The (radical) Conservative plan to takeover the country

You guys provide every day.

 

You're too far behind that I have the energy to educate you on this.

Study the OP and the links provided, and google 'unitary executive theory'.

 

No, but it does seem to be what you are saying.

 

And yet you sing the praises of democratic houses for their unanimity, and lack of disagreement. And you miss the oxymoronic implication of that.

 

Are you unaware that McCastrated BRIBED Molester Matt for his vote to become Speaker by giving him the sole POWER to effectively REMOVE his position at will?

The GOP is a DUMBSTER fire on the brink of becoming a train wreck.

And it is all SELF INFLICTED!

 

Yep.

 

Exactly!!!

These people are misguided zealots, fully radicalized to suppress 55% to 60% of Americans and to co-opt the very freedoms and rights that allowed them to get to where they are.

 

Chaos is the plan, the R flag bearer is the driver. Now, who and what is driving him?

 

That's not quite true. Administrative agencies get their authority from Congress but are part of the Executive branch.

Since the 60s, Congress has increasingly ducked that responsibility by turning over real authority to the agencies and merely funding those agencies. Look at the Congressional authority for EPA, the newest agency, and then something older like NHTSA and you'll be surprised how loose Congressional control of EPA actually is. That's purposeful since not legislating results in more 50+ year careers of little achievement of any note.

It's also what allowed a liberal Supreme Court to grant EPA authority to regulate CO2 without Congress amending the Clean Air Act. An absolute train wreck of illogical nonsense.

And currently the entire focus of a plan like this.

Again, like a broken record, watch Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. If Chevron deference falls, global warming is dead in this country.

And not a minute too soon.

 

I see.

“And yet, we have not changed so much, have we? We still coach Little League and care for our parents, we cry at romantic comedies and mow our lawns, we laugh at our eccentricities and apologize for harsh words, we want to be loved and wish for a better world. That is not to absolve us of responsibility for our politics, but to trace a lament oft heard when we step away from politics: Aren’t we better than this?

I think we are, or we can be. But toxic systems compromise good individuals with ease. They do so not by demanding we betray our values but by enlisting our values such that we betray each other. What is rational and even moral for us to do individually becomes destructive when done collectively.” Ezra Klein (another smart liberal) Why We're Polarized (emphasis mine)

 

Russia collusion!

 

The RP never puts a dent in the "beast". Trump, at best, put a wrinkle in it, and look what that got him.

“Getting Rich has become the great bipartisan ideal: “No Democrats and Republicans in Washington anymore, only millionaires”, goes the maxim. The ultimate Green party. You still hear the term “public service” thrown around, but often with irony and full knowledge that “self-service” is now the real insider play.”
THIS TOWN, Mark Leibovich, Penguin Books, 2013. p. 9.

 

It pays to do what the party bosses tell you to do.

“In recent years, despite thousands of bills introduced into Congress every year, only a small percentage (approximately 5%) become law. Of course, what matters for laws is quality not quantity. But why would legislators bother to introduce so many hopeless bills? What if they are not even designed to pass? What if they are instead designed to make money? The cold harsh reality in Washington is this: the very conditions that are so maddening for most Americans —gridlock, problems being ignored, hyper partisanship — are the very conditions that are most lucrative for the Permanent Political Class. Washington may not be working for citizens, but it's working quite well for members of the Permanent Political Class who profit handsomely.”
EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, BuyVotes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 7, 8.

 

The (radical) Conservative plan to takeover the country

conspiracy theory #23B.

 

That appears to be a common right wing claim, but is it true? The problem I have with the right is that they automatically assume it's true, and are anti-government in general. Now, I can understand why the sentiment exists, given government's propensity for bureaucracy and red tape, but, on the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say the many departments, i.e., of Agriculture, the FDA, the FEd, etc., are not needed. We should make sure they are operating efficiently and their output benefits America, but the right appears to be bent on 'deconstruction' or rather, destruction, for destruction's sake, and that's not a good thing, not at all.

Such as?

 

One of these days, when you make a vacuous claim, you will offer a solid path of reasoning, give real world examples, and links to sources which back up your claim that would an intelligent argument which would give me something to work with in my rebuttal. But, woefully deficient in such, I'm left to indicate your vacuousness, which there is no other appropriate response.

But, you missed the part where I said 'vacuous drivel'. It wouldn't be that if you ascribed to the above recommendation.

 

Compare the number of uniformed military we have to the size of the Civil Service.

Not even close to being true. There's no "automatically" to it. We've looked at the federal government structure and found unproductive or duplicate agencies.

And, as I already said - the number of top level agencies being totally ended is fairly small. And "destruction for destruction's sake" is an idiotic partisan slogan.

 

So you got nothing but personal insults, vacuous blather and vapid arguments? Rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.

 

Too late. Democrats have already taken over, removed democracy, taken people's rights away, censored first amendment rights, and have weaponized law enforcement to go after the other side.

 

Which is probably a good thing overall.

Good stuff.

 

The beast may have become too large to kill. Mandatory spending comprises over 50% (and likely over 60% of all federal revenue. Which doesn't leave much for "nice to have" stuff. Unfortunately "nice to have" is what buys votes.

 

Yep. In many ways Washington has become a Uniparty town. The ol' "go along to get along" M.O. is long established. That's one of the reasons Trump had many of his problems; while GOPer enjoined his coat tails in 2016, he started messing with the sacred rice bowls of too many congressholes on both sides of the aisle.

 

Please substantiate each claim.

So we are clear on the meaning if 'substantiate', I would elaborate it as follows:

1. Give a coherent path of reasoning/logic.
2. Give real world/known examples that support the claim, assuming your interpretation of the examples/events are correct.
3. Link to supporting documents, articles from credible sources, etc., which support the claim.
4. Give #1 at the minimum, and include #2 and/or #3 for a stronger argument.

Now, that being said, all of the above won't necessarily immunize your argument from being counter argued, but it will definitely strengthen your argument, and it will move the debate forward. But, without it, your claims are empty and vacuous claims do not move the debate forward, which is the point of debates, in my view.

Thank you.

 

LOL. In other words, no matter what I say, you will not accept it.

 

Aw shucks, folks like me love their country, The U.S., more than life. "WE" don't cotton to the red team trying to get a feller elected and then making him more powerful than the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend. Ya'll know, kinda like TRAITOR tRump tried to do the first time he was lected.

Gee-golly, IF you had read the OP and supporting documents you would see that the red teams 2025 Mandate for Leadership wants to do just that, essentially make "their" president an autocrat.

sublimated; sublimating
transitive verb
1
a
: sublime sense 1
b
archaic : to improve or refine as if by subliming

2
: to divert the expression of (an instinctual desire or impulse) from its unacceptable form to one that is considered more socially or culturally acceptable

That's the definition of sublimate, and on the surface it seems like "a good thing". But, I used that word to highlight the fact that they don't think our Constitution and it's Separation of Powers (that has served us well for 240 years) is good enough.

Folks like me happen to disagree ... STRONGLY!