voting to invade Iraq based on highly questionable evidence presented by the Bush-Cheney administration, Congress has seemed willing to allow the Executive Branch to determine on its own if and when military conflict is justified. Only now is it showing some spine after yesterday’s House vote on curbing Trump’s Iran war powers.
Both Republicans and Democrats have long complained about the use of Executive Orders to bypass the legislative process. But Congress has failed to devise an effective method for delaying or cancelling implementation of orders with which it disagrees. Until it does, the status quo will continue.
The political circumstances that have led to the Executive Branch overriding Congress have deep roots going back decades. Since tracing those circumstances depends, to a certain extent, on personal experience, I hope readers will forgive my reliance on first-person narration.
I arrived in Washington in 1957 as a Congressional Fellow appointed by the American Political Science Association. Dwight Eisenhower still had more than three years left in his second term as president. Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate under the leadership of two formidable Texans: Speaker Sam Rayburn and Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson.
Although I had acquired a graduate degree in political science and had studied American Government, I quickly learned that Congress behaved very differently than my college texts had led me to believe. Our widely advertised “two-party system” had actually disguised the four-party system that ruled in the House and the Senate. In effect, each of the two major parties were split amongst themselves into two warring tribes.
Both parties were, in reality, coalitions of more liberal and more conservative elements. While some legislative matters might be decided on a partisan basis, majority support for successful bills had to be assembled among the four groupings across party lines. The much-vaunted “civility” of the day was far from incidental. It was an absolute necessity.
The nominal “two-party system” became an actual two-party system in the 1960s, following passage of the Civil Rights Act. As the South began to support Republicans over Democrats, each of the parties took on a distinctly ideological complexion. Moderation became unacceptable to the newly dominant elements on both sides of the aisle, inviting challenges in party primaries. Republican moderates retired in droves or were defeated in primaries by less-accommodating challengers or in the general election by Democrats in purple, usually suburban districts. In general elections, business-friendly Blue Dogs disappeared from the Democratic side.
Three decades later, Newt Gingrich greatly augmented this new dynamic. Before he took over as Speaker in 1995, Gingrich argued that tooth-and-nail attack was the secret to winning a Republican majority. His assault on the integrity of his opponents—the “politics of personal destruction,” as it has been described—put an end to civility as the prevailing mode of interaction across party lines.
As a consequence, bitter partisanship has emerged as the dominant condition on Capitol Hill. When the government is divided, as it is now, cooperation has become impossible. On each side of the partisan divide, compromise has become a form of betrayal. Under those constraints, Democrats and Republicans—from George W. Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump—have taken measures like those discussed to circumvent Congress.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he included a long list of “injuries and usurpations” that the British King, George III, had committed against the thirteen colonies to establish “an absolute tyranny.” Eleven years later, having experimented unsuccessfully with a Confederation, the thirteen liberated colonies sent delegates to Philadelphia to create a new form of government, unlike any previously seen.
The Constitution was a direct response to Jefferson’s Declaration. It repudiated the British model. The clear objective was to prevent any future ruler from accumulating the arbitrary powers that the British King had exercised to the detriment of American colonists. In short, it was a defense against tyranny.
Are Republicans in the House and Senate content to see that defense dismantled? Will the American public be satisfied if Donald Trump is acquitted on the impeachment charges, especially in a sham trial without witnesses? Would acquittal affirm the present-day reality that we are gradually enabling what the Founding Fathers labored to contain?
Short answer: I don’t know. But it’s long past time for the U.S. Senate—the jurors in the forthcoming impeachment trial—to acquaint or reacquaint themselves with The Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton dealt with the constitution’s critics in Articles 67-69, arguing that the powers granted to the Executive Branch in Article II were republican in character, not monarchical in scope. Monarchies of the 18th century, he wrote, recognized no limits on the powers of the king. The only recourse ordinary people had was armed rebellion. Instead, America would have the power to remove a tyrannical President in a manner consistent with the rule of law: impeachment.
Impeachment, however, was not envisioned as the main defense against the chief executive’s over-accumulation of authority. Articles 47 through 51, written by James Madison, who is generally credited with being the principal author of the Constitution itself, explained the document’s reliance on separation of powers among the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. The primary assumption was that excesses by one branch would be resisted by the other two. Madison extended the assumption to include the expectation that the Senate and the House would often find it necessary to resist each other. Anyone who has witnessed one of the annual budget battles between the two bodies knows that expectation is consistently fulfilled.
That leaves us to reflect on these four facts: First, the American Revolution, as the Declaration of Independence affirms in detail, was precipitated by the tyrannies of the British king; second, preventing tyrannical government was a primary objective of the Constitution written in 1787 and approved in 1789; third, it is the obligation of each of the three branches of government to resist the excesses of the others; and fourth, keeping the Republic intact is an unfinished task that must be undertaken by every generation of Americans, not least this generation and its representatives in Congress.
"...taxing; borrowing and spending; carrying out acts of war; regulating domestic and international commerce; and others..."
Yeah, like no Democrat president has ever stooped to such levels, except every single one.
All you've posted is a bunch of empty babble. -
2021-12-07 at 6:38 PM UTCBing search
trump destroying democracy
3,930,000 Results
News about Trump Destroying Democracy
bing.com/news
The danger is now clear: Trump is destroying democracy in ...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/...
The danger is now clear: Trump is destroying democracy in broad daylight. Jonathan Freedland. This article is more than 1 year old. More and more, the president voices contempt for the voting ...
Estimated Reading Time: 7 mins
Trumpism Is 'Destroying Democracy,' Says Former Mike Pence ...
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-destroying...
Trumpism is destroying democracy in the US, according to a former aide to Mike Pence. Olivia Troye told MSNBC that Republican attempts to oust Trump's critics were a "horrifying and scary prospect." All of these bad actors... [are] actively destroying the fundamentals of our democracy," she said.
Destroying democracy can make you very rich | Salon.com
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/07/destroying...
Destroying democracy can make you very rich Nothing opens up GOP wallets like the promise of fascism. ... Trump is, after all, one of the most spectacularly incompetent businessmen of all time. He ...
9 Ways Trump And The GOP Are Destroying Democracy | by ...
https://medium.com/be-unique/9-ways-trump-and-the...
Here are 9 ways our democracy has been eroded: Trump speaks repeatedly with Putin, without allowing notes or transcriptions of meetings, or calls. Think about that. He... Trump has waged an all out war on the media from day one. He has undercut the public trust in legitimate reporting. A... Trump ...
Estimated Reading Time: 2 mins
The GOP's devotion to Trump threatens to destroy American ...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/04/politics/donald-trump-gop-democracy
CNN reported Monday that Cheney said at a behind-closed-doors conference in Georgia that Trump's behavior was a "poison in the bloodstream of our democracy." She added: "We can't whitewash what ...
Civil suits emerge as 'most powerful weapon' to stop Trump ...
https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/trump-civil-suit
Civil suits emerge as 'most powerful weapon' to stop Trump from 'destroying democracy': report. (U.S. Air Force photo/Andrew Park) President Trump debarks Air Force One at Dobbins Air Reserve Base...
Trump and the Threat to Democracy - HLS Orgs
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/democrats/2019/12/10/...
Similarly, early in Trump’s administration, leading Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan defended the president’s assaults upon democracy—specifically, Trump’s obstruction of justice in asking FBI Director James Comey to drop the criminal investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI—on the ground that the president was “new at this” and was “learning …
Estimated Reading Time: 12 mins
Opinion | The right-wing media is helping Trump destroy ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/16/...
Opinion: The right-wing media is helping Trump destroy democracy. A new poll shows how. A new poll shows how. Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier outside the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Former Harvard psychiatrist: 'Trump is a psychopath who ...
https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/former-harvard...
Former Harvard psychiatrist: 'Trump is a psychopath who will destroy democracy'. For four years Donald Trump has willfully and repeatedly violated the presidential oath of office and its promise ...
Estimated Reading Time: 10 mins -
2021-12-07 at 6:56 PM UTCEverything you've accused Trump of, you little guys have been doing for a century. Talk about your full blown, cherry picking hypocrites!
-
2021-12-07 at 6:57 PM UTCBlinded by the copy/paste monster.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-12-07 at 6:58 PM UTCListen, hypocrite. Cite me one thing Trump did that every Democrat president through American history has not done.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-12-07 at 7:02 PM UTCRead the articles, dummies.
-
2021-12-07 at 7:24 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-12-07 at 7:30 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:31 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:32 PM UTCCopy and paste merely back up my original thought with other great thinkers.
-
2021-12-07 at 7:32 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:33 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:34 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:38 PM UTC
-
2021-12-07 at 7:53 PM UTCNotice how he can't answer that simple question. Proves beyond all doubt how full of shit he really is.
-
2021-12-07 at 7:56 PM UTCAnd Trump was never impeached. He was found not guilty, twice. Saying he's impeached is as dishonest as claiming someone who was found not guilty of bank robbery is a bank robber. Articles of impeachment are nothing more than accusations. Empty, factless and partisan accusations, in this case. Trump was never impeached.
-
2021-12-07 at 8:26 PM UTCSpectral would 110% suck Trump's dick if given the opportunity.
