Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The congress controls the money and makes the laws.
They are supposed to have oversight on any and every thing they do.
I haven't seen them overseeing anything until the horse is out of the barn for the last 25 years. They spend all their time raising money and running for reelection.
Staff tends to the business of the country and pretty much runs the place until,the tv shows up.
I have never supported terms limits until this year..Three terms, tops.
About the gas station. Nobody is gonna cross the Pentagon. I'm still waiting for somebody to find the missing couple of pallets of 100$ bills that went missing when they first invaded Iraq.
The first order of business is to get rid of the red tape, people and channels. Dump the executive orders and go through all of the regulations with mandates to get rid of a good number of them. Congress makes laws but they leave it to people like you and me to write the instruction on how it will be implemented. Those people get their marching orders from the President through his minion appointees. They also submit their budgets through the Departments and to the White House.
That sounds good, but no one can get rid of or dump nearly 240 years of a regulated system that is the US government. That's why we call it the "establishment." To break it down, we'd move to another established way of doing things, but no one can go in and do that in a day or a week.
The first order of business (I hope) would be to protect our borders, our domestic and international security, not try to reorganize the entire federal government.
That sounds good, but no one can get rid of or dump nearly 240 years of a regulated system that is the US government. That's why we call it the "establishment." To break it down, we'd move to another established way of doing things, but no one can go in and do that in a day or a week.
No one in Congress or government is going to dismantle the system their family, friends and *them* are eventually going to be working for. When those elected people lose their jobs, they end up still working for the government -- whether it's on a contract or a consulting basis or in another paid position.
So let me get this straight... you want to get rid of executive orders, but you want the new president to go through every single regulation in the federal government and determine which ones can be eliminated? So, presumably, those that are to be eliminated will have to be voted on in Congress, right? (Since you don't want the president to use executive orders.)
That sounds like a colossal waste of time that is unlikely to accomplish much of anything.
Definitely the executive orders.
Regulations: Not the President themselves, their administrations. Congress writes the laws but the federal agencies write the regulations to enforce them.
I agree, and I like him. He IS pugnacious and looks like a bully; he might even be one -- but that's what we need to project in the current climate of war amid Assad and Putin. He's not going to let anyone shout him down; he's a bear. If it weren't for Bridgegate, I think he would have a much, much higher standing in the race right now. But I'm willing to set that aside in view of larger, more immediate issues.
The sad part is, while the democratic legislature spent so much time and millions of dollars trying to link him to Bridgegate, they were never able to do so, but that part of the story never got much media attention.
I guess headlines accusing someone, sells more stories than headlines exonerating them.
The sad part is, while the democratic legislature spent so much time and millions of dollars trying to link him to Bridgegate, they were never able to do so, but that part of the story never got much media attention.
It was his administration, it's on him or is it your argument that Obama isn't responsible for what goes on in his administration?
Quote:
I guess headlines accusing someone, sells more stories than headlines exonerating them.
That's because there was no exoneration. Christie investigating himself and saying he is innocent isn't exactly news worthy.
And he promptly fired the people involved. It's amazing how people only apply the above bolded portion to republicans.
You have never nor will you ever find me trying to excuse Obama for anything that goes on in his administration. It's his administration, it's on him. Also, no one was promptly fired.
On top of that you didn't answer my question. Is Obama responsible for what goes on in his administration or not? Or is this you blaming me for what you are unable to do?
Quote:
If you think Christie's internal investigation was the only investigation on this matter, then you haven't been paying attention to the news.
The sad part is, while the democratic legislature spent so much time and millions of dollars trying to link him to Bridgegate, they were never able to do so, but that part of the story never got much media attention.
I guess headlines accusing someone, sells more stories than headlines exonerating them.
You have never nor will you ever find me trying to excuse Obama for anything that goes on in his administration. It's his administration, it's on him. Also, no one was promptly fired.
On top of that you didn't answer my question. Is Obama responsible for what goes on in his administration or not? Or is this you blaming me for what you are unable to do?
Bridget Kelly was promptly fired and Waldstein was forced to resign, if you really want to nitpick.
Your second question has no simple answer. It depends on the actual "offense" and whether it was preventable., and knowledge of the offense certainly plays into that. Then the punishment is also relative as well.
There are certain people who will always blame people they oppose and always give a pass to people they support. Then there are people who will take everything into account and judge based on all the evidence.
My point was that most people don't even know the outcome. They are judging him based on the story, without knowing the whole story. You may be one of these "all or nothing" guys, but if you truly were, you wouldn't have anyone to vote for, in either party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I have.
Apparently not. The democratic legislature in NJ, who openly despise Christie, found no evidence if his involvement...to their dismay, I might add. There were multiple news articles (though, apparently not enough) that you can google if you like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
