Printable View
It's been the same since the founding: Jefferson vs Adams, Lincoln vs Douglas, Obama vs Romney, etc, etc..
As long as this country maintains it's dedication to the rule of law as it has done, as opposed to the rule of men as some would like, everything, despite a little pain here and there, will be fine.
My question is this. By my understanding, any elected President that has considerable wealth and holdings must either divest himself of the same or turn control of, with no interference from him, his control to a neutral party to avoid any criticism that any laws enacted aren't directly benefiting him? Considering Trumps noted tendency to be an over controlling person how in hell will that be accomplished should he become President. And that holds for any one elected to that position.
Isn't it the job of the Congress to provide that check?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorfeld
If that is so then Congress would have to start impeachment processes immediately since Trump brokers no opposition to what he perceives as right and just when it comes to his actions and decisions. I cannot see him willingly setting aside control of his empire while president.
"When men, engaged in unjustifiable pursuits, are aware that obstructions may come from a quarter which they cannot control, they will often be restrained by the bare apprehension of opposition, from doing what they would with eagerness rush into, if no such external impediments were to be feared."Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorfeld
Hamilton, Federalist #73
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government."
Federalist #51
The primary control afforded the people is the ballot box.
Personally I think Trump is the perfect match for this country and what it has become. Folks who are easily swayed, folks who are gullible, folks who don't think for themselves and probably believe in Santa Claus. Just maybe the Republican establishment is so against trump not just because he is a threat to them but maybe they realize he would be a really terrible President.
Personally, (and I don't believe in conspiracies) however in this case I think the divisiveness in this country didn't just happen as some organic event but it has been totally orchestrated and controlled by interests in this country who would profit by it. You just need to ask yourself who that would be and you have your answer. I doubt the creators would have guessed how successful it has become.
Unfortunately things like that often get out of hand in a very bad way.
I'll bet the founding father's are all turning over in their graves right now.
"In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit."
Federalist #51
How did the change in the election of the Senate due to the 17th amendment alter the function of congress and it's role in republican government?
OK, so thebigspendur raised another thing I've been hearing about but really don't fully understand.
I've heard several times now that Trump has been criticised by people within the party he is representing. I understand the idea of factions within parties, we have that here too. But just what proportion of the Republican party supports Trump, and what proportion doesn't? And which proportion?
Is his support from the extreme right factions within the party? Do they represent a large proportion of the party? If they don't (ie they are a small proportion) does that mean the party is at the mercy of this Presidential nomination process? They can only put up nominees, and then the rest is up to the voters in the primaries (is that the right terminology)? Whoever wins is the Party's Presidential candidate, whether the majority of the Party likes it or not?
James.
it's the far right that supports him and they are very vocal so it seems like a large percentage but it isn't. That's why polls show likely Republican Voters reject him by a large margin. Unfortunately he sells so the media keeps hyping him. In many respects he is a product of the media.