The dems will get higher density support in areas they already have support.
They are turning away Mr. & Mrs. America who see kathy griffin and antifa as the faces of the left, which in their minds is dems.
But going from 70 to 74% increase in support does them little good.
2018 will prove it.
The Democrats Need to Do More Than Oppose Trump
___________________________________________________
Perhaps they can attack his 10 year old son. Perhaps a lead Fake News Network anchor can call him a piece of sh*t.
If they want their political fortunes to improve, your title is exactly on point. However, they are not even trying to make an effort to forward much of anything that might be viewed by their dwindling constituency as productive. They simply continue to display chronic symptoms of the “derangement syndrome” from which they are afflicted. Viz: Demonstrate, investigate, hold hearings, call for impeachment, and all the while offer nothing constructive.
The GOP establishment does not deserve a win in 2018, but the left will hand it to them.
An even harder turn to the left, loud, aggressive and proud, will definitely do it. Rub middle America’s nose in the most foul liberal debauchery and cultural degradation. They will flock to liberalism in droves.
Maybe they can drop dead and rid us of their stink of Anti-Americanism.
but against a Republican Party that appears incapable of running the country.
Well, he gor one thing right...
What is “covfefe”? I still don’t know and googling it doesn’t help much. Did he mean to type “coverage” and his spell check is turned off? My phone auto corrects it.
“While the executive branch of the U.S. government speaks on behalf of our nation in matters of foreign affairs,” Bloomberg wrote in a letter to the United Nations secretary-general, “it does not determine many aspects of whether and how the United States takes action on climate change.”
A separate group, of Democratic governors, has formed a similar alliance. “California will resist this misguided and insane course of action,” California Governor Jerry Brown said. “Trump is AWOL but California is on the field, ready for battle.” (per article)
********************************************************
The president, for example, must be a “natural-born” citizen. As The Heritage Guide to the Constitution explains, this is because a “prime concern” of the Framers was that the government officer principally responsible for conducting foreign policy and commanding the armed forces have “undivided loyalty to the United States.”
This qualification, like the Senate supermajority required for treaty approval, was meant to be a check on presidential subordination of the national interest to foreign concerns. The Constitution, moreover, does not stop with the president.
The states, though sovereign, are expressly forbidden from entering into treaties; and unless Congress consents, they may not even enter lesser agreements with foreign powers. Again, the point is to assure the primacy of American national interest. To coin a phrase, our fundamental law is “America first.” Thus, transnational progressives must scheme to circumvent it.
Such stratagems include pretending that a treaty is not a treaty and, just as insidiously, pretending that a presidentially signed treaty is the functional equivalent of a presidentially ratified treaty. The latter artifice, as I’ve previously outlined, relies on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
It claims to bind nations to treaties they have merely signed, or to which they’ve otherwise signaled assent. Even though such an international agreement has not been ratified under the nation’s laws, this treaty on treaties purports to oblige the nation “to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.” I say “claims” and “purports” advisedly. The United States has never ratified this convention, either. The treaty on treaties should thus be inconsequential — just as the Paris agreement should. But the State Department, the U.S. government’s transnational-progressive headquarters, claims America is nonetheless bound under the vaporous corpus of “customary international law.”
That’s a big part of the game, too. You are expected to accept that the Constitution may be amended — or is it evolved? — by international law. Of course, the United States Congress may not enact an unconstitutional statute, the president may not decree an unconstitutional order, and an American court may not issue an unconstitutional ruling. Yet somehow, when the largely anti-American “international community” makes a political decision and slaps the label “law” on it, voilà, the Constitution melts away.
Thus it was that President Obama signed the Paris Convention, and the international community declared that Americans were duly bound, notwithstanding that our law requires Senate consent.
This is why President Trump needed not just to reject the climate agreement, but to take the affirmative step of withdrawing the United States from it. What is outrageous, however, is the presumption under which the public debate has ensued. It has never entered the discussion that the Paris pact, which would profoundly damage our economy, has never even been submitted to the Senate, much less approved by the two-thirds supermajority that is supposed to protect us from bad deals. It was just a few days ago that the Fourth Circuit’s transnational progressive jurists told us that the majesty of the Constitution forbids the president from barring potentially threatening aliens from entering our country. How is it, then, that an explicit mandate in the actual Constitution — rather than the Constitution the judges make up as they go along — is nullified? President Trump says he’s all about draining the swamp.
Well, the swamp runneth over with signed but unratified treaties that the Left maintains impose stifling obligations and international pieties on Americans. We’ve never voted for them, and our elected representatives have never voted to approve them. Yet our own government, whose officers swear to defend the Constitution, tells us we are bound. The president should formally withdraw the United States from every single one.
It would be a bold empowerment of a self-determining republic, and it would not prevent any of these treaties from being adopted, as long as this was done in the manner dictated by the Constitution. You want America First? That would be America First.
And unlike the congressional cat-herding that has thwarted the reforms of Obamacare, tax policy, and border enforcement, the president wouldn’t need 60 votes. As the Paris withdrawal reminds us, he just needs one. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448248/trump-paris-convention-constitution
********************************************************
The same goes with health care. As Republicans in Congress fight over the American Health Care Act, too many Democrats are still talking about saving Obamacare, when in fact this may be precisely the moment for them to be arguing for single payer. Even the CEO of one the largest health insurance companies in the country has said he’s open “to have that debate.” With so much attention being focused on the people who will lose coverage or see their premiums skyrocket under the AHCA, now is the time to make a bolder case for the kind of healthcare policy that would certainly address both of those issues convincingly (per article)
************************************************
Aetna Joins Other Major Insurers In Pulling Back From Obamacare ...
Most insurers selling plans through the exchanges have been losing money ... is the third major insurer to pull back from the Obamacare marketplaces. UnitedHealth Group said in April it planned to pull out of ACA
Obamacare Implosion: Last Major Healthcare Provider Pulls Out Of ...
Wellmark is one of the state’s largest insurers. ... that, “due to instability in the market,”
Humana to drop out of ObamaCare at end of 2017 | TheHill
Feb 14, 2017
Schumer: House ObamaCare repeal bill can’t pass Senate | TheHill
thehill.com/.../senate/331730-schumer-house-obamacare-repeal-bill-cant-pass-senate
May 3, 2017 - Schumer: House ObamaCare repeal bill can’t pass Senate ... Under the rules of “reconciliation,” they can only lose two GOP senators and still pass ... rules Republicans are using to pass the healthcare legislation. ..... Trump to announce plan to. ... Do You Approve of President Trump’s Job Performance?
Stopped reading here.
I am for those governors assiduously keeping to the Paris agreement so long as the rest of the country refuses to bail them out when their state economies go belly up and rot.
Republicans have been moving the political center rightwards for several decades? The political center is right now far far to the left of where it was just a decade ago.