President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

[luthervol]

Looks like he was called out on it already.

???????
Where's that? I must have missed it.

 

[LSU-SIU]

???????
Where's that? I must have missed it.

President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

I only saw your comment. I responded to what you posted (and/or re-posted).

 

[Orange_Crush]

See the bolded in Sea Ray's post. That is what I directly quoted.

So you've never seen multiple people that a president endorsed get elected to office?

While not actually even knowing what history was being compared to?

I don't know.....it's Sea Ray's post....I think maybe Ohio.

Again, why did nobody respond to him?

You guys are making me blush.

 

[Buddy’s Bandit]

I guess they also agree with the grade school approach to doing it. Not a problem cleaning out the government of garbage but the approach should be done in an adult manner. Individual 2nd grade essay requests is just plain childish.
Federal Govt has not grown in 4 years its policies are screwed up change them. ID the problem vs the symptoms. Accountability.

Beg to differ…..https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/employment-in-government-rose-by-709000-in-2023.htm

How do you propose to cut the governmental workforce? This is the only way to do it. Many of these people being cut have known for a long time they have been riding the gravey train. They have known they have gotten away with “pulling the wool” over the American public. I will bet many of them already have a second job and have been working it for a long time.

Many Libs need to “tough’n up buttercup” !!!

 

[utvolpj]

lol....
I just quoted exactly what Sea Ray posted.

How interesting that not a single person responded to his words when he posted them.....
but when I post his exact same words. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The very next post is a response. This is tough to watch

 

[Orange_Crush]

???????
Where's that? I must have missed it.

Here's a few that were debating the concept and claims by the OP per "power" and its appropriate use. I'm assuming you'd read the thread up to the point of your quote?

Because he can. I suspect, if you were honest, your only real gripes here are that it's Trump, and he's popular enough for it to work.

That is a small gripe, and has little or nothing to do with your complaint that he should stay out of it and "leave it to Ohioans".

As has been mentioned, presidents have been endorsing candidates forever. At the end of the day, you're just telling us that you're either a party hack or a never-Trumper. Little more or less.

Did you bitch when previous presidents used their "power" in endorsing candidates?

OK. It sounds like elections have consequences. That's how and why endorsements have always worked. They are useful when the endorser has enough popularity for it to be useful, and useless when they don't.

Again, you come across as a party hack that just wants to complain when the pendulum has swung away from your preferences. For all the "Threat to Democracy" cries, some folks are really bruised and fragile while they watch it playing out.

its a partisan play. always has been, always will be.

its ok when your side does it, but its not ok when the other side does it. a lot gets conveniently forgotten whenever the party in charges switches. what used to be complaints about the president, get ignore with the next guy. things that were liked, suddenly become issues.

round and around we go.

I guess I can see that. But it's not like he's subverting the process.

My point (and amazement) is the popularity that Trump has right now. If the people are with him, I'm not sure how much we can complain that he has so much 'power'. I mean, as I mentioned, that's part of watching a democracy at work. It's why the Republicans are garnering so much (should we use the word?) sway right now. Trump seems to have plugged the party into the will of the 'people'. If he hadn't, he his endorsement would be useless, or worse than useless--detrimental.

 

[LouderVol]

Huh? How does a political endorsement equal mob rule?

did you skip 2/3 of what I quoted?

"My point (and amazement) is the popularity that Trump has right now. If the people are with him, I'm not sure how much we can complain that he has so much 'power'. I mean, as I mentioned, that's part of watching a democracy at work. It's why the Republicans are garnering so much (should we use the word?) sway right now. Trump seems to have plugged the party into the will of the 'people'. "

 

[Orange_Crush]

did you skip 2/3 of what I quoted?

"My point (and amazement) is the popularity that Trump has right now. If the people are with him, I'm not sure how much we can complain that he has so much 'power'. I mean, as I mentioned, that's part of watching a democracy at work. It's why the Republicans are garnering so much (should we use the word?) sway right now. Trump seems to have plugged the party into the will of the 'people'. "

Again, staying true to the context of the quote, how is an endorsement a constitutional crisis?

We are a Democratic Republic. We have elections to vote for our representation (The Democratic part), who must then abide by our Constitution (Republic part that protects from mob rule).

So, the will of the people in reference is whether the endorser is popular enough for his endorsement to move people to vote for the endorsee.

 

[LouderVol]

Again, staying true to the context of the quote, how is an endorsement a constitutional crisis?

We are a Democratic Republic. We have elections to vote for our representation (The Democratic part), who must then abide by our Constitution (Republic part that protects from mob rule).

So, the will of the people in reference is whether the endorser is popular enough for his endorsement to move people to vote for the endorsee.

never said it was a constitutional crisis. I never said it was a crisis of any sort. you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was just pointing out how flexible "Republicans" are when it comes to what matters. the DEMOCRACY point was always, justly ignored. with republicans falling all over themselves to claim how we have gotten too much focused on the democracy side of things and lost site of the republic aspect. the exact same argument you are making is what the Dems used under Obama and Biden, but yall never fell in line with what they did based on the support they had in the Democratic process.

it won't be long until yall are trying to get rid of the electoral college at this point.

 

[luthervol]

Here's a few that were debating the concept and claims by the OP per "power" and its appropriate use. I'm assuming you'd read the thread up to the point of your quote?

Only that last post was a response to his post that I quoted.....and it sounds as if you are more or less agreeing with him.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Still debateable whether Trump is that guy. Want to see action, not words (words that are clearly contradicted by actions of his proxies) with the biggest budget items....

2nd

 

[Orangeslice13]

???????
Where's that? I must have missed it.

Would not shock me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

never said it was a constitutional crisis. I never said it was a crisis of any sort. you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was just pointing out how flexible "Republicans" are when it comes to what matters. the DEMOCRACY point was always, justly ignored. with republicans falling all over themselves to claim how we have gotten too much focused on the democracy side of things and lost site of the republic aspect. the exact same argument you are making is what the Dems used under Obama and Biden, but yall never fell in line with what they did based on the support they had in the Democratic process.

it won't be long until yall are trying to get rid of the electoral college at this point.

It was my quote, and I'm not a republican.

I have seen people make the democrat/republic distinction when discussing popular/electoral college debates. I think I probably have as well. But context is always important. The "constitutional crisis" tongue in cheek was meant to convey this. It's a HUGE leap from electoral college to candidate endorsements, no?

Your last sentence indicates that you realize this, sarcasm noted (and appreciated).

 

[Orange_Crush]

Only that last post was a response to his post that I quoted.....and it sounds as if you are more or less agreeing with him.

You quoted one of the last posts in a conversation that had been beaten up. Note how many of the replies I quoted had the word "power" in quotes.

And as has been mentioned, I replied to that exact post in the very next post.




And per the last sentence, you are sadly mistaken. I have seen multiple endorsees elected before. It's not only NOT ceded power, it's nothing new.

But by all means, die on the hill by claiming that endorsements are ceded "power", and you have never seen anything like the thing that you haven't seen now.



(Which state? Don't know. Wasn't my post. All I know is that I have never seen anything like this thing that I don't know about now...)

 

[luthervol]

Would not shock me.

Glad to see you're still reading my posts.

 

[jmacvols1]

this one Trump better ignore..



another one just came in..

 

[n_huffhines]

It's just an onslaught of wild headlines every day.

 

[luthervol]

You quoted one of the last posts in a conversation that had been beaten up. Note how many of the replies I quoted had the word "power" in quotes.

And as has been mentioned, I replied to that exact post in the very next post.




And per the last sentence, you are sadly mistaken. I have seen multiple endorsees elected before. It's not only NOT ceded power, it's nothing new.

But by all means, die on the hill by claiming that endorsements are ceded "power", and you have never seen anything like the thing that you haven't seen now.



(Which state? Don't know. Wasn't my post. All I know is that I have never seen anything like this thing that I don't know about now...)

Jesh ..........
He was saying that the power trump wields amazes him. (perfectly reasonable statement)
I said, that another way of looking at that is "the power that people yield to trump is amazing." (perfectly reasonable statement)
It's far more than the power of his endorsements in Ohio. I wrongly assumed everyone understood that.
Hell, this whole thread is about all of the things he has done in his first month.
Are any of those things new for a president?
Are any of those things outside of the normal "DC box"?
Are any of those things being challenged in court as being beyond the powers of a president?
Are any of those things being rejected by trumpers?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Still debateable whether Trump is that guy. Want to see action, not words (words that are clearly contradicted by actions of his proxies) with the biggest budget items....

2nd

Trump cutting past spending on all this ridiculous crap, and reducing the size of government is definitely a step in the right direction. Much needed IMO...

That said, the president does not decide how much money our country spends/wastes/borrows year to year. Only Congress can set a budget...only they can approve spending and make serious cuts moving forward. Only they can balance the budget on a yearly basis.

We need to DEMAND this from Congress. Vote out career politicians. Vote out people who keep spending MORE than we have. It needs to start now. Anything else is just "putting lipstick on the same ugly pig." Listen to Paul talk about it here from 4 days ago:

 

[ButchPlz]

Wrong thread

 

[hog88]

did you skip 2/3 of what I quoted?

"My point (and amazement) is the popularity that Trump has right now. If the people are with him, I'm not sure how much we can complain that he has so much 'power'. I mean, as I mentioned, that's part of watching a democracy at work. It's why the Republicans are garnering so much (should we use the word?) sway right now. Trump seems to have plugged the party into the will of the 'people'. "

Sorry, I mistook your post for something it wasn't.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Trump cutting past spending on all this ridiculous crap, and reducing the size of government is definitely a step in the right direction. Much needed IMO...

That said, the president does not decide how much money our country spends/wastes/borrows year to year. Only Congress can set a budget...only they can approve spending and make serious cuts moving forward. Only they can balance the budget on a yearly basis.

We need to DEMAND this from Congress. Vote out career politicians. Vote out people who keep spending MORE than we have. It needs to start now. Anything else is just "putting lipstick on the same ugly pig." Listen to Paul talk about it here from 4 days ago:

Paul talks a big game but there ISN'T a R spending bill that he doesn't vote for.....

Actions speak louder than words

 

[Orange_Crush]

Jesh ..........
He was saying that the power trump wields amazes him. (perfectly reasonable statement)
I said, that another way of looking at that is "the power that people yield to trump is amazing." (perfectly reasonable statement)
It's far more than the power of his endorsements in Ohio. I wrongly assumed everyone understood that.
Hell, this whole thread is about all of the things he has done in his first month.
Are any of those things new for a president?
Are any of those things outside of the normal "DC box"?
Are any of those things being challenged in court as being beyond the powers of a president?
Are any of those things being rejected by trumpers?

lol

That's what you meant by "beats me, it was his post".

You never could take your losses.

Take care.

 

[hog88]

It's just an onslaught of wild headlines every day.

View attachment 724327

Wild and inaccurate headlines.

 

[luthervol]

lol

That's what you meant by "beats me, it was his post".

You never could take your losses.

Take care.

I said "beats me, it was his post" to the question about which state was being referenced.

BECAUSE IT DID NOT MATTER WHATSOEVER TO THE DISCUSSION

You always fixated on the trivial and insignificant detail while being completely oblivious to the bigger picture.