Civil War 2.0


I am sure Armando feels all Muslims are terrorists and all illegal immigrants are rapists. If not I am sure he can understand the view point of those who do. :)


Sorry, but this is just not true.

The way Congress and Senate are balanced at the moment in the US, all it would take is a handful - in several cases, only 2 or 3 GOP Senators with the decency and integrity to speak up and act to defend their country. It will be to the eternal shame of the GOP that the time came for its members to put country before party, not a one dared to stand.

Can you imagine that every single Democratic Senator and Congress person would sit idle, while a Democratic President turned the USA into a Communist one-party state? I can’t. I wouldn’t have thought it about the GOP either, but yet the opposite is exactly what Trump and the GOP (or rather, the GOP’s controlling donors) are attempting, and there is not a single significant act of protest from anyone within the party. I won’t say “evil”, but it speaks to an organisation that at this point has rotted to its very core.


Here’s the chart you’re looking for:


There is some validity to this argument. It’s not that we’re the currency of choice for international deals in general, but for petroleum deals in particular. If China were to convince OPEC and Russia and Canada and other oil producing nations to start doing oil deals mostly in yuan, we might have to raise interest rates on new bond issues to attract borrowers, which might make reducing our debt load start to look more attractive.


Way to uphold your Oath of Office, Mr President:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure [domestic Tranquility](, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I’m not seeing this path your suggesting. In fact several of the GOP have been highly critical of the President tactics AND stood vocally against him.

McCain was a vocal critic, and stood against him sternly a number of times blocking legislation that most of his party supported because he felt wasn’t in the best interest of the country.

Corker’s portrayal of his colleagues’ support for Trump as “cult-ish

Jeff Flake wrote a book Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle which was a flat rebuke of Trumps new political tactics, and decided to retire from his job due to his disgust about it.

What am I missing? What could 2 or 3 could have done more within the confines of the rules they serve, to change this outcome?


…but they haven’t actually done anything to oppose him. You know that, right?

Put a hold on his nominations. Didn’t we just discus this?


I think @David2 is confusing tough(ish) words with actual follow through, which the Republicans aren’t willing to do. And there are actions that they could take if they wanted to stand up against evil.

Remember, for evil to flourish, all that is necessary is for good people to do nothing. So, even if the GOP doesn’t actively support evil, they are certainly giving it a pass when it happens.


As Scott point outs, Words are cheap.

Actions matter. None of the people you mention have acted upon those pretty words they have spoken (and that - in 99% of the cases - includes McCain) - and there is a lot you can do as a politician. One of them being to cross the aisle, when needed, to show your clear and unequivocal opposition to the madness going on.

Believe it or not, this happens in healthy(ier) democracies.


Incorrect Mccain took action and blocked legislation that Trump wanted, really pissing him off, Coker and I think Flake have dome some limited actions as well to show their concern over trump, Including supporting the Russia sanctions.

Again I’m not seeing your expected action they should do. They can do nothing. Other than taking action outside of their authority, they have limited responses. Especially with 40% of the country supporting this president. They can’t go off the rails, except to call a spade a spade and act as appropritatly to the function they serve (as a representative of that will- even the 30 to 40% being duped by him),


I’m not seeing /visualizing the example you want them to set, I have seen them take action, be vocal, oppose legislation and call for action.

Maybe provide a specific example of something you expect them to do you haven’t seen?


Two of them voting together in the Senate can stop every Trump appointment and every GOP bill. Just two of them, by voting. That’s not nothing, it’s everything.

If you mean they lack courage to act, then I think you’re right, but that’s hardly to their credit. They are cowards.

Vote against every judge Trump appointed? Vote against the tax cut bill? Vote against his other appointments? Are those not specific enough for you?


That would be obstructionism, stopping anything he does because of who he is. That is exactly the opposite of their sworn duty. They need to stop the things he does that are against the public interest. they need to the best of their ability to represent their constituents and the interest of the nation. They need to do the job they have been elected to the best of their ability. Not sabotage a criminal in power, by even further compromising our form of government and further undermine our institutions.

If this was a movie I would agree, but in the real world where actions like this can set precedent, no thanks. Allow Mueller to do his job, and allow Trump to sink his own boat.

Again I see they have acted within the range of their ability to respond and within the scope of their role to respond. I am open to consider additional constitutional actions or scope of authority I was unaware of for 3 senators, but I’m not hearing that. To my knowledge and by understanding of their roles in congress an the definition of their operating scope, they are doing what they can,…hmm ok in Flake and Corker case…yeah… they could probably do a little more…Mccain came back to vote while having terminal cancer to block something he didn’t believe in…I think that fits the definition above and beyond.


They would only have to credibly threaten it, and it would change his behavior. If Paul Ryan threatened to hold impeachment hearings, it would change his behavior. If Susan Collins or Corker or Flake or McCain or Murkowski threatened to caucus with the Democrats, that would change his behavior.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense. Part of their job, the reason they exist, is to check abuses of power by the executive. Look it up.

The problem is, they don’t want to do it. That’s it. Now ask yourself why they don’t want to do it.


if you are talking about impeachment, that has to have enough votes to have any effect. They have taken action, hopefully they will again, against his supreme court pick. They have little power or control being in the minority, and doing a vanity attempt at impeachment will only get special interest groups seeking recalls against anyone who tries and fails.

However, I will do research, maybe they have more powers I’m not aware of…


Didn’t Congress pass several resolutions against Clinton?


Back in the 80’s, Reagan appointed Anne Gorsuch (yes, mother of the current SCOTUS judge) as EPA administrator. She would have fit right in with the current Cabinet - only she would have been lauded by the party for destroying an agency that by law is tasked with protecting the environment and public health.

Times were different then.

By the end of her stint at EPA, Anne Gorsuch was under siege. A half dozen congressional committees were looking into allegations of mismanagement of the Superfund program, which was designed to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites around the country. The House voted to cite Gorsuch for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over subpoenaed records.

“Anne Gorsuch inherited one of the most efficient and capable agencies in government,” read a New York Times editorial in early 1983. “She has turned it into an Augean stable, reeking of cynicism, mismanagement and decay.”

Gorsuch’s credibility, and that of other top EPA leaders, was in tatters. And the debacle reflected poorly on Reagan, who eventually forced her to step down.

Granted, it was a Democratic Congress but Reagan to his credit did the right thing.
That’s how Congressional oversight works.
Not furrowed brows and stern words. Or how Congress acted during Obama’s term (Benghazi, IRS, Clinton’s email server, etc et al. How many indictments resulted in those so-called investigations?)

Congress is a co-equal branch. They refuse to hold trump and his corrupt regime accountable. They have abrogated their Constitutional responsibility. This is not a both-sides thing. We are well beyond that.
What we have is a Constitutional crisis happening in slow motion.


Unpossible! They have no such powers.


Thanks! I had misread your original post.


While you all are preparing for the war, make sure you get your buckets! BASTA!