EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1049
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32747 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
"Inside the Justice Department, the statement was viewed as a huge step, and one that would have been taken only if the special counsel’s office viewed the story as almost entirely incorrect. The special counsel’s office seemed to be disputing every aspect of the story that addressed comments or evidence given to its investigators." WaPo "The New York Times has not independently confirmed the BuzzFeed report. One person familiar with Mr. Cohen’s testimony to the special counsel’s prosecutors said that Mr. Cohen did not state that the president had pressured him to lie to Congress." NYT If that last one in particular is true, we can even drop the "well it was written in a way that it could still allow x,y,z." | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 19 2019 01:40 Plansix wrote: I think you are not taking into account the long term damage that is being done by Trump. There are reports today that GDP could drop by 1% due to the shut down. At four weeks of the shut down, the employees are going to start defaulting on mortgages, car payments and rent. It will only get worse. At some point the GOP in the Senate are going to break ranks because they will have to win re-election. Even McConnell. It is just a question of what the breaking point is. Are you in turn taking into account how much people on the right want this damage to be done, though? They've been trying to hurt the federal government for years. Trump's doing that right now. Remember the op-ed that was along the lines of 'good, now fire people as well'? I'm interested in what happens if Trump overrides Congress via State of Emergency. I can't see him cracking. he has a route to winning, so that seems like the one he'll take. But I wonder why he hasn't done it already. I'm guessing someone's telling him not to. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18280 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On January 19 2019 19:39 Acrofales wrote: Can Congress stop a state of emergency? I think the statute says that a joint resolution by both Houses can override the President, but I've seen some call that into question since the constitutionality of such a resolution might (?) be unclear. I haven't looked into it, but under the statute the answer is yes. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 19 2019 19:56 Introvert wrote: I think the statue says that a joint resolution by both Houses can override the President, but I've seen some call that into question since the Constitutionality of such a resolution might (?) unclear. I haven't looked into it, but under the statue the answer is yes. The answer is actually "yes and no". And even more correct, the answer would be "yes and no, and also it'd be too late, the damage would be done already". Congress can end a president’s call of a national emergency with a joint resolution. A joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires the approval of both the House and the Senate. The resolution is submitted, just as a bill is, to the president or his or her signature, making it a law. A joint resolution is usually used for continuing or emergency funding. By the time that resolution reaches Trump, the un-obligated money of the DoD will be redirected already. Sidenote, am i the only one who thinks it's retarded for a "democracy" to give the president the power to repeal the resolution that is supposed to reign an out of control president in? Oh, well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22306 Posts
On January 19 2019 11:47 Doodsmack wrote: We shall see when Muellers report shows up.After muellers statement I'm not sure how the notion that someone directed Cohen to lie survives. Although I dont know, his sent4ncing statement is a bit ambiguous. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On January 19 2019 19:58 m4ini wrote: The answer is actually "yes and no". And even more correct, the answer would be "yes and no, and also it'd be too late, the damage would be done already". By the time that resolution reaches Trump, the un-obligated money of the DoD will be redirected already. i did some more looking after posting and it seems like Congress amended the resolution provision to pass constitutional muster. Must have taken a few days for people to find that, I don't recall seeing it at first. to your edit: it's because of a mistake. At the time the Act was passed you didn't need a signature, but Courts determined that you did, so now it must have one. It wasn't designed that way. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
it's because of a mistake. At the time the Act was passed you didn't need a signature, but Courts determined that you did, so now it must have one. It wasn't designed that way. That doesn't really change my argument (granted, more like a suckerpunch, meh) though. It doesn't matter how it was designed originally, it's important as to how it's implemented currently. Currently, you can have a president go apeshit by declaring a national emergency based on "feeling scared of brown people", and there's nothing that could stop it since the only way to stop it is his approval. Like, what law maker thought that this was a great idea and is absolutely what it should look like instead of actually coming up with a solution that has checks and balances for the president? There's, as far as i can see and granted, i'm not really well versed on the minute details in legislation etc, nothing that could stop Trump from doing this - making it very dictator-esque, for a democracy. You'd need to go to the "nuclear option" of removing him from the white house to stop it, and we know how high that likelyhood is. We also know that nobody will give a shit about him abusing that power, if he intends to do so. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22306 Posts
On January 19 2019 20:16 m4ini wrote: The GOP will care, because as said, it sets a dangerous precedent and they know that the next Democratic president could do the same thing and they would be just as powerless to stop it.That doesn't really change my argument (granted, more like a suckerpunch, meh) though. It doesn't matter how it was designed originally, it's important as to how it's implemented currently. Currently, you can have a president go apeshit by declaring a national emergency based on "feeling scared of brown people", and there's nothing that could stop it since the only way to stop it is his approval. Like, what law maker thought that this was a great idea and is absolutely what it should look like instead of actually coming up with a solution that has checks and balances for the president? There's, as far as i can see and granted, i'm not really well versed on the minute details in legislation etc, nothing that could stop Trump from doing this - making it very dictator-esque, for a democracy. You'd need to go to the "nuclear option" of removing him from the white house to stop it, and we know how high that likelyhood is. We also know that nobody will give a shit about him abusing that power, if he intends to do so. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 19 2019 20:19 Gorsameth wrote: The GOP will care, because as said, it sets a dangerous precedent and they know that the next Democratic president could do the same thing and they would be just as powerless to stop it. Oh, so that's why they blocked Obama from introducing a new surpreme court justice. Because they care what happens down the line. The GOP hasn't cared at all yet, and won't start with this. How many moronic precedents have been set by Trump so far? There's nothing you could ever condemn the next democratic president for, at all. He'd just need to point at Trump at say "well you were okay with that, so go suck a fat one". If they'd care as to what the future holds, they'd act very differently. As a sidenote, "they know that the next Democratic president could do the same thing" doesn't make sense because the next democratic president could do the same thing regardless of what Trump is doing. These are presidential powers, it doesn't matter if Trump uses them now or not. In fact, if you think about it, it'd be smart to use it now to set a precedent, and get legislation done to prevent it in the future "because now we know that the way it works currently is a bad idea". | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8254 Posts
On January 19 2019 19:58 m4ini wrote: The answer is actually "yes and no". And even more correct, the answer would be "yes and no, and also it'd be too late, the damage would be done already". By the time that resolution reaches Trump, the un-obligated money of the DoD will be redirected already. Sidenote, am i the only one who thinks it's retarded for a "democracy" to give the president the power to repeal the resolution that is supposed to reign an out of control president in? Oh, well. The president's pardons are don't happen automatic. They have to go through the DOJ who can (and probably will, if he tries to pardon himself or his family) deny it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On January 19 2019 20:33 Excludos wrote: The president's pardons are don't happen automatic. They have to go through the DOJ who can (and probably will, if he tries to pardon himself or his family) deny it. The pardon power is the president's via the constitution. The DOJ cant stop it. While there is debate as to the ability of the president to pardon himself, it's not something they could stop, and i dont think any court wants to take that issue up.. however, absolutely no one could stop him from pardoning anyone else: family, crony, or criminal. The DOJ process it bureaucratic and advisory. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Suddenly a statement from Mueller's team is to be trusted now? Awfully convenient narrative switching by the Trump team lol Anyway I wonder if The Rug will come up in today's border announcement. Trump likes his silly props at speaches. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8254 Posts
On January 19 2019 21:05 Introvert wrote: The pardon power is the president's via the constitution. The DOJ cant stop it. While there is debate as to the ability of the president to pardon himself, it's not something they could stop, and i dont think any court wants to take that issue up.. however, absolutely no one could stop him from pardoning anyone else: family, crony, or criminal. The DOJ process it bureaucratic and advisory. Sorry, I meant the supreme court. It has the power to interpret the scope of the presidential pardon, and under the fundamental rule that no one can be the judge of their own case, they would likely nullify it entierly. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14110 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Will be interesting to see how that decision plays out in the public. Or more accurately, if it's any different to the other ones. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On January 19 2019 22:19 iamthedave wrote: So maybe this the announcement where he does the State of Emergency and overrides Congress to force an end to the shutdown. Will be interesting to see how that decision plays out in the public. Or more accurately, if it's any different to the other ones. If there were any time he needed a distraction, it would be now. I'm with you on this. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
As for all his Buzzfeed hubbub, pointing out shoddy journalism is fine, but all this pearl clutching by conservative outlets and their talking heads is incredibly hypocritical given all the abjectly false shit pushed all the time. The president himself just yesterday pushed that prayer rug at the border nonsense, an outright lie of a story that came from Breitbart. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On January 19 2019 22:58 farvacola wrote: The news snippets I've read said suggest that he will not declare an emergency and will instead make a new "offer" to Dems to end the shutdown. As for all his Buzzfeed hubbub, pointing out shoddy journalism is fine, but all this pearl clutching by conservative outlets and their talking heads is incredibly hypocritical given all the abjectly false shit pushed all the time. The president himself just yesterday pushed that prayer rug at the border nonsense, an outright lie of a story that came from Breitbart. You should see the right-leaning subs on Reddit (even /r/conspiracy. Better known as T_D2.0 these days). They are salivating over this. Which is remarkable because nowhere in the statement did they say the underlying story is false. They just seem to dispute details. The change from "fuck Mueller" to "LOL BF OWNED BY MUELLER" must be giving people whiplash. | ||
| ||
