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.
"...but I think more than anything else, I'm a person of common sense. I understand what has to be done; I get things done; I've always been a closer. We don't have a lot of closers in politics, and I understand why. It's a very rough system; it's an archaic system. You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House, but the rules of the Senate and some of things you have to go through, it's really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. They are archaic rules and maybe at some point we're gonna have to take those rules on because for the good of the nation, things are gonna have to be different. You can't go through a process like this; it's not fair; it forces you to make bad decision. I mean, you're really forced into doing things that you would normally not do, except for these archaic rules."
Just to paraphrase that God awful mess (God bless the people writing the transcripts for this man's speeches), he's saying he'd be able to get more done if there were different rules of government. When asked (immediately following this statement) what rules he'd change, he only identified how filibusters work, then followed up by "we're gonna have to make some changes."
Satisfied?
The rules, the rules, the rules. 'The rules might have to be different.' As long as you believe Congressional rules [filibuster] are the Constitution, you're objectively wrong, and hopeless.
Total garbage. Put this in the "fake news" category. Pure propaganda.
And, yet, it really did happen.
"In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"
About the constitution directly? No. In this, he only speaks of the rules of the Senate (though really doesn't specify why they're a problem). There's a deeper implication here. The reason he hasn't gotten anything done is becasue of the Senate. It's assumed that he wants the rules changed so it's easier for him to do what he wants. Now, in fairness, he didn't say that directly. But it was implied. A 'get things done' type of executive is the same type the founding fathers would have hanged. It's not his job to lead; he's a public servant.
Also, in light of his comments about judges, his vision on the constitution is less than positive. That's been made clear.
Clearly, some people just won't believe there is a meaning to words that are not included. Too bad trump didn't literally say "the constitution is bad and I want to have unadulterated power and not have to deal with these smarmy congresspeople and judges. I would do away with it if I could.". Then, maybe the poster wouldn't keep arguing the matter.
The rules, the rules, the rules. 'The rules might have to be different.' As long as you believe Congressional rules [filibuster] are the Constitution, you're objectively wrong, and hopeless.
I didn't say I did, now did I?
I know, I know. If you say I think that, you can avoid debate. It's typical here.
I stand by what I actually said. He's saying that the rules of the senate are stopping people like him from getting things done, and that's a bad thing. Again, this is what I wrote but if you argued based on what I actually felt, you might actually have to think about what you say... and we can't have that.
Well, wonder how all the people who supported the idea of an "originalist" for supreme court, one who would defend the original ideas of the constitution from modern times are gonna feel about that thought. That is instead of calling it "archaic" because it doesn't give supreme power to the prez.
This is the ultimate way to blame someone or something else for his own failures. Much better than blaming liberals, democrats, or even republicans! Yay!
"Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.
In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"
Trump was referring to the rules of the senate, not the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump
He doesn't really like the constitution-- and does not like the govt.- like I have been saying all along- if you look at his moves- he has no love for team playing-
He specifically says that the White House has considered and continues to consider amending or even abolishing the 1st Amendment because of critical press coverage of President Trump.
Clearly, some people just won't believe there is a meaning to words that are not included. Too bad trump didn't literally say "the constitution is bad and I want to have unadulterated power and not have to deal with these smarmy congresspeople and judges. I would do away with it if I could.". Then, maybe the poster wouldn't keep arguing the matter.
Yeah, it's too bad he didn't say that, because if he had said that, you're original post wouldn't be an outright lie and you'd still have some credibility and integrity.
But alas, he didn't say that, so....
( if you wanna know what people mean when they say FAKE NEWS, this is the epitome of it )
Actually, even the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/01/did-president-trump-label-the-constitution-or-house-and-senate-rules-as-archaic/?utm_term=.fb1373962e82#comments"]Washington Post[/URL] is defending Trump on this point.
"But I don’t think that that was what Trump was saying in the Fox News interview that was cited as the basis for the assertions. Rather, Trump was faulting the internal House and Senate rules — such as the filibuster — which are not set by the Constitution."
Well, wonder how all the people who supported the idea of an "originalist" for supreme court, one who would defend the original ideas of the constitution from modern times are gonna feel about that thought. That is instead of calling it "archaic" because it doesn't give supreme power to the prez.
This is the ultimate way to blame someone or something else for his own failures. Much better than blaming liberals, democrats, or even republicans! Yay!
"Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.
In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”"
Yeah, well those writers of the Constitution had Trump in mind, more than 200 years in the future, when they added the restrictions and counter-balances, to keep him under control. We have yet to see how well it works, to save our country from the destruction he'd like to bring, but so far, he is striking-out on almost every attempt. The system of federal courts and judges, has become more evident than ever, regarding its importance in keeping our government functional.
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.
