US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8104

On July 17 2017 03:43 mozoku wrote:

The irony here is that we started with the rule of law.

Look, I agree American would be better off without Trump as president right now. It's not like Trump can't be replaced by a generic president that would do a similar (almost certainly better job) job without the potential of a catastrophic collusion with Russia to undermine our national security or something.

But what basis is there to impeach him on? Impeachment requires breaking of the law. And, currently, it doesn't make sense to bring a legal case against him. The legality of what Trump has done is debatable (as xDaunt has notably pointed out), and it seems likely that stronger evidence against him will surface. When Mueller decides he has enough evidence to prosecute, Trump will face consequences. But investigations take time, and you only get one chance so you don't prosecute prematurely. Furthermore, given the huge political implications, it makes sense for Mueller to be conservative and wait until he has ironclad proof.

Does that mean Trump is necessarily given the same authority as other presidents? We don't know. It's been reported that the intelligence agencies aren't sharing methods with Trump. Congress is looking to set the Russia sanction into stone. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes along the same lines.


What claims can correctly be levied against Trump is irrelevant when it come to degrees of hyperbole. Moreover, this discussion should be extended to lunacy in general because Fox News does more in that area than just hyperbole.

Here are some of the loony claims against Obama that I remember from the Right:
"Obama is trampling the rule of law." A claim that is as valid as Nevuk's, which I'm betting most people here initially agreed with.

"Obama has destroyed our global image, and it will take decades to clean this up." Another claim made earlier in this thread against Trump. Sure, Trump has probably hurt America's image, but not irrevocably by any means.

Of course, there also some loony behavior that's unique to "The Resistance" but is Fox News-worthy in terms of quality:

The furor over Trump's refusal to say that he would accept HRC's presidency if she won at a debate, only for the slogan at anti-Trump protests after Trump won to be: "We reject the president-elect."

Demanding a recount of vote after the election because a computer science professor suggested it was theoretically possible to hack the election--despite there being zero evidence that the voting results were at all compromised.

"The Resistance" movement in general, where progressives are happy to encourage (and threaten to primary) their congressmen to use the same obstructionist tactics that they spent 8 years lambasting Republicans over.

There are dozens of other examples as well that I'm sure I'm missing. Don't get me wrong, what Fox News does is disgusting and probably more organized and widespread among their base. But there's a lot of loonies on the Left too, and a lot of Fox News-esque tactics are being turned a blind eye to here (and by the Left in general) as long as they're anti-Trump (i.e. agree with the liberal/progressive worldview).

On July 17 2017 06:22 KwarK wrote:
Eventually he'll realize that he can just flip it and start bragging about record disapproval numbers.

On July 17 2017 10:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Well, I'm surprised they showed that graphic on FNN.

On July 17 2017 08:48 Leporello wrote:


Specifically to the question of "what basis is there to impeach" -- the only basis required to impeach is a majority of Congress and the will of the people. That's it. You say that there is a legal basis required -- and that is factually, historically, completely incorrect.

Democrats aren't complaining about collusion for the optics. The guy who colluded needs to be removed. His appointees need to have their security clearances held to the same standard as anyone else and their actions since taking office need to be reviewed in light of what we now know. It's not attractive to anyone to have Trump in charge.

On July 17 2017 11:09 mozoku wrote:

According to the first hit on a Google search on the very question, most legal experts disagree with you.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

Donald Trump’s tax reform plans would, if enacted, increase the gap between rich and poor Americans and see the US slip below Greece on a new global index of inequality.

According to the Commitment to Reducing Inequality (CRI) index, developed by researchers at Oxfam and Development Finance International, the US already distinguishes itself among wealthy countries by doing “very badly” at addressing inequality.

But it would fall a further six places from its ranking of 23rd overall if Trump’s tax reform effort is successful, with the US’s specific rating on tax policies plummeting 33 places from 26th to 59th – just below Peru, Chile and Sri Lanka.

“When you already have countries like Portugal and Slovenia ranking higher than the United States on the overall index, we think that’s a concern considering the wealth of the US,” Paul O’Brien, Oxfam America’s vice-president for policy and campaigns, told the Guardian.

If the White House passes its budget, which would slash social service spending and could leave millions of Americans without health insurance, the US would fall behind Greece, which is crippled by a debt crisis; Spain, which for 10 months in 2016 did not have a government; and Argentina, which has been plagued by high inflation, according to the report.

O’Brien said global understanding of inequality has grown significantly in the past decade, but this awareness has not led to the creation of pervasive government policies. Compilers of the index spent a year looking at policies around taxation, social service spending and labor in 152 countries.

“The reason we did this comparative index,” O’Brien said, “is in large part to challenge policymakers like President Trump to look to other economies and other societies, to give people smarter ways to give everyone an opportunity to lift themselves from poverty.”

The US performance on the index is strikingly bad compared to other wealthy countries, including the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These countries account for 63% of the world GDP. The US is ranked 21st among them in the inequality index, despite being the wealthiest country in the history of the world.

Threaded through the new report are stark facts that explain some of the ways the US has earned its low ranking. In 2012, 43.3% of corporations in the US paid no federal income tax. US employers are required to provide zero days of paid maternity leave, while Sweden offers 480 days. The US federal minimum wage of $7.25 is well below the $10.60 an hour needed for a family of four to stay above the federal poverty line.

The report makes clear that inequality in the US could get worse if efforts to reform tax and repeal the Affordable Care Act are successful. If, instead, Trump decided to attack inequality in the US, O’Brien said he would need to create a more progressive tax system that lessens the burden on the poorest people, improve labor laws, and “ensure that investments in healthcare, education and social protection gave all Americans an equal shot at the American dream”.

The index does not assess laws that prevent inequality, rather focusing on policies that help redistribute wealth. The report identifies successful efforts to turn around inequality in countries including Namibia, where secondary education is free to all.

The index also emphasizes that the top performing countries, including Sweden, Belgium and Denmark, have room for improvement and that the success they have had could be reversed through legislative attempts to weaken laws that protect the poorest members of society.

“For most rich countries,” the report says, “the main body of policies measured by the index was introduced in a different period of history, when significant action in these areas was broadly accepted as the right thing to do and paid dividends in terms of social and economic progress.

“Today, in many countries, political support for these measures has eroded.”