Democratic Reasoning

All the things Democrats stand for, especially on social reform and climate stuff, Hillary's biggest backers are the worst in that regard. She has all the major banks in her back pocket and countries like Saudi. She is totally going to bow down to them when the time comes. I get that Trump is an uncouth a**hole, totally get that part but anyone who truly believes she would be better is kidding themselves. At least with Trump BOTH parties hate him. They will hold him accountable. Some things might actually get done. With her, no way. She has the DOJ, FBI, IRS and whatever else 3 letter agency in her back pocket. We would all be screwed. No accountability and she has a lot of orders for favors to fill just waiting.

a reply to: LifeMode

Both are jokes. This election is a joke. Two worst candidates are the most disliked.

Both parties are broken too.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: LifeMode

Both are jokes. This election is a joke. Two worst candidates are the most disliked.

Both parties are broken too. [/quote

No arguing that aspect. It is a joke but this is the joke the American people wanted and the one the DNC jockeyed for stiff arming Bernie. We got what we got so to speak. All I know is that people who abuse power will abuse it more when they get more power. Both are capable of it but with her, she knows the arena very well. She is much more capable of abusing it than him and she will abuse it. It's what she does.

a reply to: LifeMode

She has the DOJ, FBI, IRS and whatever else 3 letter agency in her back pocket

Just so you know, every President will have those federal agencies "in their back pocket". Being the President of the United States makes you the boss of the entire Executive Branch and all of its departments and agencies . This role is called "Chief Executive", literally like a CEO of the Executive Branch of the federal government. The President appoints the Heads of the major agencies and departments, and dictates how they will interpret laws.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
Good point, BUT one flaw,... Hillary is not the President. And yet those agencies already favor her. It is scary what she can get away with now, just imagine how much more if she does become Chief Executive.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

No way Loretta Lynch would bow to Trump. You have to be joking. Another interesting thing, he does not have many friends, meaning way less ability to influence anyone. Go watch the Frontline documentary, wealthy people do not like the guy. He has no deep pockets contributing compared to her. Banks would hate him. Wall Street would hate him. Not the case with her.

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No way Loretta Lynch would bow to Trump. You have to be joking. Another interesting thing, he does not have many friends, meaning way less ability to influence anyone. Go watch the Frontline documentary, wealthy people do not like the guy. He has no deep pockets contributing compared to her. Banks would hate him. Wall Street would hate him. Not the case with her.

Did you miss the point where I said Presidents appoint the heads of those agencies and departments? That means Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein will be selecting the head of the Justice Department; it doesn't carry over across presidencies.

originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: enlightenedservant
Good point, BUT one flaw,... Hillary is not the President. And yet those agencies already favor her. It is scary what she can get away with now, just imagine how much more if she does become Chief Executive.

It won't matter if they "favor" her or not. As President, she would be able to appoint the leaders of those agencies and would have a direct hand in their leaders' administrations and the directions of the agencies themselves. Personal opinions have nothing to do with it, unless you're forgetting that federal employees are also voters that have personal preferences as American citizens.

He or she won't be appointing anyone new right off the bat, that takes a couple of years. Especially not the head of the FBI. Comey is not going anywhere unless he want to go. His position is not appointed by the President from my understanding. It's more of an SES position, not appointed by the President. The main areas she would control are the SD and the DOJ. They would tow her line as far as she wanted it towed which is not the purpose of the Executive branch. She would corrupt the system. Trump has no ability to do it. He is an outsider, no friends in D.C., nobody likes him....he could get a lot more accomplished. She will divide the country even further. FYI 25-27 states lean Republican. They are not going to let her do anything she wants. Just like Obama with his executive immigration order. Shot down. Then shot down again. She will not be able to build a bridge.

originally posted by: LifeMode
All the things Democrats stand for, especially on social reform and climate stuff, Hillary's biggest backers are the worst in that regard. She has all the major banks in her back pocket and countries like Saudi. She is totally going to bow down to them when the time comes. I get that Trump is an uncouth a**hole, totally get that part but anyone who truly believes she would be better is kidding themselves. At least with Trump BOTH parties hate him. They will hold him accountable. Some things might actually get done. With her, no way. She has the DOJ, FBI, IRS and whatever else 3 letter agency in her back pocket. We would all be screwed. No accountability and she has a lot of orders for favors to fill just waiting.

Don't waste peoples time with political rhetoric, had you any gumption you would protesting at most governments 'play it again Uncle Sam' MO to date...secret services do their own thing, because they can, IRS suit themselves because they can...and I'm damned sure that Trump of all people won't monkey with either of them.
Think of this though,
Donald Trump stated that the “2nd Amendment people” could stop Hillary Clinton from appointing Supreme Court Justices if she becomes President."
Would you say that?..pokey here I come, because no doubt that's where you would be going as it stands.
So, the Donald, as a private citizen did get away with it...however he is not you.

a reply to: LifeMode

Actually, the appointment process starts immediately, especially for Cabinet level employees. Many of those are appointed and confirmed in the first month or so of the new President's term. This is one of the things newly elected Presidents work on in the 2 and a half month gap between being elected and being sworn into office.

As for existing Cabinet officials carrying over to different Presidents, that rarely ever happens. Cabinet members serve at the President's leisure and can be fired on the whims of the President (except the Vice President, of course). It wouldn't make sense for an incoming President to to keep these people if they're not going to push through the new President's agenda.

So the only way Loretta Lynch will still head the Dept of Justice is if the incoming President wants to keep her there. And in that case, she wouldn't need to be reconfirmed either (though I'm pretty sure that some smaller positions would need re-confirmation).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No way Loretta Lynch would bow to Trump. You have to be joking. Another interesting thing, he does not have many friends, meaning way less ability to influence anyone. Go watch the Frontline documentary, wealthy people do not like the guy. He has no deep pockets contributing compared to her. Banks would hate him. Wall Street would hate him. Not the case with her.

Did you miss the point where I said Presidents appoint the heads of those agencies and departments? That means Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein will be selecting the head of the Justice Department; it doesn't carry over across presidencies.

He can appoint, but Congress gets to approve.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No way Loretta Lynch would bow to Trump. You have to be joking. Another interesting thing, he does not have many friends, meaning way less ability to influence anyone. Go watch the Frontline documentary, wealthy people do not like the guy. He has no deep pockets contributing compared to her. Banks would hate him. Wall Street would hate him. Not the case with her.

Did you miss the point where I said Presidents appoint the heads of those agencies and departments? That means Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein will be selecting the head of the Justice Department; it doesn't carry over across presidencies.

He can appoint, but Congress gets to approve.

How does that refute what I'm saying? The context is that the President is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch; the President chooses the heads of the major federal agencies and departments; the President can fire a Cabinet member at will (except the Vice President); and the President determines the direction of the entire Executive branch.

Obama never chose an IG for the SD for FIVE years. Longest a agency has gone without an IG in history. Reason why we are in this email mess right now. Why was that? Anyone with a marginal intelligence can figure that one out without trying too hard once they are made aware Obama had an alias email and was emailing Hillary even though he said he knew NOTHING.

If you want that all over again go right ahead because that is what you will get only worse.

originally posted by: LifeMode
All the things Democrats stand for, especially on social reform and climate stuff, Hillary's biggest backers are the worst in that regard. She has all the major banks in her back pocket and countries like Saudi. She is totally going to bow down to them when the time comes. I get that Trump is an uncouth a**hole, totally get that part but anyone who truly believes she would be better is kidding themselves. At least with Trump BOTH parties hate him. They will hold him accountable. Some things might actually get done. With her, no way. She has the DOJ, FBI, IRS and whatever else 3 letter agency in her back pocket. We would all be screwed. No accountability and she has a lot of orders for favors to fill just waiting.

Alas, that's not how politics work.

Look at it this way -- think about your job. Or my ex-job.

Say there's a department head that everyone loathes... including his employees. There's another one that's hated by a number of people, but who has friends in other departments (including finance, human resources, and a company vice president or two. ReallyHatedGuy and HatedGuyWithFriends BOTH want to move into a certain building owned by the company.

Who do you think is going to get the space?

ReallyHatedGuy who made all the enemies and no allies loses.

Same goes with our system of government. We're NOT electing a dictator ala ancient Athens. The president has to be able to negotiate with the House, the Senate, and deal with the Supreme Court. Obama had trouble and he's not despised by much of his own party (unlike Trump).

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Because it is not unheard of for Congress to refuse to appoint or outright reject his appointees.

Trump can clean house, and I am hoping he would. Certain heads definitely need to go in not have their entire agencies either nuked or massively downsized.

But none of that means Congress has to approve his appointments.