The (radical) Conservative plan to takeover the country

I will accept an argument. Non arguments I do not engage.

in other words.

 

You won't accept anything but your own biased opinion. Your side claims you believe in facts but when facts are presented to you (such as in the video) you refuse to listen to them.

 

The RP controlled the elections in all of the critical swing states. RP bosses were the prime movers in his 2020 defeat.
DJT has paid dearly for his political naïveté.

“Politics in modern America has become a lucrative business, an industry that has less to do with policy and a lot more to do with accessing money and favors. … bills and regulations are often introduced not to affect policy change, but as vehicles for shaking down people for … money and favors. Indeed, the motive on both sides often has nothing to do with creating a “correct” policy but instead is often about maximizing profits.”
EXTORTION, How Politicians Extract Your money, Buy Votes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 4.

 

There is no such thing as "Mandatory spending". The House has the legal power to throttle the USG whenever it chooses to do so.
All of the Representatives who have trouble raising money (most of the House) would be tempted by any credible plan to replace the current corrupt system.

"The Constitution is filled with ambiguities. But it has a few commands the framers wanted crystal clear. The president is commander in chief. Supreme Court justices have life terms. And, it states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Article I, section 9, clause 7 is constitutional bedrock, popularly known as “the power of the purse.” James Madison called it “a weapon” arming “the immediate representatives of the people” against the sweeping powers of the president."
THE WASHINGTON POST, National Security, An emergency of the moment may set precedent for the ages, By Fred Barbash and Ellen Nakashima, Feb. 15, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...599380-314e-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

 

Social Security for one is automatic even if the government shuts down.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/co...happens-during-government-shutdown-rcna117359

 

BECAUSE Congress appropriated it's funding in perpetuity, when the bill was passed.

 

So did anyone bother to tell ddyad that? It was his argument over what bullseye said.

 

Well, baring extremely unusual circumstances the budget does contain mandatory items, interest on the debt being one of them

And the mandatory spending I talked about are APPROPRIATED costs.

 

I don't think so. A single media mogul spent $400,000,000 in several swing states to sway vote leftward.

good points

 

That relies on a vote from a previous House. Every national electing gives the House an opportunity to cut off spending to any agency of the USG.

Should the RP vote to end Social Security? Well, they certainly could do that, and the RP is The Stupid Party -- that stupid? Probably not.

 

The assumption is that the majority of the House supports such spending, and of course they do.
Our Big Bad Government will remain secure from any significant reform until there is overwhelming popular support for some new approach.

 

I didn't watch the video and didn't read every word of your summary but get the gist. First of all true conservatives (radical or otherwise) want to take back the country, not take it over. I'm not sure what is meant or implied by a "unitary executive." If it dictatorial power then that is wrong. If the Heritage Foundation' "unitary executive" is referring to a single head of the executive branch which we have always had and is perfectly constitutional and is a no-op point. I suspect they mean returning authority to the president that has been given to the fourth branch of government, the administrative state.

Unless I am totally misconstruing what seems to be obvious, I see nothing but constitutional goodness from the plan.

 

The Heritage Foundation does appear to support the unitary executive theory5*. They argue that this theory ensures that the federal government will execute the law in a consistent manner and in accordance with the president’s wishes1. They also believe that the unitary executive concept is not an exotic theory, but one of the most commonly-held tenets of our constitutional system1.

However, there are several criticisms of the unitary executive theory. Critics argue that it is built on a fictional reading of constitutional design and that its precepts attack the fundamental tenets of the checks and balances system that the Founders did create2. They also point out that unitary executive theorists selectively review history, taking presidential actions out of context and ignoring important nuances3. Furthermore, critics argue that if fully adopted, it would act as a very substantial limit on the power of Congress to assign executive authority to high-ranking personnel who do not serve at the pleasure of the President4.

In other words, the UET is an affront to the framers concept of separation of powers/co-equal branches of government, checks and balances and all that. It gives the President sweeping almost unlimited power and weakens the power of congress.

*(little numbers are a hint that the line links).

 

What I find funny is that this apparently left leaning lawyer thinks that gutting various federal agencies abilities to legislate while they are under the control of the Executive Branch, is somehow going to make the President "more powerful". Or does he/she think that those agencies are not under the Executive Branch's control? If so then they are a really crappy lawyer who I wouldn't hire to get me out of a parking ticket...much less tell me about Constitutional Law.

Anyways, I'll respond to the OP at a later time. I need to get to bed.

 

Saw this just before heading off to bed.

Congress has no power to assign or give executive authority to anyone to any part of the Executive Branch. They never have had such power. The only power that they have is in the advice and consent clause based on who the President picks. Not on who they pick. IE: They can only consider someone put forth by the President. Not choose their own picks to post in a position in the Executive Branch.

 

Weird, I haven't received my invite yet

 

I don't know why. You are conservative enough.

 

Agreed, but then again the Democrat side of me smells a familiar stench of MSN bullpoop.

 

The authoritarian extremists obviously lust for their hardcore ideologues being able to dictate in matters of science, medicine, personal reproductive rights, freedom of the press, private enterprise, etc., etc., etc., but their magnificent show of impotence in allowing the one brach of government for which they barely won control to function is reassuring

 

It was ONE Republican that called for the ouster of McCarthy. If all the Republicans had voted to keep McCarthy then there is nothing the Democrats could have done.

If ALL the Republicans had voted for Scalise then there is nothing that the Democrats could have done
If ALL the Republicans had voted for Jordan then there is nothing that the Democrats could have done.

Care to tell me how this is the fault of the Democrats?

 

History and tradition has it that the majority party is responsible for electing their speaker.

You can't expect Democrats to bail out republicans who cannot control their conference and are proven incompetent.

We voted 212 for Jeffries. Not one republican voted for him. If what you say is true then the flip side is true.

Jeffries is the competent choice.

This is democracy, we vote for whom we choose to be speaker.

Republicans, get your house in order and quit whining about your opposition.

 

While you view conservatives this way, conservatives view liberals in almost exactly the same way. Here is how both Trump and Biden voters view each other.


Those who intended to support one candidate expressed a great deal of suspicion toward supporters of the other side, expressed in roughly even proportions among both Trump and Biden voters:


— A staggering majority of both Biden (70%) and Trump (68%) voters believed electing officials from the opposite party would result in lasting harm to the United States.


— Roughly half (52% Biden voters, 47% Trump voters) viewed those who supported the other party as threats to the American way of life.


— About 40% of both groups (41% Biden voters, 38% Trump voters) at least somewhat believed that the other side had become so extreme that it is acceptable to use violence to prevent them from achieving their goals.


https://centerforpolitics.org/cryst...constitutional-bounds-to-serve-partisan-aims/

 

I've went to length to substantiate the premise of the OP, and the Heritage Foundation's manifesto is evidence. Is there any doubt as to the credentials of the Heritage Foundation's import among the conservative community?

Now, you say 'conservatives view liberals the same way', but what can you offer to substantiate your claim other than a vague reference, the point being, while there may be some conservatives who harbor a similar sentiment, how is it a valid one? I've offered mine, can you offer a counter argument of comparable magnitude in terms of substantiating that claim?

Equal suspicion is an interesting observation, but the OP's premise is pointing to an actual action plan by the right, and your observation doesn't address it. None of the rest of above is really relevant to the premise of the OP and are arguments for other threads.

 

Thanks for the background but it doesn't address the OP.

Is there anything remotely similar on the Left to the Xtofascist 2025 Manifesto?

 

Green New Deal.
DEI.
For the People act.