Three, Just 3 Senators could restore balance.

[Stuart G]

If 3 senators change party affiliation to the Democratic Party, some sort of balance will be restored..
Checks and balances are needed to protect this country. They are inherent in the way the system works.. Can this happen? Why Not? If the leader of a foreign country can hack our election to change the outcome and put Trump into power, than anything can happen.
Willl it happen..?? Probably Not.....But...It could....

That is up to three Republican Senators who would wish to restore the checks and balances that our system relies on...and was founded on. It ain't up to me.................

.It is up to any three that care more about the U.S.A. than the Republican Party...

[Judi Lynn]

1. We should hope for this miracle. The country really needs these conscientious objectors to evil. n/t

[Stuart G]

2. Yes, a miracle..thanks for saying that..."consientious objectors to evil"

Well said..and words we need to remember....thank you for posting them.

[Dustlawyer]

16. We need to pick the 3 most vulnerable Senators up for re-election in 2 years

and bombard their offices with promises of support if they play ball!

Hope without action is false hope!

[Blanks]

30. I disagree...

I think we need to pick three with their eye on the presidency.

Convince them that going against the administration early will make them stand out.

[global1]

3. Logical Candidates Would Be Old Timers That....

wouldn't be seeking another term. Ones that would be retiring from politics after their current term.

Do any Repug Senators meet that qualification?

[QED]

7. John McCain

He's what 80? He just won another term so he'd be 86 when up next.

[global1]

12. Two More.....

Then we start working on them.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

21. Susan Collins

She's pretty moderate.

[eggplant]

4. They don't even have to change how they vote.

[dae]

5. Nice thought but Repubs are bound by blood pact to Lucifer.

[starshine00]

17. for real, it is career suicide

probably impeachment is more likely

[LisaM]

6. Couldn't they switch to (I)? n/t

[Ford_Prefect]

8. Not likely to do it. It cuts against their establishment sensibilities.

[Hugin]

9. As workable as this Idea is, it's unlikely to happen.

The Tea Baggers Christofascists have been universally successful with their pogrom and pusche.

Eric Cantor was the last non-"Christian" Republican legislator and I remember thinking when he was primaried, something was afoot. Sadly, today, we can see the fruits of what was sown.

[Ken Burch]

10. Or, at least, pull a Stafford and go independent.

n/t.

[watoos]

11. This will never happen

Whoever did this would get Eric Cantored. The Kochs would rain down bushels of money to demonize them and defeat them.

[Stuart G]

19. Perhaps who ever did this would be Erick Cantored..Ok..

But, and here is the important idea...are those three willing to sacrifice their careers to save the political democracy that we have here?...

please allow a short diversion and a story...There was a congressman from upper Michigan. A Democrat whose name I forget. He came from what seemed to be a relatively conservative area. When the vote came on the Affordable Care Act...many of his constituents were against it, and there was a question as to weather he would vote for the act..He did vote in favor, although the pressure was incredible against him. The key vote on advancing that act was 214 to212 ................ (or something very similar,..2 votes)
....2 votes.....I recall that this person did not run for reelection....was it worth it?....Since this act came into being, thousands of people's lives have been saved, and children have gotten care when they wouldn't have. Many medical issues were caught early and not late, Complications were avoided that would have cost tens of thousands, and created conditions that could have been extremely dangerous or life threatening...especially to children....

Now you tell me...was it worth it for that Michigan congressman to vote for the ACA and then retire?..So if three Republican senators change their party to save the U.S.A. and put a check on Mr. Drumph and McConnell...do you think it would be worth it in the long run?...in the short run?? even if they have to retire?..Ain't this a decent enough country to sacrifice a career over?...Just think about that one..

[marylandblue]

32. The Kochs prefer Pence anyway nt

[Sherman A1]

13. Nice idea

but, I suspect rather unlikely to happen. Now, you might see some change their voting patterns, but party not so much.

[secondwind]

14. McCain, Collins and Graham come to mind.... n/t

[phleshdef]

15. Ben Sasse, McCain, Graham, Collins and maybe Flake.

[annabanana]

20. It is so scary to find that the survival of our Country is now reliant

on the badly compromised Republican party

[Talk Is Cheap]

22. The 'checks and balances' comes from our three branches of government...

...As in the Congress (House and Senate), the President, and the judiciary.

The people decide (if we have legitimate elections) the composition of the Congress and the President....

[Stuart G]

23. Inherent in the system...is one branch never gets too powerful..

.....If one party controls all three branches...it gets too powerful..If, say, the Democrats controlled the Senate...and everything remains the same..there would be some check on the office of the President..as there was meant to be in the writing of the Constitution
.......Absolute power, corrupts absolutely!!!!!!!!!

Trump and the Republicans have potential power that could destroy lots (you fill in the blank________________)

So, a check on that is necessary...now the media...may step up...(I said ..may) but if there were a Democratic Senate..it would ensure safety..

Still the Drumpf...is an illegal ...leader...and we all know that...
...

[Wounded Bear]

25. The Constitution doesn't even mention political parties...

Were the Founding Father naive and believe that if they left that out it wouldn't happen? It is well documented that many of them abhorred political parties. Unfortunately, parties have taken over the system, and one party has definitely gone over the edge.

[Talk Is Cheap]

31. I don't agree that it is inherent to the system...

It is true that if one party controls all three branches - it gets to powerful. Would you be saying that if the Dems controlled all three branches? If that is what the voters wanted, then it is following the rules of our democracy (aka democratic republic).

Besides the three branches of government, the press is suppose to keep our government in check as well. But the press is corporate owned for the most part.

And, of course, legitimate elections keep the Congress and the Presidency in check as well. But, that's just it - we do not have legitimate elections - election fraud is rampant in America and cost us this election.

The purpose of my original comment was to correct the idea that 'checks and balances' means having equal or relatively equal party distribution in the Houses...

[Stuart G]

34. It is inherent in the system ...checks and balances.. Senate checks House, both check President, etc

The writers of the Constitution wanted no one branch to control the efforts of others.........that is what they wanted...They did not envision a strong president, who would issue such orders.. Writers were totally against one party controlling everything......Their view was that one branch would check another..Thus, Federal Judges appointed for ....life...

also, the writers of the Constitution did not even envision .......political parties.....as you say in your first sentence...........as...there were none when the Constitution was written

[Talk Is Cheap]

35. You said "Inherent in the system...is one branch never gets too powerful.."

The checks and balances is Congress (House and Senate) v Presidency v Judiciary.

The Senate does not 'check' the House and verse visa.

And actually, the framers did envision a 'strong president'. That's why there is impeachment, the Congress and the judiciary.

[Stuart G]

36. The Senate does not 'check' the House and verse visa.......well...well...well...

OH MY.....

....... ... ....

...........OH MY................... SO.......one part of the legislature does not check another?...the Senate can pass one law..and the House can pass another...and both become law...or........(well no..!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

They have to work out some kind of compromise..and revote the compromise law...(they set up something called a.....CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.. in order to work out the compromise..if................

IF....the compromise law..(that is worked out in committee) is not passed again, by both houses of the legislature. (that is the same new law in both houses).....then guess. what....the law does not pass.. then.............. guess what.............the NEW LAW..DIES..............that is correct....

The exact same law must be passed by both houses of legislature,,,,they must agree on a compromise..thus...The Senate..checks the House..and visa versa...

OH MY.......................................... ............................you need to go back to grammar school..

[Talk Is Cheap]

37. The problem is that you are misguided on the meaning of 'checks and balances'...

[Wounded Bear]

24. They don't need to change parties....

they just need to start voting with the best interests of the country prioritized over their party policies and covering their tired asses.

Act like Americans, not like Republicans.

[drray23]

27. There is a big difference if they were to change party.

Voting with us is one thing but mcconnel would still drive the agenda. If thet were to switch to dems, schumer would be able to simply not introduce the crasy ass bills coming from the house.
I dont think we are going to see that happen however.

[still_one]

26. and if they don't the Senate Democrats can still stop the insanity

"Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/democrats-in-congress-can-block-trumps-agenda-if-they-want-to-heres-how/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b5d8c6dc4cc2

[Wounded Bear]

28. Basically what they did to us the last 8 years....nt

[still_one]

29. yes, except in this case we would actually be trying to save the country.

[NewJeffCT]

33. won't happen

they may vote against their party on occasion, but I highly doubt they'd switch parties.

[Tatiana]

38. McCain -- maybe Collins and Graham.

Collins is wishy-washy and a bit of a coward, so who knows? McCain will do as he wants and Graham will probably follow McCain. This doesn't give me much hope. The other Repukes will fall in line.