I’ll Be Voting for President Trump and Vice President Pence in 2020

[Right_in_Virginia]

I want a President who understands his power and the limits to that power under the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Then why, @Hoodat , do you want a President who in service to your whims will ignore laws passed by Congress?

Exhibit A:

It would be really nice to have a President with the balls to tell Planned Parenthood to pound sand when they came around asking for their $500 million check from the US taxpayers. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Then why, @Hoodat , do you want a President who in service to your whims will ignore laws passed by Congress?

Exhibit A:

It can't pass Congress without his signature... or a 2/3 override, one of the two.

[Hoodat]

Then why, @Hoodat , do you want a President who in service to your whims will ignore laws passed by Congress?

Because that is how our Founding Fathers set it up.  If I am driving along the Interstate and happen to be doing 70 mph as I pass a 65 mph speed limit sign, I want to enjoy the grace that the Executive Branch is willing to afford me even though the Legislature deems that I have violated their law.  Likewise, a President also has the discretion to enforce a law as he sees fit so that when Congress legislates that SUVs are no longer allowed on Interstate highways, the President devotes zero resources to enforce it.

I want a President who will carry out his Executive duties in service to a nation and its people within the limits of the Constitution.  And there is nothing there which says his power is solely confined to whatever Congress orders him to do.

It is a simple concept called 'Separation of Powers'.  It is the genius invention of our Founding Fathers, chief among them fellow Virginian James Madison who understood checks and balances.  The Executive branch has a check against the power of the Legislative branch in that the Executive is charged with enforcement of the law.  Again, any high school student throughout the Commonwealth is intimately familiar with this concept.  But not you.  Why is that?

I didn't vote for taxpayer dollars to be spent on funding abortion.  I voted for a President to stop it.  But you obviously don't want that.

[edpc]

Because that is how our Founding Fathers set it up.  If I am driving along the Interstate and happen to be doing 70 mph as I pass a 65 mph speed limit sign, I want to enjoy the grace that the Executive Branch is willing to afford me even though the Legislature deems that I have violated their law.  Likewise, a President also has the discretion to enforce a law as he sees fit so that when Congress legislates that SUVs are no longer allowed on Interstate highways, the President devotes zero resources to enforce it.

I want a President who will carry out his Executive duties in service to a nation and its people within the limits of the Constitution.  And there is nothing there which says his power is solely confined to whatever Congress orders him to do.

It is a simple concept called 'Separation of Powers'.  It is the genius invention of our Founding Fathers, chief among them fellow Virginian James Madison who understood checks and balances.  The Executive branch has a check against the power of the Legislative branch in that the Executive is charged with enforcement of the law.  Again, any high school student throughout the Commonwealth is intimately familiar with this concept.  But not you.  Why is that?

I didn't vote for taxpayer dollars to be spent on funding abortion.  I voted for a President to stop it.  But you obviously don't want that.

I get where you’re coming from, but we had this problem and complained about it, under the previous admin. So, we ought to be consistent.


Other Republicans have made similar arguments since the employer mandate was delayed. Earlier this month, Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) made similar arguments, and said Obama's picking and choosing which laws to enforce "makes him a ruler, not a president."

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/312279-lawmaker-says-obamas-selective-enforcement-of-laws-demeaning-to-our-democracy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/obama-administration-voter-fraud-law-selective-enforcement/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/07/07/obama-could-end-the-border-crisis-tomorrow-if-he-wanted-n1859531

[Hoodat]

I get where you’re coming from, but we had this problem and complained about it, under the previous admin. So, we ought to be consistent.

I side with the President no matter what party.  In the case above, it was the law (i.e. the act of Congress) that was bad, not the President's decision not to enforce it.  At the time, the GOP was making a political point, not a Constitutional one.

It all comes down to checks and balances.  And the check the Executive has over the Legislative is that the Legislative must rely on the Executive to enforce the law.  If Congress doesn't like the way the Executive Branch enforces the law, then they can eliminate funding for White House HVAC in the next fiscal year.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete you wanted me to quote you where you said Trump is our savior...here you go.

@txradioguy

Nice try,but no seegar. "Savior" implies a religious figure,and I am not superstitious.

[sneakypete]

 For once, I would like to see a Trump supporter own up to it and openly admit that Ted never lied, and that he never did anything to Ben Carson, that he gave a great speech at the Convention, and that it was the GOP Establishment that heckled and booed him.  For once, I would like to see a Trump supporter tell the truth.

@Hoodat

Cruz ain't GOP establishment?????

Granted,he ain't a Bush or a Dolt,but he is about as close to an establishment Republican as you can find these days. Yeah,Mittens might argue about that,but who the hell cares what he has to say about anything?

[Applewood]

@txradioguy

Nice try,but no seegar. "Savior" implies a religious figure,and I am not superstitious.

Not necessarily religious.

savior noun
sav·​ior | \ ˈsāv-yər also -ˌyȯr

   
\
variants: or saviour
Definition of savior
1
: one that saves from danger or destruction
2
: one who brings salvation
specifically, capitalized : jesus sense 1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savior

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Nice try,but no seegar. "Savior" implies a religious figure,and I am not superstitious.

You said it. If you want to pick nits because the exact word isn’t there as your way to weasel out of what you said and implied that’s on you.

But clearly you think he’s the savior of the country. Your religion is Trump Populism.

[txradioguy]

Not necessarily religious.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savior

 

[sneakypete]

Not necessarily religious.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savior

@Applewood

That was the ONLY definition when I was growing up.

[TomSea]

@Hoodat

Cruz ain't GOP establishment?????

Granted,he ain't a Bush or a Dolt,but he is about as close to an establishment Republican as you can find these days. Yeah,Mittens might argue about that,but who the hell cares what he has to say about anything?

Cruz endorsed Romney, so yes, it was when Cruz first ran for Senator, one can argue he needed to go along to get along but the fact remains.

@sneakypete

[sneakypete]

You said it. If you want to pick nits because the exact word isn’t there as your way to weasel out of what you said and implied that’s on you.

But clearly you think he’s the savior of the country. Your religion is Trump Populism.

@txradioguy

You are full of Bush,bubba! While I do have more respect for Trump than I do some fictional Holy Ghost,I also have more respect for a dead dog laying in a ditch. At least the dog was real.

Do NOT try to inflict your insanity on me.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Cruz ain't GOP establishment?????

Granted,he ain't a Bush or a Dolt,but he is about as close to an establishment Republican as you can find these days. Yeah,Mittens might argue about that,but who the hell cares what he has to say about anything?

If Cruz was GOP Establishment, then he wouldn't have gotten booed at the Convention by a bunch of Establishment delegates.  But let me know if you ever hear Donald Trump call McConnell a liar to his face.  Ted Cruz sure did.

[sneakypete]

Cruz endorsed Romney, so yes, it was when Cruz first ran for Senator, one can argue he needed to go along to get along but the fact remains.

@sneakypete

@TomSea

I had forgotten about that,but everybody occasionally makes a mistake,and he does seem to have learned from that one.

[Hoodat]

Cruz endorsed Romney, so yes, it was when Cruz first ran for Senator, one can argue he needed to go along to get along but the fact remains.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[corbe]

   At least Ted didn't donate to hellary, schumer and all those NY Liberal freaks who, IMHO, are much worse than Mitt and he's pretty bad!  @TomSea

[Applewood]

@Applewood

That was the ONLY definition when I was growing up.

I think both definitions have been around for years. 

For non-religious purposes, the word is not capitalized (savior).  Christians capitalize Savior when talking about Jesus Christ.

[roamer_1]

I think both definitions have been around for years. 

For non-religious purposes, the word is not capitalized (savior).  Christians capitalize Savior when talking about Jesus Christ.

That's right.

[TomSea]

   At least Ted didn't donate to hellary, schumer and all those NY Liberal freaks who, IMHO, are much worse than Mitt and he's pretty bad!  @TomSea

Defeating ISIS, more work needs to be done on that and so on.  We recognize the capitol is in Jerusalem, the good things this administration has done goes on and on. Respecting and preserving religious liberty and backing it up with initiatives.  Bringing North Korea to the negotiating table. I wince if the Democrats ever get back in the White House.

@corbe

[Chosen Daughter]

   At least Ted didn't donate to hellary, schumer and all those NY Liberal freaks who, IMHO, are much worse than Mitt and he's pretty bad!  @TomSea

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because that is how our Founding Fathers set it up. ...  a President also has the discretion to enforce a law as he sees fit

Seriously?  The Founding Fathers established a Constitution giving one man the power to ignore a duly passed law and change others on a whim ... rendering both the Congress and the Judiciary pointless? 

You're saying our Founders established a Constitution to create a king?

Seriously?

[corbe]

   @TomSea we will just have to agree to disagree on the amount of progress thus far made in this Administration.  It's like arguing with @Emjay lately, I love ya both, but nothing good comes of it.

[TomSea]

   @TomSea we will just have to agree to disagree on the amount of progress thus far made in this Administration.  It's like arguing with @Emjay lately, I love ya both, but nothing good comes of it.

I voted for Bush twice, we got the whole area over there, it wasn't fun. Even some people like McCain now, admitted it was a mistake.

Trump's doing really well in comparison to the 2 previous presidents.

This immigration thing, just looked at this. We will see. Agian, the Limbaugh article.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/02/19/the-budget-bill-will-be-used-against-trump-in-2020/

[Hoodat]

Seriously?  The Founding Fathers established a Constitution giving one man the power to ignore a duly passed law and change others on a whim ... rendering both the Congress and the Judiciary pointless? 

Uh, no.  That is not at all what I said.