No link, just looked up the % registered Republican and % Democrat. Added them up and subtracted from 100% . Of course not all people who can vote do so and those who may be registered in one party may vote for another party. My vote is never along party lines. I chose the lessor of the evils presented unless they are both so slimy I can’t bring myself to vote for either; such as the presidential election last time.
2 Likes
I am referring to this :" independent thinkers that refuse to join sides".
Do you have a link that shows people that are unaffiliated with either party are “independent thinkers”?
The article I posted shows that people who are independent for the most part either “lean democrat” or “lean republican”.
1 Like
Nope, I have no link or evidence that unaffiliated people think at all. I also have no evidence that affiliated party members think. Judging by the people that get elected time after time I think the case could be made that there is not a lot of thought involved.
1 Like
I propose that unaffiliated voters, although they may lean one way or the other, are going through a process of analysis before making a final decision and that requires thought. Voting strictly along party lines only requires blind allegiance.
2 Likes
Do you have a link?
Here’s Pew again.
Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics.
Or ardent disgust at the stated agenda and goals of the other option
The slushing has already begun…
From today’s WAPO:
Immediately after signing the historic $2 trillion coronavirus aid package, President Trump sought to curb oversight provisions in the bill by asserting presidential authority over a new inspector general’s office.
The move could presage a major battle between the White House and Capitol Hill as the Trump administration moves to implement the new law.
In a White House signing statement released Friday evening, Trump questioned the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that a new Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery notify Congress immediately if the administration “unreasonably” withholds information requested by investigators.
1 Like
You replied to me but quoted yourself…??
@Steamer already posted about this in the cruise ship thread. I tried to find this Friday night document where he/somebody representing him said this so I could read it and have had no success (calm down…not saying it doesn’t exist, just have yet to find it).
Basically, it boils down to him saying the oversight provision in the bill contradicts some provision in the Constitution…I have no idea if that claim has validity.
The REAL question is why wasn’t this foreseen and accounted for in the language in the bill??? So either:
A. The conflict wasn’t seen by the writers of the bill who were so adamant that they wanted oversight (incompetence)
B. The bill language was intentionally left ambiguous so there would be blind spots in where and how the money is spent. Don’t forget, all of them receive millions from corporations. (complicent)
C. The constitutional provision he’s citing doesn’t overrule the provision in the law and thus this is moot.
Has anyone dug into this at all or is it just ‘Vox and WaPo think it’s gonna happen so it must be true’?
Or D. Trump via DOJ is making sh$t up.
Associated Press, NYT:
Trump immediately threw the oversight provisions into question, writing in a signing statement Friday night that the new law contains “several provisions that raise constitutional concerns.‘’ Trump said a new inspector general intended to monitor spending under the law would not be bound by requirements to report to the Congress ”without delay.”
There is one more possibility you can add to your three: POTUS thinks he can spend the money now and let the courts argue over it later.
2 Likes
That was option C that I mentioned, but thank you for the translation into words more palatable to those of your ilk.
Agree, that is another possibility. Pretty big risk for a 1st term president seeking reelection though if his motives/plans are nefarious. (Nefarious in the eyes of the politically center voters that is… Of course there’s a sect of the voting bloc for which all things Trump are nefarious)
You don’t have the first clue as to my ilk. First clue: I know the law.
Your option C. Presumes a colorable claim. There isn’t one. It’s nonsense from the gitgo. And even if it were a fair argument, See: Presumption of Constitutionality.
Second clue. I’m certain that we are more alike than different. If you removed the coke bottle thick partisan glasses, you might see that.
I gave Trump his 90 day probationary period, and he blew it the first 3 weeks. I don’t care about the politics. I care about the country.
Seriously. This is a continuation of AG Barr’s unified presidential theory. That essentially there are no limits to presidential power.
No, my first clue to the identity of your ilk is your pompous ‘holier than thou’ attitude, bragging about how good your rhetoric is and (my personal favorite) “game, set, match CoastalTrader” when you ‘won’ a thread on this forum… What a jackass… This assessment would apply regardless of your politics
I’ve not read a single word you’ve written on this forum to support anything close to this claim.
And then, this:
The idea you would accuse someone else of being partisan is beyond laughable and speaks volumes about your lack of self awareness
When all else fails, up the ad hominem.
@freighterman1, when I asked ‘had anyone dug into this’, I didn’t mean have other outlets reported this same ‘news’, but rather is there any veracity to it? Ie, if that is indeed the president’s intent, does he have legal ground to stand on
BTW, if anyone has a link to this Friday night press release or whatever it was, can you please post
No just observations. And when applicable, ad hominem+ which I explained earlier
There were quotes of a released statement from the WH within the article.
No risk to him at all. POTUS doesn’t court the vote of his detractors. He only needs to hold onto the votes of his supporters. He doesn’t need a majority vote.
Both his supporters and detractors trust him to do whatever it takes to accomplish his agenda–even it means lying and bad faith.
To his supporters, this makes him a great leader. To his detractors, this make him a liar and untrustworthy (a stance his supporters abbreviate as “TDS”.) 