Thought for the Day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This is demoralizing for Democrats. Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff tonight in the special election in GA 6. It was a good test for whether Republicans in a closely contested district would put aside partisan politics and vote for a centrist who was clearly the more thoughtful of the two running. In debates it was obvious early on that Ossoff was articulate, polished, passionate, and qualified, whereas Handel was simplistic, stumbled over her answers and generally came across as a useless wingnut. I ask myself what I would do if the tables were turned and the Republican were the far better candidate; it would be difficult but rarely do Republicans ever put forward candidates who are well-versed in policy and have a clear, positive message.
There is the belief that this was a referendum on the centrist style candidate and some believe that a more "progressive" Bernie Sanders protege will do better by exciting the base rather than trying to appeal to the undecideds. We'll see...this was a red district and I'm sure Democrats will try to spin this as an over-achievement, but it depends when expectations were set. Many believed Ossoff would pull this out and he lost by a clear margin.

---

And here is the spin:

a) the Democrats last won this seat in 1974 with 51.45% of the vote compared to the Republican 48.55%. In all of the subsequent Republican victories until last night the winning margin for the Republican was substantial, eg 79.91% to 20.09% in 2002; 66.04% to 33.96% in 2014; 61.7% to 38.3% in 2016. To win by less than 5% is a shocking result on any level, and illustrates how much the Republican party has lost.

b) the result confirms that the divisions in the USA are deep but that political geography may be consolidating these divisions unfairly as the boundaries of Congressional districts are drawn to favour one party or another, a matter that went before the Supreme Court a few days ago in relation to a case in Wisconsin:
The US supreme court on Monday agreed to decide whether electoral maps drawn deliberately to favor a particular political party are acceptable under the constitution, in a case that could have huge consequences for future US elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017...-supreme-court

c) I think we have to accept that Republicans receive their news, and probably all of their news, from other Republicans, and believe that their President is not only a huge success, that he has already changed the USA, but that he is the greatest President of all time. He says so himself, and organized a table-top endorsement of his colleagues to praise him and his glory.
What I like is the way that the President asks 'Where is the Vice-President?' even though the man in question is sitting directly opposite him, so maybe it was not a question of geography...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS7J6kTikU0

Point b is a very important one. I have not been following the gerrymandering cases but it affects the make up of the House of Representatives. Point a is a good one too...I knew there was data like that but not exactly what it was. It's a reasonable thing to keep in mind.

I read an article that said Democrats have 24 districts to flip in order to take the House in 2018. There are 26 districts that are red but in which Clinton did better than she did in Georgia sixth. These things aren't predictable so it is possible to win a couple districts that are bigger long-shots than Georgia sixth. But if that doesn't happen, it's a tall order to win 24 of the 26 red districts that have a better shot than this one (and of course not lose any that are held by Democrats). I am not steeped in the polling of these various places and it's a long time until 2018, but it's not a great sign.

Actually, here's the article. Probably a bit over the top in its pessimism, but some decent points too. https://www.vox.com/2017/6/20/158438...ecial-election

http://i.imgur.com/X2sxyg9.png

1 month 10 days later...

http://i.imgur.com/EVFuguR.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-handel-239778

This is demoralizing for Democrats. Karen Handel defeated Jon Ossoff tonight in the special election in GA 6. It was a good test for whether Republicans in a closely contested district would put aside partisan politics and vote for a centrist who was clearly the more thoughtful of the two running. In debates it was obvious early on that Ossoff was articulate, polished, passionate, and qualified, whereas Handel was simplistic, stumbled over her answers and generally came across as a useless wingnut. I ask myself what I would do if the tables were turned and the Republican were the far better candidate; it would be difficult but rarely do Republicans ever put forward candidates who are well-versed in policy and have a clear, positive message.

There is the belief that this was a referendum on the centrist style candidate and some believe that a more "progressive" Bernie Sanders protege will do better by exciting the base rather than trying to appeal to the undecideds. We'll see...this was a red district and I'm sure Democrats will try to spin this as an over-achievement, but it depends when expectations were set. Many believed Ossoff would pull this out and he lost by a clear margin.

---

Tim Ryan was on CNN last night and he said that the Democrat brand is toxic right now. He also didn't like the idea of trying to spin Ossoff's showing into some sort of moral victory and that he didn't like playing for second place. Ryan is only one of a few Democrats that realizes that their party has an issue reaching out to working class voters and that its in trouble.

The Democratic party better wake up soon and realize that just playing defense and running out the clock until 2020 isn't going to be enough. Or else they're going to be looking at 4 more years of a Republican in the White House.

Minor news today: Trump admitted on twitter and through a letter to the house judiciary committee that he does not have tapes of his conversations with Comey. I sincerely think this is much worse than if he did have tapes although the idea of the President taping someone surreptitiously is not a lot better.

He said he had tapes when he didn't. He said it to make Comey think his honest recollections were false. Why? To prevent him from testifying honestly. This really is a shit-show. I can't even imagine how Republicans would act if Obama or Hillary bluffed they had secret tapes they did not have before a justice department official testified. It would not be the whitewash we see. Shameful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Minor news today: Trump admitted on twitter and through a letter to the house judiciary committee that he does not have tapes of his conversations with Comey. I sincerely think this is much worse than if he did have tapes although the idea of the President taping someone surreptitiously is not a lot better.

He said he had tapes when he didn't. He said it to make Comey think his honest recollections were false. Why? To prevent him from testifying honestly. This really is a shit-show. I can't even imagine how Republicans would act if Obama or Hillary bluffed they had secret tapes they did not have before a justice department official testified. It would not be the whitewash we see. Shameful.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.d7c11e2c678a

Two statutes that are cited here. The president committed two felonies. It doesn't seem borderline anymore since he has used to twitter to commit the felony and then admit to facts that prove he committed it.

[QUOTE=broncofan;1774239
Two statutes that are cited here. The president committed two felonies. It doesn't seem borderline anymore since he has used to twitter to commit the felony and then admit to facts that prove he committed it.[/QUOTE]

If it is the case that the President has broken the law, does that mean local law enforcement can arrest and charge him with the felonies you refer to? When the President claimed President Obama had illegally taped his offices, that too was a violation of the law, yet President Obama was not arrested, handcuffed and chained, marched off to the police station and charged with a felony. Moreover, how does one arrest and charge a President if he has broken the law but his allies in Congress think that is ok? Newt Gingrich happily tells you his President has lied about taping his conversations with former FBI Director Comey, but it doesn't matter because his President is not a 'professional politician', so I guess everything else this President does is just down to inexperience, and years of protocol can be ignored if the President chooses to, and break the law knowing Congress doesn't care.

Courts in the US have declared that the ban imposed on travellers from named countries is illegal, yet Border Officials ever since the Executive Order was issued have been denying people entry to the USA, regardless of what the law says. They do not even need to be the five year old boys the USA is terrified of, or Muslims. Dwight Yorke, who played football for Aston Villa and Manchester United, was denied entry to the USA because he played a charity football match in Tehran and thus had an Iranian visa stamp in his passport.

The law is now irrelevant, the Order came from the Glorious and Most Popular President, and that is all that matters, just ask his supporters.

There is something so uncritical and oblivious about his supporters as they seem willing to abdicate all historical checks on his power. Our system is designed to deal with someone engaged in self-dealing and who disregards the rule of law, but it can't handle the complicity of so many people.

It goes back to the conversation you and Trish had about the tribal nature of politics. Is the aversion of right wing voters to us liberals so strong that they would be willing to brave financial ruin just to see us squirm and to avoid admitting we were right about this man? Because the health care bill he intends to pass will not only hurt Democrats. We're not the only ones who get asthma, depression, diabetes, cancer, lupus, scleroderma and have limited financial resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

It goes back to the conversation you and Trish had about the tribal nature of politics.

---

But there is a deeper problem here. Those who are not familiar with our politics seem amazed that we talk about our Judges as though they are political figures. It's not just that we think their methodologies lead to particular political outcomes but that we think they must lean in one direction or another and be in the bag for someone. There is nobody in this country who is beyond reproach. We could amend our constitution and design a fourth branch which would be an independent executive fully insulated from the other branches to investigate the other three and make sure they uphold their constitutional duties (part judicial and part executive). But nobody would trust them either. We have a lack of faith in one another and a lack of faith in the ability of people to fairly moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Tim Ryan was on CNN last night and he said that the Democrat brand is toxic right now. He also didn't like the idea of trying to spin Ossoff's showing into some sort of moral victory and that he didn't like playing for second place. Ryan is only one of a few Democrats that realizes that their party has an issue reaching out to working class voters and that its in trouble.

The Democratic party better wake up soon and realize that just playing defense and running out the clock until 2020 isn't going to be enough. Or else they're going to be looking at 4 more years of a Republican in the White House.

---

I agree with Tim Ryan. He seems like a straight shooter. I was disappointed by the outcome in GA 6 and didn't see it as a moral victory only because we have a limited number of better districts if we actually want to take back the house. If the take away is that support for Republicans has eroded a little bit but not enough for us to control the house, the senate, the presidency, or the appointment of new justices then I can't really be optimistic. Our brand is bad in the sense that there is a generalized aversion to it that transcends specific policies we advocate.

I just wonder what the answer is. Because Ossoff ran to the center by pursuing a pro-business attitude and avoiding less popular items like single payer health care. He was vulnerable as an outsider, both culturally and because he lived a handful of blocks outside the district and seems to fit this pajama boy stereotype the Republicans have of us. Re-branding is not easy, particularly when your offenses don't seem to be offenses at all but just differences that make you a target of mean-spirited ridicule.

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

---

FYI I enjoy reading @broncofan and @Stavros posts, probably other ppl do too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

---

Seriously, why do you read this section? Why not just read what interests you (imaginary, poorly written dialogue) and ignore things you have no interest in?

It's bizarre to say what you're saying when you take up pages writing stuff that is literally incoherent. Who exactly is the audience for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KelliBlueEyes

FYI I enjoy reading @broncofan and @Stavros posts, probably other ppl do too

---

i'm sure you do sweet heart. i love reading about girls sniffing each others others assholes. thats my thing. thats what turn me on. sometimes i love just reading about who loves what they read. you know? it's boring. i don't fucking wright an essay about it. but whatever.

wanna write an essay. write me a paper honey. make it pure. tell me what you feel, and why you feel it. and don't forgot, tell me who is your telller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

i'm sure you do sweet heart. i love reading about girls sniffing each others others assholes. thats my thing. thats what turn me on. sometimes i love just reading about who loves what they read. you know? it's boring. i don't fucking wright an essay about it. but whatever.

wanna write an essay. write me a paper honey. make it pure. tell me what you feel, and why you feel it. and don't forgot, tell me who is your telller.

---

I'm sure this sounded better in your head.

maybe you should lay off the meth a bit.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/24/politi...ors/index.html

Justice Kennedy is thinking about retiring. He is the closest person on the Supreme Court to a centrist. He wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, which said that states cannot ban gay marriage. He re-affirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992 and if replaced, Roe might be overturned and some states will make abortion illegal again. He has voted with conservatives on gun rights, I'm assuming Heller, where the Court ruled a handgun ban violated the second amendment. He also voted with the majority on Citizens United, a decision that upheld the right of corporations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns as an aspect of their first amendment right to speech.

Trump said during the campaign that gay marriage was established law but Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I'm not sure what the basis of this distinction is, and it will be difficult to find a justice who affirms the right to gay marriage but strikes down abortion rights. Either way, if Justice Kennedy retires it's going to have a major affect on social issues in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I'm sure this sounded better in your head.

maybe you should lay off the meth a bit.

---

hey what can i say i live on the wild side

[QUOTE=broncofan;1774479
Justice Kennedy is thinking about retiring. He is the closest person on the Supreme Court to a centrist. He wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell, which said that states cannot ban gay marriage. He re-affirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992 and if replaced, Roe might be overturned and some states will make abortion illegal again. He has voted with conservatives on gun rights, I'm assuming Heller, where the Court ruled a handgun ban violated the second amendment. He also voted with the majority on Citizens United, a decision that upheld the right of corporations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns as an aspect of their first amendment right to speech.
Trump said during the campaign that gay marriage was established law but Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I'm not sure what the basis of this distinction is, and it will be difficult to find a justice who affirms the right to gay marriage but strikes down abortion rights. Either way, if Justice Kennedy retires it's going to have a major affect on social issues in this country.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks so far as if every policy decision the current administration has made or proposed is not a new policy, but a reversal, o amendment of whatever the policy was during the Obama administration. I cannot think of a Presidency so obsessed with its predecessor as to shape most if not all of its policy portfolio on revenge, it looks as childish as it is, and has not produced any benefits for the USA at all, though financially the President and his family are better off for the deals that have been made.

So repealing Roe-vs-Wade would be a triumph for a small group of Christian fanatics in the US, but I am not sure it is necessary. From what I have read, individual states now impose strict term limits on women who want an abortion, and have the power to so severely limit the funding of Planned Parenthood provisions in their state the service might as well not exist. 'States rights' is an important part of democracy in the US because it prevents the Federal government from imposing one policy for all, even in in some areas this might seem to be a good thing.
We don't even have this in the UK as Scotland and Northern Ireland have different powers and even when the UK Parliament passes a law, it is not automatically implemented in devolved provinces -the 1967 Abortion Act passed by Parliament was never incorporated into Northern Ireland's law so that abortion is illegal there unless for medical reasons. It would have been possible for the British government to impose the change of law when it ruled Northern Ireland directly as a consequence of the Troubles, but it knew it was an unpopular policy among both Catholics and Protestants and it was seen as too much to add to existing problems; but so too did Tony Blair's Labour government refuse to insist the law be applied across the whole of the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35980195

If the US Supreme Court is to have another 'Conservative' Justice appointed to replace the next person to leave, I think you may want to shift your attention from abortion to voting rights, which seems to me to be a key policy in individual states that directly threatens the democratic process. When you count in millions the numbers of Americans who are denied the right to vote, the quality of democracy is strained, as if through a sieve, to prevent certain people, mostly Black Americans, from being registered, or being taken off the register if they are. Is it also wrong to deny the vote to men and women who have been in prison-? If they did the time for the crime, why extend their punishment forever after as if they were unfit to be equal citizens, not least when an American can be imprisoned for trivial offences?

Regulation of abortion is okay as long as it is not an undue burden on the right to get an abortion. This has led to a whole bunch of cases defining what undue burden is, including term limits, consultations and waiting periods, notification of spouse or parents. With gay marriage, before Obergefell it became difficult to determine where and to what extent people were considered married. For the purpose of health care plans, tax filing, and partition of assets during divorce, the piecemeal regime was challenging.

I agree with you about voting rights. I hope there is some headway on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has said that if districting in congressional elections has an obviously partisan purpose, they will step in to remedy it. This is extremely important for the house of representatives, as Democratic numbers in the house would likely be much greater without such tactics. For instance, Donald Trump won Wisconsin by 1 percent, yet Republicans control house seats there by a majority of 64-35. The formula the court is considering using is to test the margins of victory, which is just common sense. This case is going through the courts right now, but if successful, might not even be ready in time for 2018.

The element you're talking about, voter suppression is also important, but there was a big setback in 2013, the Shelby County case. The voting rights act required jurisdictions with the worst history of discrimination to notify the federal government of any change to their voting qualifications. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the act that included the formula whereby the worst jurisdictions would be determined, stating it was an out of date formula and did not necessarily apply the same way it did in 1965 when the act was passed. As a result, unless Congress acts to remedy voter suppression by amending the voting rights act, we're unlikely to see any near term changes. Which makes it almost a chicken and egg problem since without a Democratic Congress, the will to remedy voter suppression is not there, since purged voters tend to vote for the Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

impressive: 2 walls of crap that nobody will read. i wonder what your sex lives are like? feel free to divilge (btw: impressing one another is not considered a sexual partner. sorry about that)

---

many many people read this. Your inappropriate comments are interrupting the flow of this thread. Kindly desist or you'll be shown the exit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

-Regulation of abortion is okay as long as it is not an undue burden on the right to get an abortion. This has led to a whole bunch of cases defining what undue burden is, including term limits, consultations and waiting periods, notification of spouse or parents.
-I agree with you about voting rights. I hope there is some headway on gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has said that if districting in congressional elections has an obviously partisan purpose, they will step in to remedy it.
-The element you're talking about, voter suppression is also important, but there was a big setback in 2013, the Shelby County case. The voting rights act required jurisdictions with the worst history of discrimination to notify the federal government of any change to their voting qualifications. .

---

On abortion: term-limits have been the principal means whereby opponents of Abortion unable to make it illegal, have sought to impose such strict limits as to make it almost impossible or at least reduce the number of abortions carried out in the state; but there are also arguments about abortion which go beyond the basic argument about conception, to consider the medical arguments when dealing with a foetus that is in some way damaged and beyond hope of life, or when the mother's life is at risk with a continued pregnancy. There is also the issue of pregnancy caused by rape, and these moral rather than medical issues have also divided legislators.
A Conservative on the Supreme Court may take the extreme view that a woman must carry a pregnancy to full term even if she was raped, be it by her father, her brother or a stranger, but others on the Court would object and unable to reach a conclusion, and thus term limits -rather than the repeal of Roe-vs-Wade would be seen as a 'compromise solution' that States could then continue to impose. The point would be that having a new Conservative on the Court would not necessarily tilt the judgements in favour of the Christian Fundamentalists, but would result in a compromise that protects the status quo to nobody's satisfaction, unless in conservative States the voters opt for change.

I don't really understand how district boundaries in the US are drawn, and that would seem to me to be the problem for the Supreme Court as well. In the UK constituency boundaries (recently reviewed to reduce the number of seats in the Commons from 650 to 600) will come into effect at the next election, and are based on a mix of size (around 72,400 in England, 69,000 in Scotland 66,000 in Northern Ireland, 56,000 in Wales) and also demographics defined by income and social class, the intention being to produce constituencies which have a reasonable mix (but often not possible in mostly rural constituencies).

An attempt to manipulate electoral rolls has been unusual in the UK but, ironically in view of the horrific fire in North Kensington -where the council has tried to re-locate poorer residents not just out of the borough but London itself (Hasting, if you can believe that!)- it happened in Westminster in the 1980s when the leader of the council, Shirley Porter, attempted to manipulate elections by moving council tenants, assumed to be Labour voters, out of marginal wards to replace them with owner-occupiers, assumed to be Tories, giving the council permanent Conservative control. It is considered the worst case of gerrymandering in recent British history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter

As for voter suppression, I can understand the point about the 1965 Act needing to be updated, but I wonder on this, as well as the other two issues above, if the Supreme Court, Conservative or Liberal is always reluctant to impose a Federal judgement on a State if that would intrude on the right of the State to make its own laws. Although it would seem obvious that a balance can be found between the two, it is notable that the Supreme Court has not enforced a nationwide ban on capital punishment because each State can determine that for itself. I think voting is so crucial to an open democracy that decisions on how to register voters or remove them from the roll should probably not be the exclusive right of individual States, and that voting rights should be the same in every State, but that the procedure for voter registration should also be the same across the country.

Lastly, it is one of the peculiarities of the US that States Rights appears to produce such imbalances in justice that lead you to this astonishing statistic on capital punishment: the death penalty is on the statute of 32 States, but the death penalty itself is only performed in 2% of the counties in those States, 60% in just four states -Texas, Virginia, Oklahoma and Florida or if you prefer, 82% of executions are performed in the South, barely 1% in the Northeast-
(this link accessed through the Google cache)
https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ient=firefox-b

If you are a bad boy then live in California, not Florida, definitely not Texas, or at least choose Austin, and pretend to be weird.

this morning:

http://i.imgur.com/oB5jX3j.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zEUF2vi.jpg

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...08582310776832
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...10114456465411

her reply:

http://imgur.com/qjMB1CV.jpg

https://twitter.com/morningmika/stat...15526371176448

my thoughts:

https://media.giphy.com/media/3aGZA6WLI9Jde/200.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I agree with Tim Ryan. He seems like a straight shooter. I was disappointed by the outcome in GA 6 and didn't see it as a moral victory only because we have a limited number of better districts if we actually want to take back the house. If the take away is that support for Republicans has eroded a little bit but not enough for us to control the house, the senate, the presidency, or the appointment of new justices then I can't really be optimistic. Our brand is bad in the sense that there is a generalized aversion to it that transcends specific policies we advocate.

I just wonder what the answer is. Because Ossoff ran to the center by pursuing a pro-business attitude and avoiding less popular items like single payer health care. He was vulnerable as an outsider, both culturally and because he lived a handful of blocks outside the district and seems to fit this pajama boy stereotype the Republicans have of us. Re-branding is not easy, particularly when your offenses don't seem to be offenses at all but just differences that make you a target of mean-spirited ridicule.

---

Here is the answer:

https://nyti.ms/2tOWnU6

If within six months we don't have impeachment hearings in progress, we don't really have a functioning system of checks and balances. Here's some of what we have. I'm sure by the end of the week we will have much more. In June 2016 Trump Jr. received an email from a man named Goldstone saying the Russian government as part of its efforts on behalf of Trump had incriminating information on Hillary. The email ends by saying the same information can be sent to Trump Sr. through a channel Goldstone has. This same email is forwarded to Manafort and Kushner and all three meet this source who wants to discuss sanctions relief for Russia (the Magnitsky Act).

Shortly thereafter the Russians release the DNC's emails to wikileaks and Trump engages in all sorts of denials about whether the Russians did this. He even denies it after he is elected and our intelligence agencies provide him proof as well as their unanimous conclusion that the Russians interfered with our election. Flynn, the NSA director is caught on tape talking to the Russian ambassador, telling him not to worry about sanctions Obama imposed on the Russians for interfering with our election. Flynn lies about it to federal investigators and Pence and later resigns. Comey investigates him for the lies and Trump repeatedly asks Comey to let Flynn go. He later fires Comey and admits it was because of the Russia thing which he insists is made up.

So we have what is basically proof that Trump knew the Russians were working on his behalf. We have evidence in public view that he repeatedly denied Russia's efforts even when he was privy to intelligence information proving what they did. Then he fires the FBI director for not dropping the probe. There is simply no way that his son, Kushner, and Manafort had direct information about Russia's efforts and he did not, especially given the fact that the source of it said he could give it directly to Trump Sr himself.

If we don't have impeachment hearings the rule of law is dead. No exaggeration.

We heard Trump on the campaign trail publicly enlist the aid of the Russians. Who in the past could have escaped such a display unscathed? When your base is ignorant, uncaring and so thoroughly brainwashed as Donald’s you can do anything. Hell, you could shoot someone in cold blood on Times Square and still wouldn’t lose his supporters.

But yes, besides the outright invitation to meddle with our election, the evidence of interference, solicitation and collusion is beginning to mount. Seventeen security agencies (including the FBI, the NSA and the CIA) conclude Russia was without a doubt responsible for the hack the fed tons of Democratic campaign emails to Wikileaks. Just yesterday Trump Jr. implicated himself in an attempt to collude with a Russian Operative to undermine Hillary’s campaign.

Quote:

---

If within six months we don't have impeachment hearings in progress, we don't really have a functioning system of checks and balances.

---

Whether or not we have impeachment proceeding, it’s evident that our system of checks and balances has serious holes in it. It would seem Congress is the only check on the President. If the Congress thinks they use the President to accomplish a partisan agenda, they can ignore any number of outlandish transgressions and keep him in power. It seems to me some laws need to be rewritten, or perhaps written for the first time. How can it be legal for the President not to divest himself of his financial interests when every other government official must do so?

Frankly, I’m not certain I want to see an impeachment. I certainly don’t want it to be initiated by the Democrats (and you will notice the Dems in power are being pretty quiet about impeachment). It has to start with the Republicans. Otherwise the backlash in 2018 will kill us. Secondly, I’m not sure I want to Pence in the Oval Office. He’s an idiot, a religious zealot and he fucked up the State of Indiana pretty good before accepting Donald’s offer the run for VP. A I especially don’t want to see Paul Ryan in the White House. I think the best bet for the Dems is to keep the resistance going and make a good showing in 2018.

Yes , this presidency will surely give future lawmakers a lot to think about in terms of checks and balances on presidents in the future . Hopefully including , :deadhorsemy pet peeve :banghead, psychological fitness testing to weed out raging sociopaths from high office just as is required for many sensitive positions in government and industry today .
With regard to impeachment , the conventional wisdom is , of course , that after the 2018 elections the Democrats will gain control of the House and Senate and push for impeachment .So we may well end up with with the idiot Pence . Although , I`ll stick with my earlier prediction that Trump will finally fuck up so bad that his own party will push him from office within this first year.

Donald made a pitch today for making the yet to be built border wall between Mexico and the USA transparent. He maintained,

"One of the things with the wall is, you need transparency. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through the wall—so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall...And I’ll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you in the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over. As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall."

Hey, I didn't know it would be transparent! Now I'm all for it. Think of the opportunities a transparent wall will offer to graffiti artists on both sides: the challenge of creating images and messages that speak to observers on either side. Also people could make faces at each other or either side or moon each and the guards wouldn't dare shoot at them for fear of shattering of marring the transparent wall. Others might work on scouring their side of the wall making it completely opaque. Of course you'd have to avoid the opaque sections 'cause of the 60 lb bags of drugs flying over. The artistic modes of expression a transparent wall offers are endless. Great idea from the man who's making America as great as it used to one time be, some time ago - we can't quite all agree when.

Doesn't everything about the last 7 or so months seem almost surreal or unreal? I've talked to people who support Trump and it just seems that there is a bizarre unwillingness to address his wrongs. His flaws are his strengths. We've had some stupid people as president but never someone who is so reprehensible and completely absent of redeeming traits. I agree that Congress will have to step in and pass laws so that the emoluments clause is enforceable. But even if we can prevent the sort of financial conflicts Trump has done nothing to avoid we (or the electoral college) have still elected a man who is amazingly self-centered and dishonest.

One thing to consider Trish is that although Pence is a wingnut, I don't think Trump has been better on any of the issues. Although he may not possess the deep-seated homophobia and misogyny of a religious zealot he has for whatever reason surrounded himself with agents who are willing to promote these bigotries. I think at least Pence will not start a war, will not whip up all sorts of dangerous people by vilifying the media or interfering with the Justice Department. I mean Trump is supposed to be this malleable opportunist who is devoid of any strong convictions and yet somehow Sessions is his attorney general and Pruitt his EPA chief. Why do we always seem to get wingnut outcomes with him?

The thing about Trump is that he's so disinterested in actual policies, legislation and governance that he never gets around to doing what a president needs to do to get legislation passed (thank God!). When push comes to shove he's not really much of a deal maker. Moreover his public pronouncements, tweets and comments are so distracting that his supporters in Congress (as well as in the White House) are always on damage control which makes it difficulty to get things done (thank God!). Moreover, he hasn't filled many of the essential positions required for running a competent White House (he arrived at the recent Summit without a hotel reservation because the person in charge of making the travel arrangements was 'fired' and never replaced). Trump's administration is in shambles (thank God!).

Pence is Mr. OCD (witness his compulsion to touch the NASA equipment labeled "DO NOT TOUCH"). Pence's style will be the exact opposite of Trump's. He'll be effective and alert to what Congress is doing...and this is bad because Pence is a religious zealot, a homophobe and an idiot to boot. He may or may not build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but he will brake down the barrier that our founders smartly placed between Church and State.

And if you are correct that Pence would be worse than Trump because he's a more effective leader, and you might be, do I then hope Trump doesn't get impeached? I still hope he is impeached. And maybe nobody will agree with me here, but I hope he is impeached and removed even if the long-term consequences for the Democrats are bad. This voting commission he has put together to support sham charges of voter fraud while collecting people's personal data is another insult to the democratic process. Were it not preceded by Trump conspiring with a foreign adversary to win the election and then firing the FBI director for duly investigating it, the discussion of it would be at a fever pitch. But whether we win or lose politically, there has to be consequences for undermining your own democracy and the rule of law.

What ends up happening doesn't depend upon what I wish or want anyway I guess. But you shouldn't be able to cheat to obtain power and then undermine all of our institutions and laws to hold onto it. People have to have some restraint and some limits to what they will do to serve their own interests. Trump isn't even playing the game correctly because at the base level he doesn't even consider what is good for the country or his constituents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

This voting commission he has put together to support sham charges of voter fraud while collecting people's personal data is another insult to the democratic process.

---

It is especially galling because the great threat to democracy is voter suppression and not voter fraud. He has set up a commission purportedly to protect the integrity of elections and yet is only willing to address a phantom issue. His voter fraud commission is an attempt by him to use the levers of his power to consolidate his power...even if it's ineffective, it's disgusting.

In the long run, you are of course right. It’s best we correct this aberration of governance to minimize it's ripple of effects into the future. We must impeach those who’ve committed impeachable offenses. I personally, and I think a lot of other reasonable persons, would take great satisfaction and considerable comfort in the impeachment of this trumped-up reality show president.

Still, if the Dems initiate the impeachment, they will be the ones to suffer the blowback in 2018 - but not just the Dems: women of both party affiliations (and none at all) will suffer as Pence stamps out all Federal support of Planned Parenthood. The Indiana HIV outbreak is directly linked to Pence’s closing down of clinics there. It's the Republican Party is keeping this seventy-one year old, twittering toddler in office. I want them to initiate impeachment proceedings. Indeed, I don’t see how the Dems could possibly bring it off without them.

Perhaps more important than impeachment, is finding out exactly how the Russians hacked into the voting machine vendor servers of -what is it?-twenty some States; and figure out how to defend against such cyberattacks in the future - because they will do it again.

Quote:

---

the great threat to democracy is voter suppression and not voter fraud

---

I only quoted this last line of yours, broncofan, because it's worth repeating.

A variety of people who are considered liberal have made some puzzling arguments of late. Alan Dershowitz, a man who enjoys publicity and teaches criminal law, is pretending he's also a scholar on Constitutional law. While it is possible for someone who has not produced any meaningful scholarship in an area to say something useful about it, it is less likely when nobody agrees with his analysis and he does not cite any relevant precedent to support his position.

He claims that the President cannot commit obstruction of justice because he is the head of the executive branch and has full authority to do what he wants with any investigation. The problem with this line of reasoning is that while he may have the authority to control any federal investigation, the obstruction of justice statute requires a corrupt intent to impede the due administration of justice, which puts it outside the ambit of the typical executive duties. Subjecting the President to a law that applies to every other citizen would not curtail his authority, since the statute is only violated when one is not furthering those duties. His reasoning would imply that if the President would use the fbi to investigate and harass enemies he could not be guilty of a crime since he is vested with the authority to direct investigations.

There are others who have tried to sow confusion but this is a good place to start since the argument contains enough sophistry to be easy to repeat and takes some effort to rebut. I just don't know who agrees with Dershowitz...

There is also a lawsuit pending against the Trump campaign by those whose emails were released by wikileaks. If it is allowed to proceed, the discovery process will force a great deal of information into public view. I'll post more about this if the motion to dismiss against it is not granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The problem with this line of reasoning is that while he may have the authority to control any federal investigation, the obstruction of justice statute requires a corrupt intent to impede the due administration of justice, which puts it outside the ambit of the typical executive duties.

---

The most succinct way to put this is to say that in order for the statute to interfere with the inherent authority of the executive it would have to be the responsibility of the executive branch to corruptly impede the due administration of justice.

The latest twist in the Russia Investigations cuts to precisely what it is legal for a President to do, as compared with the 'norms and values' that have developed over the conduct of the President over many decades. The President has already instructed lawyers to begin attacking the Special Prosecutor and to insist that the family must not become part of the investigation.

But in any case, it appears that it no longer matters how many investigations there are, because if, to be hypothetical, all or any of the President's campaign team and his relatives are charged and found guilty of a crime, the President will simply issue an Official Pardon, and if he is the man charged, tried and found guilty, he will issue an Official Pardon for himself.

It appears that this may be entirely legal, and if it is beyond what people think it is 'right and proper' for a President to do, bear in mind he has taken the advice of Bannon and Miller, and believes himself that he can do what he likes as long as it is not illegal, and even it is illegal he can pardon himself, because there is a new way of doing things and that old way of adhering to 'norms and values' no longer works.

Crucial to this is the belief that he cannot lose, because he is a winner. The President's obsession with the election continues with the Commission established to prove voter fraud because he cannot, and will not accept that he lost the popular vote, and bears a grudge against anyone and everyone who tells him he lost it.

The USA is famous for its political system, its checks and balances. The founding fathers probably never imagined a President who would have no regard for any moral standard of governance. Winning is everything, and if you lose in the courts, you win in the White House with an Official Pardon: He does not lose, it is as simple as that.

But if there are winners and losers, who are the losers?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7852181.html

i'm going to miss sean spicer (even though he was silenced recently). but i'm still going to miss the guy. what a great example of how to fuck up life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbmg4hYrz8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The USA is famous for its political system, its checks and balances. The founding fathers probably never imagined a President who would have no regard for any moral standard of governance. Winning is everything, and if you lose in the courts, you win in the White House with an Official Pardon: He does not lose, it is as simple as that.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7852181.html

---

The key point to bear in mind is that Trump could only get away with this if lots of others choose to acquiesce: in particular, the Republican congress. We can assume that Trump will do whatever he thinks he can get away with, so the real question is what will it take for these guys to grow a spine and reign him in. Given Trump's declining approval ratings, one would hope that some point they will recognise they will need to do this out of self-interest, even if they don't care too much about democratic principles and the rule of law.

I agree with you both that it is possible Trump avoids accountability and that the Republicans will have to suffer politically for them to act. I'm not sure whether our system has failed as there is no such thing as an institution that can function without people faithfully tending it. Congress can impeach Trump but so far they do not have the will or the integrity.

Trump's associates can be prosecuted but he retains pardon power, which is probably a flaw if it can be used to shield people who are furthering criminal objectives that benefit him. His incentive to pardon those who can incriminate him is tempered by the fact that those he pardons lose fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. If he pardons Kushner, for instance, or his son, or anyone else wrapped up in this scheme, they cannot plead the fifth and might be compelled to reveal something that incriminates Trump himself.

We want to give the head of the executive branch strong authority to control everything within that branch's purview but we haven't found a constitutionally acceptable way to prevent those officials from meddling in investigations that threaten them. Even the independent counsel statute does not completely insulate the special prosecutor from dismissal if the President has the audacity to do it.

Let's see how ugly this all gets if he really does try to fire Sessions and then Mueller, a man who had bipartisan respect until he began diligently investigating Trump as per his mandate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The latest twist in the Russia Investigations cuts to precisely what it is legal for a President to do, as compared with the 'norms and values' that have developed over the conduct of the President over many decades.

---

I think this is an important point you make but I think from time to time Trump does cross legal lines. He doesn't cross them by much so it's never self-evident that he's broken the law and he has enough people running interference for him that these legal transgressions can pass as unconventional ways of doing things. But I think if the average citizen plays fast and loose with election law or lies on forms sworn under penalty of perjury or obstructs justice, they don't get a break unless someone wants to give it to them. He hasn't flagrantly violated these laws, but in an adversarial system how do you prove illegality if nobody is willing to be his adversary?

But I agree with the big point that most of what Trump does is appalling to our sense of decency and fair play. For instance, let's say he did not personally direct the Russians in their hacking but they let him know they did it later on (afterall what is the purpose of doing someone a favor if they do not have assurance you did it?). Later he goes on television and says he doubts it's the Russians and that because our intelligence agencies have been wrong before they must be wrong now. How do we categorize this behavior? It seems like disloyalty even if it's not treason. It seems like a defense of espionage even if it is not itself espionage. But if it's not a legal issue then it's political and if it's political then we're liable to have people say, he's our guy warts and all.

During NIxon’s Watergate fiasco Bork wrote that a sitting president can’t be indicted, for it would interfere with his ability to carry out the tasks of the office.

When Bill Clinton was being investigated for all manner of offenses (and finally for lying to Congress about receiving a blowjob from an intern) Kenneth Starr wrote that a sitting president can be indicted, for in America, no one - not even Clinton - is above the law.

https://nyti.ms/2tyW2pV