Printable View
I found the post. I think Stavros said there should be clear rules governing executive privilege and financial conflicts of interest, as well as allowing the President to be indicted. The above then is an alternative, setting clear rules for impeachability, and preserving the ability of the President to be prosecuted out of office for any crimes he committed while in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Briefly, as this really belongs in the Impeachment thread, the clear point I take from last week's blistering presentation in the Senate, is that the law has been broken, while the President boasts 'I can do anything I want'. You have to decide, as Americans, whether or not you want to amend your Constitution to make explicit what the President can and cannot do, or trust in the generalist language that makes the assumption that the kind of person elected to the Presidency will respect the Office, adhere to the Oath of Office, and not stretch the boundaries of acceptability for personal gain, daring Congress to act. Perhaps the 45th President will mark a boundary line in behaviour, tone and outcome that no other dares, or wants to reach. But he could be there for another 4 years, and the potential damage to the US is, to me, even at this distance, scary. There seems to be no future for the EPA or its increasingly weak protection of the American environment in general, its Wilderness and water resources in particular. I won't go into the Foreign Policy options, even more scary. But here we are, and the tamed, cowered Republicans, it seems to me don't want to hear the evience from Bolton, Mulvaney, least of all Giuliani or the President himself, and will vote for more of the same, as if the clear breaches of the law just didn't matter.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1...992248322?s=20
Less my thought of the day than my laugh of the day. Love the laugh in the background from a fox person.
Scary not funny.
And two days ago when presenting the Palestine: Surrender to Israel Plan, the President managed to re-name the third most important Shrine in Islam as 'al-Aqua Mosque', proving thorugh his pathetic ignorance that his son-in-law's plan is not worth the paper it is written on.
It always amuses me that Trump refers to his opponents as "Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats". What sort of radicals are they if they want to do nothing?
From the State of the Union last night-
"“Socialism destroys nations,” said Trump after welcoming Venezuela’s opposition leader, Juan Guaido"….leader of the Popular Will party, a member of the Socialist International since 2014...
I dont know much about Tucker Carlson other than what I read in the UK press, but what struck me about his 'outing' of a Juror in the Roger Stone trial, publishing her personal details as well, is that I thought Jurors were supposed to be anonymous. It seems to me that if each Juror has sworn to be impartial at the start of a trial, then that must be it and that they should remain anonymous to each other as well as the General Public. I can only assume the law has changed to enable the identification of jurors, but as no juror will be impartial once the trial has produced evidence for or against a conviction, surely anonymity must be protected?
As for Tucker Carlson, does he have the right to identify a Juror and make claims about their political bias which he claims has influenced the outcome of the trial? The rule of law is under a lot of pressure right now, this cannot help reduce that tension.
I don't have an issue with most of the policies of Bernie Sanders but I don't understand the way they're marketed. Last night Bloomberg brought up the fact that Sanders has three homes and is worth about 3 million dollars. There is a world of difference between having a net worth of 3 million dollars and billions. But when I hear Sanders' rhetoric I often hear buzz words and invective. How wealthy does someone have to be before they are suspected of being corrupt and is wealth the best metric?
The best argument for taxing the rich is that they can afford to pay and what they pay funds extremely useful programs. The best justification for casting aspersions on someone's business activities is that they were unethical, broke the law, or were involved in an activity that was by its nature predatory. The best argument for regulating business is that there are collective action problems or some significant public good can be achieved through the regulation at an acceptable cost.
So while I think it's a bit braindead to compare Sanders to the extremely wealthy people he vilifies I do blame him for relying on slogans and clichés about a rigged system without saying what's rigged and what's not. What are the rules we play by? When does he think regulation is useful and when would he think it's too much of an encroachment on commerce?
Sanders is a populist and the essence of populism is to target some 'other' as being at the root of problems. For populists of the right the targets are usually immigrants, minorities and globalist elites: for populists of the left it is the rich. Of course there may be an element of truth in their complaints, but populists are not really interested in analysing the best way to deal with problems. It's all about using rhetoric to appeal to peoples' emotions and build a feeling that you are the only one who understands their concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
In his case it seems he really believes it as well. To hear some of his supporters talk, their support sounds almost messianic. "He's been fighting for you his whole life." "He's taken on yada yada". But if you look at his accomplishments they're quite modest. There's definitely a problem with massive income inequality, the growth in the number of super wealthy, and a minimum wage that hasn't changed here for more than ten years. As you say, he's identified a real problem but his explanation of its causes is not complex enough, nor are the solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2