|
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 |
On April 14 2018 03:48 Toadesstern wrote:
idk how you'd put checks on that though. Seems like something you either don't have at all (in this case, get rid off) or you have it the way you do with no checks at all and if it does get abused it's on you for getting such a guy into office.
I tend to agree with Plansix on this: while obviously an issue I just don't see it as a major one at all. Ignore it and better luck next time imo.
That attitude would probably change if this ends up the opening of pandora's box and it'll start being a thing in the future no matter who ends up president because you can get away with it but until that happens I think you're good with it just being a freak thing.
what's wrong with the simple plan: appoint a commission to study the issue and make recommendations. maybe they come up with something, maybe they don't.
then we'll act based on what their findings are.
I never said ti was a major issue. but it's good to fix things; indeed many of the problems we have are a result of people refusing to do maintenance work, and to fix foreseeable problems before they become bigger problems.
|
|
|
On April 14 2018 03:59 plasmidghost wrote:www.cnn.comShow nested quote +Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, is "under criminal investigation," the Justice Department said Friday.
In response to Cohen's motion to restrain the evidence collected in Monday's raids of his home and office, the US attorney in New York asserted the raids were authorized by a federal judge to seek evidence of conduct "for which Cohen is under criminal investigation."
The filing redacts what Cohen is under investigation for.
The filing contains the first details released by the Justice Department on the searches, which covered Cohen's residence, hotel room, office, safety deposit boxes and electronic devices.
Cohen's attorneys have filed a temporary restraining order in the matter. Cohen did not appear in court Friday morning. So since Cohen is officially under criminal investigation now, what are the odds of him flipping on Trump?
I think you first need to answer if there is a point in him flipping. If everything is written down anyway then he doesn't have to flip. The FBI will have everything they need already.
To flip you need to be able to provide something valuable.
|
On April 14 2018 03:59 plasmidghost wrote:www.cnn.comSo since Cohen is officially under criminal investigation now, what are the odds of him flipping on Trump?
odds are pretty good he'll flip if there's anything he can give up to avoid trouble for himself (and trump doesn't have other arrangements to see that he's compensated). the nature of attorney client priviledge would mean there might not be much he can actually give up, at least no twithout digging a deeper hole for himself. priviledge wouldn't apply if the underlying activity was known by both to be illegal; but that requires him to admit to an illegal act himself for each such instance, rather than simply being a lawyer doing shady but technically legal stuff.
|
On April 14 2018 03:48 Toadesstern wrote:
idk how you'd put checks on that though. Seems like something you either don't have at all (in this case, get rid off) or you have it the way you do with no checks at all and if it does get abused it's on you for getting such a guy into office.
I tend to agree with Plansix on this: while obviously an issue I just don't see it as a major one at all. Ignore it and better luck next time imo.
That attitude would probably change if this ends up the opening of pandora's box and it'll start being a thing in the future no matter who ends up president because you can get away with it but until that happens I think you're good with it just being a freak thing.
Allow Congress to overwrite a pardon with a 2/3 majority.
Its hard, no one will bother 99% of the time but you have an option if it is abused (aka Trump pardoning Flynn/Manafort ect).
|
On April 14 2018 04:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 03:59 plasmidghost wrote:www.cnn.comMichael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, is "under criminal investigation," the Justice Department said Friday.
In response to Cohen's motion to restrain the evidence collected in Monday's raids of his home and office, the US attorney in New York asserted the raids were authorized by a federal judge to seek evidence of conduct "for which Cohen is under criminal investigation."
The filing redacts what Cohen is under investigation for.
The filing contains the first details released by the Justice Department on the searches, which covered Cohen's residence, hotel room, office, safety deposit boxes and electronic devices.
Cohen's attorneys have filed a temporary restraining order in the matter. Cohen did not appear in court Friday morning. So since Cohen is officially under criminal investigation now, what are the odds of him flipping on Trump? I think you first need to answer if there is a point in him flipping. If everything is written down anyway then he doesn't have to flip. The FBI will have everything they need already. To flip you need to be able to provide something valuable.
The only thing that would be better than having a bunch of stuff in writing is the person who wrote those things as a cooperative witness to confirm they are authentic at trial.
|
There's a certain irony that a lawyer of all things is being caught for illegal activities, and could be the linchpin to bring Trump down.
Assuming Trump is guilty and impeached, what do you think the long term ramifications are for the Republican party? This is an open ended question as it's obviously impossible to truly predict the future, but how long do you think it would give the Democrats a super majority? I'm presuming quite a while as the accusations being thrown around are not light ones.
|
It is so hard to predict in this environment. It depends on what course the investigation takes. I doubt it ends in a super majority, but it could be a strong hold on the House. And I think that would do real damage to the tea party in the House, who have no real context for being a minority party. I think they would quickly bleed of members from the Freedom Caucus, who would have literally zero power under the current house rules.
|
|
|
On April 14 2018 04:27 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 04:17 bo1b wrote:
There's a certain irony that a lawyer of all things is being caught for illegal activities, and could be the linchpin to bring Trump down.
Assuming Trump is guilty and impeached, what do you think the long term ramifications are for the Republican party? This is an open ended question as it's obviously impossible to truly predict the future, but how long do you think it would give the Democrats a super majority? I'm presuming quite a while as the accusations being thrown around are not light ones. The Dems probably won't get a supermajority this year, since only eight Republicans are up for releection in the Senate (I believe), but if they weaponize the GOP catering to Trump (if he does get impeached), I could easily see them suffering for a long time and Dems getting a supermajority in 2020 Then again, Nixon happened and the Republicans were back in the presidency just six years later with Reagan
I think Americans have shown themselves to have a short memory where it comes to politics. In the UK when our parties really fuck up it takes a long time to recover. Labour are still reeling from the Blair years and have struggled to put up a decent fight against the Tories, despite May being an incredibly weak opponent. The PARTY gets damaged by the leader, and we hold the PARTY responsible.
In the US it seems that the Democrats/Republicans never really get hurt, it's always individuals. So no matter how bad a President is, it 'resets' when the next guy comes along, no matter how obviously the bad is a result of their party.
Or so it seems to an outsider, anyway. It's unfathomable to me that the Republicans recovered so quickly after Bush. For comparison, a big reason Labour is still suffering in the UK is THEY were the party who led us into the Iraq War, and a lot of the voting public still won't let them live it down (and also why Jeremy Corbyn has become so popular; he was always anti war when the rest of his colleagues were pro; but again, the party's unpopularity doesn't get nullified by Corbyn's popularity).
|
Talking about the left demonizing Comey is so bizarre. Plenty of reasons to dislike him, very few remotely related to the smear job that's thrown at him right now.
Personally, my dislike for him was standard FBI "give an inch take a mile" attitude. A lot of people hated him for the timing on reopening the email server investigation.
Bit of a stretch to apply any of that to his honesty.
|
I would look at the makeup of congress and who survived the Nixon era, rather than Reagan. His election was a response to the protracted hostage crisis in Iran.
On April 14 2018 04:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Talking about the left demonizing Comey is so bizarre. Plenty of reasons to dislike him, very few remotely related to the smear job that's thrown at him right now.
Personally, my dislike for him was standard FBI "give an inch take a mile" attitude. A lot of people hated him for the timing on reopening the email server investigation.
Bit of a stretch to apply any of that to his honesty.
To be fair, he re-opened it, but he didn’t do it publicly. Republicans in Congress leaked the letter for political gain. Still not great, but one where he put his faith in our elected officials to not misuse the letter.
|
I think the Nixon to Reagan years are a little bit different though, Jimmy Carter as incumbent president was at a 28% approval rating.
|
Again, nobody's opinion on Comey have any bearing on the propriety of the President of the United States firing the FBI director to put an end to the "Russia thing". Even if you found a campus SJW with an anti-Comey sign in 2017, and found another campus SJW with a <3 Comey sign today, that wouldn't make what the President did okay. The Mueller investigation is not taking into account strawmen attacks on the Left in investigating whether or not the President obstructed justice in firing the FBI director.
|
On April 14 2018 04:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 04:27 plasmidghost wrote:On April 14 2018 04:17 bo1b wrote:
There's a certain irony that a lawyer of all things is being caught for illegal activities, and could be the linchpin to bring Trump down.
Assuming Trump is guilty and impeached, what do you think the long term ramifications are for the Republican party? This is an open ended question as it's obviously impossible to truly predict the future, but how long do you think it would give the Democrats a super majority? I'm presuming quite a while as the accusations being thrown around are not light ones. The Dems probably won't get a supermajority this year, since only eight Republicans are up for releection in the Senate (I believe), but if they weaponize the GOP catering to Trump (if he does get impeached), I could easily see them suffering for a long time and Dems getting a supermajority in 2020 Then again, Nixon happened and the Republicans were back in the presidency just six years later with Reagan I think Americans have shown themselves to have a short memory where it comes to politics. In the UK when our parties really fuck up it takes a long time to recover. Labour are still reeling from the Blair years and have struggled to put up a decent fight against the Tories, despite May being an incredibly weak opponent. The PARTY gets damaged by the leader, and we hold the PARTY responsible. In the US it seems that the Democrats/Republicans never really get hurt, it's always individuals. So no matter how bad a President is, it 'resets' when the next guy comes along, no matter how obviously the bad is a result of their party. Or so it seems to an outsider, anyway. It's unfathomable to me that the Republicans recovered so quickly after Bush. For comparison, a big reason Labour is still suffering in the UK is THEY were the party who led us into the Iraq War, and a lot of the voting public still won't let them live it down (and also why Jeremy Corbyn has become so popular; he was always anti war when the rest of his colleagues were pro; but again, the party's unpopularity doesn't get nullified by Corbyn's popularity).
there is sometimes history of long memories/effects (though the causation of them is murkier and subject to academic debate).
the effects of the great depression and fdr's success led to the dems holding congress for ~50 years (with a couple small blips)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
|
The United States president has vastly too much power, the ability to pardon is just the tip of the ice berg. He is able to wage war essentially without congressional oversight. If a leftwing government ever came to power in the US they should blow up the executive as their final action.
|
On April 14 2018 06:30 Grumbels wrote:
The United States president has vastly too much power, the ability to pardon is just the tip of the ice berg. He is able to wage war essentially without congressional oversight. If a leftwing government ever came to power in the US they should blow up the executive as their final action.
how do you propose that they "blow up" the executive?
|
On April 14 2018 07:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 06:30 Grumbels wrote:
The United States president has vastly too much power, the ability to pardon is just the tip of the ice berg. He is able to wage war essentially without congressional oversight. If a leftwing government ever came to power in the US they should blow up the executive as their final action. how do you propose that they "blow up" the executive?
Probably through legislative action.
The president wasn't always able to wage war at a whim, but he is now, because congress decided it didn't really care as long as the president doesn't say that shooting people in foreign countries is war.
The legislative has the power to reign in the executive provided large enough majorities, and support from the judicative.
The big problem here is that people are happy with the executive gaining more and more powers as long as their guy is president. However, at some point someone with a different idea or a complete idiot like trump will be president, and he will also have the powers that the executive slowly gained because it was convenient (and because your congress doesn't actually do things)
To reverse that you would require people to take away power from the president while their party has the presidency. (And not as a final act, because such a final act will immediately be removed by the following administration. For such an action to have any significance, you would need to remove that power much earlier during your term.)
|
On April 14 2018 07:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 07:37 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 06:30 Grumbels wrote:
The United States president has vastly too much power, the ability to pardon is just the tip of the ice berg. He is able to wage war essentially without congressional oversight. If a leftwing government ever came to power in the US they should blow up the executive as their final action. how do you propose that they "blow up" the executive? Probably through legislative action. The president wasn't always able to wage war at a whim, but he is now, because congress decided it didn't really care as long as the president doesn't say that shooting people in foreign countries is war. The legislative has the power to reign in the executive provided large enough majorities, and support from the judicative. The big problem here is that people are happy with the executive gaining more and more powers as long as their guy is president. However, at some point someone with a different idea or a complete idiot like trump will be president, and he will also have the powers that the executive slowly gained because it was convenient (and because your congress doesn't actually do things) To reverse that you would require people to take away power from the president while their party has the presidency. (And not as a final act, because such a final act will immediately be removed by the following administration. For such an action to have any significance, you would need to remove that power much earlier during your term.)
I don't think its just 'their president' gaining power. Under Obama the Republicans were more then happy to give Obama more power, just so they could complain about his use of it.
Right now I think its more of a case of doing the least amount possible while complaining loudly and happily cashing in checks. (note, not everyone but a significant enough portion to control votes).
|
On April 14 2018 07:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2018 07:37 zlefin wrote:On April 14 2018 06:30 Grumbels wrote:
The United States president has vastly too much power, the ability to pardon is just the tip of the ice berg. He is able to wage war essentially without congressional oversight. If a leftwing government ever came to power in the US they should blow up the executive as their final action. how do you propose that they "blow up" the executive? Probably through legislative action. The president wasn't always able to wage war at a whim, but he is now, because congress decided it didn't really care as long as the president doesn't say that shooting people in foreign countries is war. The legislative has the power to reign in the executive provided large enough majorities, and support from the judicative. The big problem here is that people are happy with the executive gaining more and more powers as long as their guy is president. However, at some point someone with a different idea or a complete idiot like trump will be president, and he will also have the powers that the executive slowly gained because it was convenient (and because your congress doesn't actually do things) To reverse that you would require people to take away power from the president while their party has the presidency. (And not as a final act, because such a final act will immediately be removed by the following administration. For such an action to have any significance, you would need to remove that power much earlier during your term.)
ah right; I was only thinking in terms of if they had the executive how they'd go about weakening it; not about if they held all the branches.
but i'd say the problem is bigger than that; it's not just people being happy with the executive gaining power when their guy is in; it's people bein ghappy letting the executive get more power for a much simpler and more insidious reason: because taking actions costs votes, while railing against stuff wins them. congress wants to avoid being responsible for thinsg when they go bad, so they foist off decisions on the president/executive agencies, then rail against those decisions. this lets someone else make the hard but necessary decisions, then congress blames the president (whatever the outcome). blame tends to fall on decision-makers when things go bad after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
