[kayodelycaon]

In theory, congress can remove a president. Start placing your bets! Does he get removed before he dissolves congress? :)

I’m only partial joking. The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.

[alienthrowaway]

> In theory, congress can remove a president

In practice, the president is threatening to remove any Republican member of congress who crosses him by supporting a primary challenger.

[rufus_foreman]

>> the president is threatening to remove any Republican member of congress who crosses him by supporting a primary challenger

Democracy is scary stuff to some people.

[actionfromafar]

Money is people too, or something?

[rufus_foreman]

Choosing which political candidates one supports is democracy.

[Alupis]

Just because you are unhappy with how things are being governed doesn't mean democracy is failing, etc. We just had an election, and the current administration won. Midterms are just around the corner. This is exactly how things are supposed to work.

[MostlyStable]

Congress voluntarily giving up its powers to the executive branch [0] (unfortunately not new, but worsening), isn't exactly Democracy failing, but it's certainly a breakdown of the system of checks and balances upon which our Federal government was conceived, and is most definitely not "how things are supposed to work".

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...

[Alupis]

Your particular article lays out exactly how Congress is approving (ie. balancing) the Executive branch's actions. Which means yes, working as intended. You just happen to disapprove.

Majority of the other things people are freaking out about were done via Executive Order, and therefore can be undone by Executive Order.

Smart people have been warning about that for nearly two decades. Now that some people happen to not like what's being undone, it's suddenly a crisis.

News at 11...

[cyberax]

The money were NOT allocated by an Executive Order. They were properly apportioned through Congress.

[Alupis]

You can read the article - it literally lays out how Congress has approved these actions.

The story is written with a specific slant on purpose. "House Republicans Block..." then later admits Republicans control the House which means this is working exactly as intended. Again, you just aren't happy with the results.

Vote in the midterms if you're so upset. Otherwise, business as usual.

[MostlyStable]

Ok, so this comment makes it seem that you think it is not possible for Congress to undermine the system of checks and balances, since anything congress does, is, by definition, something that Congress has approved, and therefore, it's the system working as intended. That is a truly baffling view.

[MostlyStable]

I'm honestly not sure how you can read that article and see it as Congress balancing the executive branch. Blocking future ability to do something is not the same thing as "approving" or "balancing" executive power. The fact that Republicans are claiming that this is a good balance of power doesn't mean it is. This was a vote by congress, to restrict congress's ability to act in the future. That is not the way the system is designed to work.

[a4aur5uiu]

He's literally dissolving, dismantling, and undermining the systems that you're claiming are "working". And federal judges are deciding cases along strict party lines, which is a pretty clear demonstration that they're utterly ignoring the actual written words of the law. And Congress has completely given away their intended control of federal spending. So let's cut the shit. You like Trump and you want this to continue. Don't lie to me and tell me you believe one single word of the mental diarrhea that you just wrote.

It's like we're standing on the street watching a building burn down and you're saying "look the sprinklers are on, this is how it's supposed to happen". No one is stupid enough to say what you're saying and actually believe it. So clearly you're just lying.

[fransje26]

> The check and balances in the country won’t work if half the population wants to replace democracy with theocracy.

It looks like this entire nonsense is heavily going to hurt the wallets of more than half of the population. So why would they be so keen to vote for a theocracy?

Although at this stage I also wouldn't put it past the clowns in power to actively tamper with elections to get the results they want.

[kristopolous]

Republicans are the right wing party, Democrats are the conservative. That's why their response is to uphold the status quo and existing power structures while they do ineffective, ceremonial, wonky frittering around the edges.

Their progressive policies were adopted after Fortune 500 and major institutions had changed theirs.

Whether it be climate change or gay marriage, established companies like Goldman Sachs and Amazon were there first and the Democrats followed because they desperately align themselves with the status-quo regardless of where it is.

Just scroll through the Google News result for "Democrats". People scratch their heads because they assume they're supposed to be oppositional as opposed to institutional.

Once you understand they're the party of establishment, status quo and hegemony, there's literally no more confusion on their motivations or lack of action.