I hate to break it to you, but the only people in here who are echoing are you, bobbythe, russianlegend, etc. You are echoing each other thus why they call it the echo chamber. You guys never question what you think. Thus "echo chamber" . You guys always like what one another post - are you getting what is meant by "echo chamber"? No?
I love it how some people think that it is not a crisis when Russia has successfully blackmailed the POTUS.
Not there. Getting close. What happen to all the super pro constitution and lawful people on the right? Power hungry sure corrupt and suppress.
It's been this way for 50 years, Trump is just the worst version of one part of the system, a part which is now clearly not as central as it used to be thought of.
They don't care as long as the anti minority party has power. That's what Republicans are about today. Trump's Platform is about whiteness.
Yep. The diarrhea republic is on its way to the great porcelain gig in the sky. Federal representation that has not grown in relation to its population (less voice for the electorate, ease of abuse for lobbyists). A voting system that ensures 1) we end up vacillating between polar extremes politically instead of finding consensus 2) disproportionately represents certain areas at the expense of others 3) lets those in power pick whom votes for them instead of the other way around. 24/7 propaganda networks. Endless wars. The goalposts for truth have been torn down and moved outside of the stadium entirely. At this point I'm a fan of stripping the federal government down to the singular task of national defense. No sense in letting dumbasses from Arkansas and Kentucky take the rest of us down with them as they sink deeper into the butthole of misery and defeat.
In reality there's just a crisis going on within the DNC and their followers see it as a "constitutional crisis". Democrats are having less and less to run on with each passing day and it's starting to look like the wave election they were banking on just won't happen. Even worse, they are backed into a corner on the immigration issue and might have to allow yet another accomplishment for this administration that they weren't able to push through when they controlled everything. Again, I understand why Democrats are freaking out....but it's a good thing.
A lot of this clears up if we re-inact a bill that forces NEWS programs to be truthful.... That way all the lazy ignorant people can actually get a handle on the truth. DD
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...st-asked-congress-to-end-the-rule-of-law.html Donald Trump Just Asked Congress to End the Rule of Law This should be the biggest headline of the speech. By YASCHA MOUNK Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for federal agencies. Win McNamee/Getty Images Donald Trump’s first State of the Union was a deeply dangerous speech. It was deeply dangerous because he finally followed in the footsteps of European leaders like Hungarian President Viktor Orban who have long ago learned to give an attractive look to authoritarian populism. Like them, Trump eschewed openly racist remarks in his speech, even emphasizing how much he (supposedly) cares about the fate of Latinos and black Americans. Like them, he called for economic policies, like paid family leave, that would actually benefit ordinary people. And like them, he then cast himself as the only man willing to prioritize the interests of his supporters over those of foreigners and political elites. It was Bannonism without Bannon’s penchant for shock and awe. And it played shockingly well. But Trump’s speech was also deeply dangerous for an even more important reason: Under the cover of his soothing rhetoric about unity and bipartisanship, Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.” By design, it is easy to overlook the true significance of the second half of that phrase. But dwell on it for a moment, and imagine what this would actually look like in practice. Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot. In other words, Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other federal agency. To be sure, such legislation is unlikely to pass. While the constant standing ovations for Trump from the Republican benches demonstrate the degree to which the GOP has now embraced the president, they are not yet at the point of dismantling the rule of law quite so brazenly; even if they did, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike such a law down as unconstitutional. But the fact that Trump’s authoritarian demand is unlikely to be realized anytime soon does not make it unimportant. In his first State of the Union, the 45th president of the United States asked Congress for the authority to end the rule of law. And that—not Trump’s supposedly unifying policy proposals, much less his supposedly presidential ability to read a speech off a teleprompter—should be the headline of every newspaper tomorrow. Could be? Rocket River
The author is correct. If that's an accurate quotation of the speech, and no matter what the context was, that statement is absolutely a cornerstone to any authoritarian government we've seen historically. Not good! As Two Scoops might type.
well . . . here's a slightly less hyperventilating discussion https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/01/31/trump-calls-making-easier-fire-federal-employees-sotu/
