Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
No excuse for failure now I guess...No link but it's a trifecta. WH, senate & house.
TJ McCormack, a Republican communications specialist, said Lara Trump might be the most “underrated political success story” of the past few years.
Trumps 10 points program
2. “Clean out all of the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.”
In your view who would be the most qualified man for that?
A second one: in your opinion who'd be best qualified to lead the DoJ?
I'll go first, Trey Gowdy
No excuse for failure now I guess...
I agree. Without Scott it's business as usual and I would say the majority of the critters want status quo. They cant get rich if Trump is cutting expenses.There is still plenty of room for GOP self sabotage. The selection of the Senate Majority Leader is immensely important. McConnel hates Trump and both Thune and Cornyn (McConnel proteges) could end up actively fighting against Trump's agenda. In the House, the GOP advantage is too narrow. It will be very easy for a small coalition of GOP Reps to block legislation over (unreasonable) demands much like the what Gaetz et al have been doing with budget bills. The party has majorities, but the majorities are not necessarily a homogenous or harmonious coalition.
I'd settle for The Patriot ActIt's going to be interesting to hear the excuses the republican party comes up with THIS TIME as to why they couldn't get anything done.
We've seen this movie before.
They had the White House and both houses of congress in 2016 and there was excuse after excuse as to why they just couldn't get things done.
Repeal Obamacare anyone?
They have all three houses, no excuse for settlement....get it all.I'd settle for The Patriot Act
Looks like we just lost the Senate to Thune. Excuse #1They have all three houses, no excuse for settlement....get it all.
I'm thinking that will happen.We are only Going to know for sure when the Banks and dollar crash. When that goes down then shit gets real. The longer it takes the less likely good guys are anywhere to be found.
So no more standing armies? All bases foreign and domestic will be closed? I'm ok with that. Eliminate the Army and Marines. Cut Air Force and navy by 90-95%. Anyone who wants to invade the US has to get past our nukes. If they do that Americans can sign out military weapons to defend the country. Plenty will volunteer. No one will invade. Annual savings of 800 billion.Trump is taking us back to the original constitution my friends.
This is the opening salvo of reining in Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch.
While the Constitution established the Senate's role in confirming executive appointments, it was silent on the question of who had the power to remove civil officers. Executive branch appointments customarily end with the departure of the president who made them, except for those independent agencies whose officials have fixed terms. In the years following the Civil War, Republicans in the Senate sought to weaken President Andrew Johnson's power over the executive branch by making it illegal for him to remove cabinet officers without Senate approval. Johnson's flouting of this law, the Tenure of Office Act, became the catalyst for House impeachment articles in 1868.
“The framers of the Constitution granted the Senate and the president shared power to appoint judges and civil officers. That shared power remains in place, but the way in which the Senate has exercised that power has changed over the course of its history.
Thune already backtracking on his comment from the other day where he looked forward to pushing through Trumps new agenda. Today it's going to be difficult to do according to him.Looks like we just lost the Senate to Thune. Excuse #1
"Anti-vaccine Activist" moniker is losing it's leverage.Trump picks RFK Jr., anti-vaccine activist, for health and human services secretary
During his presidential campaign, Kennedy developed a national profile for his criticism of the Covid vaccines and childhood immunizations.www.nbcnews.com
FYI the Marines are older than the USSo no more standing armies? All bases foreign and domestic will be closed? I'm ok with that. Eliminate the Army and Marines. Cut Air Force and navy by 90-95%. Anyone who wants to invade the US has to get past our nukes. If they do that Americans can sign out military weapons to defend the country. Plenty will volunteer. No one will invade. Annual savings of 800 billion.
Gh did you even read this before you posted it? Did Joe Lange? I mean, it's right in the very beginning of what you posted
Some confirmations may be easy to get through the Senate but there is going to be a fight on many of them. Just a hunch. Since the started out by kicking Trump in the balls with their pick of Thune, I would say the Senate is not going to be very friendly to the new President. I hope I'm wrong and we will find out the 1st quarter of next year.
Yes I read it.Gh did you even read this before you posted it? Did Joe Lange? I mean, it's right in the very beginning of what you posted
I read that as Senatorial courtesy was just the senate going along with the President and not exercizing it's constitutional power. Probably in the early years as the government was just getting off the ground they didn't want to make things difficult right out of the gate. Just a guess though.Yes I read it.
it goes on to say
In its first decade, the Senate established the practice of senatorial courtesy, in which senators expected to be consulted on all nominees to federal posts within their states......It started out as Senatorial “courtesy.”Not Senate “APPROVAL.”
Trump can tell them to 'stick it'. They're assuming authorities where non existed... "Color of law"
that's the part I'm missing... their 'constitutional power' if it existed at all...?and not exercizing it's constitutional power.
Constitution - Article II Section 2 said:...
The President ...
... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
...
The Appointments Clause allows the President to make nominations for appointed positions like cabinet officers, but the Senate controls the process, including the rules that allow a nomination vote to get to the full Senate floor.
If the Senate isn’t officially in session, the President does have the power to appoint officers directly using his recess appointments powers, but modern parliamentary techniques used in the Senate rarely allow an opportunity for such appointments.
There is little doubt that the direct nomination and approval of cabinet officials falls under the Appointments Clause while the Senate is in session. In the 1st Congress, President George Washington nominated Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Henry Knox to his first cabinet, and the Senate approved the nominations by a simple majority vote. Since then, the Senate has been the gatekeeper of cabinet approvals.
The Senate website has a detailed history of the various nomination processes since 1789. It was Washington who established the precedent that the President would inform the Senate of his choices after he made them, and not officially ask for “consent” prior to the nominations.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?