MelRnr wrote:
Right. And even if there is a challenge in Congress, there is zero chance that any state's electors will be thrown out, because of the Democrat majority in the House.
It will only be a loyalty test to serve Trump's petty, narcissistic, and vindictive ways.
I hope there is a challenge in the Senate (there will be in the House) because it will force every member of Congress to publicly choose between support of Trump or the will of the American people.
corpse evangelist wrote:
MelRnr wrote:
Right. And even if there is a challenge in Congress, there is zero chance that any state's electors will be thrown out, because of the Democrat majority in the House.
It will only be a loyalty test to serve Trump's petty, narcissistic, and vindictive ways.
I hope there is a challenge in the Senate (there will be in the House) because it will force every member of Congress to publicly choose between support of Trump or the will of the American people.
That's why Mitch doesn't want it to and won't allow it to happen. He doesn't want a vote log available to be accessed in the future.
TTH wrote:
corpse evangelist wrote:
I hope there is a challenge in the Senate (there will be in the House) because it will force every member of Congress to publicly choose between support of Trump or the will of the American people.
That's why Mitch doesn't want it to and won't allow it to happen. He doesn't want a vote log available to be accessed in the future.
Yes, Mitch clearly doesn't want it to happen. But it only takes one Senator to go rogue to prove their loyalty to Trump. Let's see if Mitch can control that.
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Why are you supporting a wife beater and pro-abortion candidate for Senate?
Because, even if true, it's better than the alternative. That's the funny thing about this -- Republicans/Trump have fallen to such depths of depravity that pretty much anyone else is better.
Gina wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55424397https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/blackwaters-youngest-victim/A disgusting decision.
How do Trumpers reconcile all these pardons with him being the "law & order" president? Law & order for some but not for others?
L L wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I am wrestling with this. My first impression is that it's pretty funny and kind of cool. But if this was a Republican doing this to Democrats I would say its not only dishonest but its a typical Republican dirty trick. I can tell myself that the end justifies the means but that doesn't feel right either. I can justify it by saying politics are dirty and everyone does it, but that's just a rationalization too. I could say you are doing it to Republicans so it doesn't matter, but that's not right either.
I have to say I am in favor of Trollminator doing this (I know it will make no difference but we are talking principle) but that makes me a hypocrite in this instance. I am what I am I guess.
1) You should have kept your name as "Conundrum".
And I see this is a conundrum for you.
2) The difference here is we have an anonymous internet person trying to "suppress" Republican votes.
While the Republicans use their actual government power to suppress Democrat votes. Like limiting polling places in cities or making one vote dropbox per county.
Making voter registration harder than it should be. Etc.
Actually and unfortunately the Republicans do both (and probably more too).
Maybe, but I can't go back to now Conundrum now. That would be weird! Besides I thought Dan would be a kinder and gentler poster.
L L wrote:
Did Republicans pass this knowing Trump wouldn't sign it?
That way they could say they held their ground keeping payments to $600 (which is the only part people read about) and not care about the climate part if it was never going to pass.
Only climate nerds like me and agip even knew it was in the bill. As far as negotiations and strategy goes, the climate stuff probably never mattered. I just hope they don't cut it to make room for the $2000 payments.
Moreover, they need to send the $2000 payments to the people who actually need it instead of just sending checks to anyone who makes less than $150,000.
1101 wrote:
Gina wrote:
A criminal cartel.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55420365A terrible stain.
Speaking of which, what is the reason that any POTUS has this power to pardon anyone? OK, I know it is in the Constitution, but what is the rationale behind it? It just seems like an odd, fairly arbitrary power to me but I imagine I am missing something.
Good question. At a minimum, it seems that it should be limited in some way(s).
If nothing else, the Trump years have been an education in how imperfect and vulnerable our system is to a hugely flawed president (and Congressional enablers). I'd like to think that we'd do some serious gap filling in response, but not very optimistic.
nonequals wrote:
1101 wrote:
Speaking of which, what is the reason that any POTUS has this power to pardon anyone? OK, I know it is in the Constitution, but what is the rationale behind it? It just seems like an odd, fairly arbitrary power to me but I imagine I am missing something.
Good question. At a minimum, it seems that it should be limited in some way(s).
If nothing else, the Trump years have been an education in how imperfect and vulnerable our system is to a hugely flawed president (and Congressional enablers). I'd like to think that we'd do some serious gap filling in response, but not very optimistic.
I don't think our founding father's had any idea of the depths of depravity that would be possible from our president and congress.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Good question. At a minimum, it seems that it should be limited in some way(s).
If nothing else, the Trump years have been an education in how imperfect and vulnerable our system is to a hugely flawed president (and Congressional enablers). I'd like to think that we'd do some serious gap filling in response, but not very optimistic.
I don't think our founding father's had any idea of the depths of depravity that would be possible from our president and congress.
Perhaps I'm revealing myself as an un-careful consumer/seeker of information/history, but isn't it a common observation that the founders were significantly concerned about not having another king/autocrat/whatever, a la the father lands? As bad as Trump is (VERY bad), he is "merely" (non-benevolent) king-like. I was under the impression that they endeavored to set up a system that would - among MANY other things, of course - prevent king-like behavior. If I DON'T have this wrong, then I'm afraid that they fell well short of the mark......despite, I'm assuming, being awfully wise.
nonequals wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I don't think our founding father's had any idea of the depths of depravity that would be possible from our president and congress.
Perhaps I'm revealing myself as an un-careful consumer/seeker of information/history, but isn't it a common observation that the founders were significantly concerned about not having another king/autocrat/whatever, a la the father lands? As bad as Trump is (VERY bad), he is "merely" (non-benevolent) king-like. I was under the impression that they endeavored to set up a system that would - among MANY other things, of course - prevent king-like behavior. If I DON'T have this wrong, then I'm afraid that they fell well short of the mark......despite, I'm assuming, being awfully wise.
you are generally correct, but I think they thought the balance of powers would be more effective. They probably didn't think the senate would aid and abet a bad-acting president from doing awful things.
They put a check in place...the senate...but Mitch and the Red Riders failed.
Plus, over the past 50 years or so the legislative branch has ceded more and more power to the executive. That helped Trump find money to do his bad deeds. The congress' control over the purse is supposed to balance the executive branch...but in a time when the prez can declare an emergency and do almost whatever he wants with taxpayer money...the power of the purse is restricted.
Bottom line is that with the way we are set up now...a bad president, an president acting in bad faith...can do a tremendous amount.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Good question. At a minimum, it seems that it should be limited in some way(s).
If nothing else, the Trump years have been an education in how imperfect and vulnerable our system is to a hugely flawed president (and Congressional enablers). I'd like to think that we'd do some serious gap filling in response, but not very optimistic.
I don't think our founding father's had any idea of the depths of depravity that would be possible from our president and congress.
Actually, George Mason predicted a Trump like figure might pardon people for his self-interest. Madison replied if that happened, the House ought to impeach the president.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Actually, George Mason predicted a Trump like figure might pardon people for his self-interest. Madison replied if that happened, the House ought to impeach the president.
Well, presidents make most of their pardons in their last days of office, so the impeachment threat has no weight.
L L wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Actually, George Mason predicted a Trump like figure might pardon people for his self-interest. Madison replied if that happened, the House ought to impeach the president.
Well, presidents make most of their pardons in their last days of office, so the impeachment threat has no weight.
but at least the president would be gone.
and remember they didnt' write term limits for the prez. there was a custom of two terms, but it was only a norm, not a rule. Until FDR.
agip wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Perhaps I'm revealing myself as an un-careful consumer/seeker of information/history, but isn't it a common observation that the founders were significantly concerned about not having another king/autocrat/whatever, a la the father lands? As bad as Trump is (VERY bad), he is "merely" (non-benevolent) king-like. I was under the impression that they endeavored to set up a system that would - among MANY other things, of course - prevent king-like behavior. If I DON'T have this wrong, then I'm afraid that they fell well short of the mark......despite, I'm assuming, being awfully wise.
you are generally correct, but I think they thought the balance of powers would be more effective. They probably didn't think the senate would aid and abet a bad-acting president from doing awful things.
They put a check in place...the senate...but Mitch and the Red Riders failed.
Plus, over the past 50 years or so the legislative branch has ceded more and more power to the executive. That helped Trump find money to do his bad deeds. The congress' control over the purse is supposed to balance the executive branch...but in a time when the prez can declare an emergency and do almost whatever he wants with taxpayer money...the power of the purse is restricted.
Bottom line is that with the way we are set up now...a bad president, an president acting in bad faith...can do a tremendous amount.
Great post. Now that a POTUS has gone that far and has been that accommodated by the GOP and that revered by the base on top of it, I think the set up will definitely be exploited again and the foundation will continue to bleed.
agip wrote:
L L wrote:
Well, presidents make most of their pardons in their last days of office, so the impeachment threat has no weight.
but at least the president would be gone.
and remember they didnt' write term limits for the prez. there was a custom of two terms, but it was only a norm, not a rule. Until FDR.
I really hate this system of other politicians determining the fate of a criminal president. The standard should be break a law and you get the boot based on a judicial determination. It's a bit sickening that we pretend our foundation is so solid and special. So much of it is weak sauce reliance on good people doing the right thing.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
nonequals wrote:
Good question. At a minimum, it seems that it should be limited in some way(s).
If nothing else, the Trump years have been an education in how imperfect and vulnerable our system is to a hugely flawed president (and Congressional enablers). I'd like to think that we'd do some serious gap filling in response, but not very optimistic.
I don't think our founding father's had any idea of the depths of depravity that would be possible from our president and congress.
Yep - just like right now we think Idiocracy can only be just a movie. We took a giant leap toward that in just 4 years.
Trollminator wrote:
agip wrote:
but at least the president would be gone.
and remember they didnt' write term limits for the prez. there was a custom of two terms, but it was only a norm, not a rule. Until FDR.
I really hate this system of other politicians determining the fate of a criminal president. The standard should be break a law and you get the boot based on a judicial determination. It's a bit sickening that we pretend our foundation is so solid and special. So much of it is weak sauce reliance on good people doing the right thing.
Is ya sure? You want unelected people deciding the fate of the republic? Elected representatives answer to the people. Unelected judges lack that check on their power.
corpse evangelist wrote:
MelRnr wrote:
Right. And even if there is a challenge in Congress, there is zero chance that any state's electors will be thrown out, because of the Democrat majority in the House.
It will only be a loyalty test to serve Trump's petty, narcissistic, and vindictive ways.
I hope there is a challenge in the Senate (there will be in the House) because it will force every member of Congress to publicly choose between support of Trump or the will of the American people.
Yes I hope they put themselves in a position of trying to justify trump’s coup.
L L wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Actually, George Mason predicted a Trump like figure might pardon people for his self-interest. Madison replied if that happened, the House ought to impeach the president.
Well, presidents make most of their pardons in their last days of office, so the impeachment threat has no weight.
Madison said two other things answering Mason's concern. One is that the president's pardon power should be suspended while the impeachment procedure is taking place. The other is that the House does not have to wait until after the president pardons someone.
So according to Madson's plan, the House could have started impeachment procedure as soon as Trump hinted pardon, and then his pardon power would have been suspended until after he is cleared by the Senate.
I'd propose a Constitutional amendment (that will probably never happen). No pardon by the lame duck president after the election day. If pardon is done really for correcting miscarriage of justice, then there is no reason to wait until after the election. Do it before the election, and face the voters' judgement about your decision. If you fail to pardon someone before the election day, and you lose the election, then the next president can pardon the person, assuming it is justifiable.