PapaWhiskey wrote:I thought the position of first lady was there just to give a title to the significant other of the president. Now that I'm thinking about it, isn't the title fist Lady, how do I say, not woke? What if one of a same sex couple became president? I guess it works if they're both women but otherwise not so much. Seems like an old custom of idealistic man and women couple. Anyway since there are actual duties tied to the position shouldn't the first lady be elected and not just the significant other of the person holding office? What if the first lady was really ignorant or incapacitated? I guess it's not likely for someone to become president without a strong partner but Grover did it.
Somewhere along the line, the executive branch transformed into an aristocracy headed by a King and his Queen surrounded by their courtiers. There is no place in the Constitution for the position of first lady. The spouse of the President should shut her trap and not speak anything political, maybe just greet visitors, do some cooking, and help the servants with the housework.
Grover was a badazz, he wouldn't put up with any of that aristocratic nonsense and WOKE chit.
He didn't try to fundamentally transform America, or save the soul of America like some horrible Presidents we have known.
His meteoric rise to President was based primarily on his fame as an enemy of political corruption, both Republican and Democrat, since his days as Mayor of Buffalo and Governor of New York, and as a champion of small government, honest money, and protecting the treasury from thieving scoundrels. He vetoed more unconstitutional legislation than any President in history (584 total; 346 regular, 238 pocket; 7 overridden).
The only President that vetoed more was FDR who was the total opposite of Cleveland, he would veto constitutional legislation and sign unconstitutional legislation as well as expand the powers of the executive branch and the general government as a whole, bringing political corruption and thievery to a new high.