Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
Many aspects of the American constitutional system are genuinely frustrating.
For example, if you want to reform how the civil service works you need to write a bill that does that and then work with members of congress to get it passed.
It is what it is.
Madisonian institutions are genuinely not the best way to organize a democratic republic, but "the president just breaks the law" is a not the solution.
Indeed, the temptation to reach for that option is a clear flaw in presidentialism.
Social Security recipients, people who earn tips and many businesses could see lower IRS bills if all of Donald Trump’s tax policy ideas come to fruition. But they could punch a big hole in the federal budget.
Rate proposed Community Notes
Kind of renders the executive branch meaningless doesn’t it? If they can’t actually control how they execute?
The design of the system has impeachment as a backstop for an executive that does a bad job enforcing the law. I think that was the intention, not whatever we have now.
With that line of thinking in mind, were not legal immigration levels set through negotiated legislation? Or, thinking about Pennsylvania for an example, ballot security measures negotiated and passed with bipartisan support?
I think a general theme of Trumpism is, you are right
Show more
Bipartisan is dead; we saw that over the past 4 years when the DOJ was used as a political weapon against J6ers , Donald Trump and even lawyers who represented people the DOJ had cases against.
got it 
Quote
@digardy
@digardy
Imagine wearing this t-shirt at a Starbucks in LA 
Shirt link
redcapcloset.com/qrtrump-2028#s
Shirt link
redcapcloset.com/qrtrump-2028#s0:23
"99% of the time someone claims they have an income problem, they actually have a spending problem. For example, if you double the income of someone who is in debt, they will most likely just end up twice as much in debt."
- , author of "In It Together"
All “premises” are out the window, I’m afraid. Anything in the Constitution that isn’t ironclad with enforceable “teeth”/consequences will be bulldozed.
That constitutional system barred Trump from holding office so there is no need to pretend it’s still around. What exists now is a new fascist dictatorship consolidating power.
If it were up to Trump, he'd require every American to have a portrait of him in their homes if they want federal aid.
Well, welcome to checks 'n' balances. Didn't they cover this in high school civics? Turns out the Legislative and Executive Branch have to negotiate with each other. Or more precisely, no branch becomes supreme just because they favor your policy directions at the moment.
Trump revoked an anti-discrimination hiring rule. Here’s what it means.
Not necessarily. “You get X and we get Y” is one type of compromise, but another type might be to only fund things that both sides agree are needed.
That might actually be a better way to reach bipartisan compromise on spending.
"some government spending will be on programs that don't align with the president's priorities" One "program" is to funnel $$ to progressive NGOs. How many conservative nonprofits get fed $$? What are the proportions? What has Congress GOP done to limit $$ going to left orgs?
Congress is going to have to go on record as to how they want money spent rather than just giving a bucket to Agencies and saying "take care of this". If Congress doesn't want to go on record for what it's funding this shit is going to happen.
President after president has attempted to do the same. Often ( or always) legislators of the same party do not object. When you don't complain about your guy doing it, your complaints against the other guy don't are suspect.
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content