|
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 July 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
"More than now" is vague and a pretty low bar, and retiring with loads of cash and your freedom isn't what I would consider accountability or "making sure the president wasn't a lunatic".
It's a shitty, way too low bar, but I'm pretty sure at this point most people would take a Nixon-style exit if they could get some sanity back into the WH. It'd be great to be able to wake up and not have the news be "The president just talked about how he could stop the war in Afghanistan by killing 10 million people".
|
|
|
On July 25 2019 00:04 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 23:42 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2019 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 23:31 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2019 23:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 23:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2019 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2019 23:13 Gorsameth wrote:On July 24 2019 22:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If they managed to not hear it this long, I'm pretty sure they won't get it from this (how would this penetrate their bubble more effectively than the last 2 years of non-stop coverage?). I appreciate the undying optimism from folks though. The question I suppose is whether the system is dysfunctional or working as intended. I think it's far too consistent in protecting powerful people from accountability for this to not be a feature rather than a bug. The governmental system of checks and balances is certainly dysfunctional, I think that much is plain to see. Is it? Or just dysfunctional relative to its nominal purpose? what do you mean? Its way to warm here for mental exercise. Speak plainly. Do US "checks and balances" function to ensure that political power is not concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups generally or is that simply their nominal (in name only) purpose? Considering you have a President and a 2 party system its purpose is entirely designed to concentrate power in the hands of individual and groups. I'm talking about Congress making sure the President isn't a complete lunatic. Not exactly what "checks and balances" is supposed to refer to, but point taken. I think you can still answer the question in that context though. With the limitation of "making sure the president isn't a complete lunatic" is that something it's doing/done or simply something it does in name only? It, eventually, removed Nixon. Its not going to remove Trump. And yeah sure complain about Nixon getting away with it, but atleast something happened. Which is a lot more then we're seeing now. I mean it didn't technically remove him, he walked away (before he could potentially be forced, who knows what might have happened if he would have called their bet and made them vote him out) with a bag of money and 0 accountability from my perspective. "More than now" is vague and a pretty low bar, and retiring with loads of cash and your freedom isn't what I would consider accountability or "making sure the president wasn't a lunatic". He also has a nice center dedicated to him in Yorba Linda. Very classy, talks about all the great things he did. No mention of the scandal. Elementary schools go there for field trips all the time. AFA our convo GH, I’ve been keeping up with the thread and I believe I’m familiar with the White Club terminology being used, but I’m unclear which ingroup you’re referring to; White Club or capitalists? And if a capitalist is defined by one who owns the means of production, isn’t it almost tautological to say that members of the capitalist ingroup have all the power? By that I mean, wouldn’t it be more likely that the government being filled with capitalists is a byproduct of a capitalist society than as a byproduct of checks and balances?
Pretty much, just a couple things.
Capitalist is the largest umbrella grouping. White Club a subset, Oligarchs a subset within that, which maintains drastically disproportionate guiding influence to the others.
I'm not saying it's because of checks and balances failing but rather that they don't function as suggested in our typical learning and we just errantly presumed they did.
On July 25 2019 00:12 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
"More than now" is vague and a pretty low bar, and retiring with loads of cash and your freedom isn't what I would consider accountability or "making sure the president wasn't a lunatic". It's a shitty, way too low bar, but I'm pretty sure at this point most people would take a Nixon-style exit if they could get some sanity back into the WH. It'd be great to be able to wake up and not have the news be "The president just talked about how he could stop the war in Afghanistan by killing 10 million people".
What people would take wasn't what I was asking about? I was asking whether checks and balances did what people thought and it doesn't seem they ever have in the US.
The idea that if Obama was back in office (as if 3 terms was legal or something) or Clinton had won, or Biden wins (or Pence was president) things would be acceptable is part of why we have Trump in the first place imo.
|
United States43568 Posts
Obama addresses some of the complaints people have about Trump by not being offensively stupid all the time. Foreign leaders didn’t need to prepare visual aids specially for Obama. Obama never got into an argument with his military about whether North Korea was in the North Atlantic and therefore covered by NATO.
You can be nostalgic for the days when US leaders were capable of reading a briefing before attempting to talk about a subject without being nostalgic for the ideology of the last competent adult to lead the US. They’re separate issues.
|
On July 25 2019 00:36 KwarK wrote:
Obama addresses some of the complaints people have about Trump by not being offensively stupid all the time. Foreign leaders didn’t need to prepare visual aids specially for Obama. Obama never got into an argument with his military about whether North Korea was in the North Atlantic and therefore covered by NATO.
You can be nostalgic for the days when US leaders were capable of reading a briefing before attempting to talk about a subject without being nostalgic for the ideology of the last competent adult to lead the US. They’re separate issues.
To you? But I see a connection between people's comfort/ignorance/blind eye with Obama's concentration camps and Trump's ability to expand them.
|
Republican: Some of your people donated to Hillary!!11
Mueller: I hired people to do a job, and never in my 25 year career did i feel necessary to ask about peoples personal political thoughts it's not an issue.
|
isn’t it illegal to take into consideration one’s political leanings in hiring?
doing my own research shows federally no, varying results by state.
|
United States43568 Posts
On July 25 2019 01:02 brian wrote:
isn’t it illegal to take into consideration one’s political leanings in hiring?
doing my own research shows federally no, varying results by state.
This is America, there’s no Federal law against not hiring gays. Restricted classes are very limited.
|
yeah i had just been confused by my company’s hiring practices, in which of course i am restricted from asking anything that would help me discern their political leanings.
|
LIEU (D-CA): "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
This is the only thing that came from the hearing really. It conflicts with the combined statement of Barr/DoJ that he emphatically stated that this was not the case. I assume Mueller will walk it back someway though
|
On July 25 2019 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2019 00:12 Ben... wrote:On July 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
"More than now" is vague and a pretty low bar, and retiring with loads of cash and your freedom isn't what I would consider accountability or "making sure the president wasn't a lunatic". It's a shitty, way too low bar, but I'm pretty sure at this point most people would take a Nixon-style exit if they could get some sanity back into the WH. It'd be great to be able to wake up and not have the news be "The president just talked about how he could stop the war in Afghanistan by killing 10 million people". What people would take wasn't what I was asking about? I was asking whether checks and balances did what people thought and it doesn't seem they ever have in the US. The idea that if Obama was back in office (as if 3 terms was legal or something) or Clinton had won, or Biden wins (or Pence was president) things would be acceptable is part of why we have Trump in the first place imo. I wasn’t arguing with you, I was agreeing with your assessment. The system is obviously broken because it relies on people to act with principle, and it is clear that this cannot be relied upon, as has been shown time and again. Many politicians have chosen to instead focus on scoring points for their team rather than doing anything productive, and that extends to how Trump’s conduct has been handled.
All I was saying was at this point that the majority of people just want Trump gone, and they don’t care how. His conduct prevents any chance of productive change or discussion being done because most days are now consumed with putting out the various fires he starts.
|
I present to the thread for your viewing pleasure (in case you missed it), the Mueller hearing and public response.
Dem Speaker: Did Trump do bad things?
Mueller: Refer to the report
Dem Speaker: That means Trump’s a criminal!
Dem response: Yeah! Trump got pwned!
Repub response: Whatever, invalid because Mueller’s report is worthless.
Repub Speaker: Are there issues with the report?
Mueller: Can’t comment on it
Repub Speaker: That means report is worthless!
Repub response: Yeah! Mueller got pwned!
Dem response: Whatever, invalid because Trump is a criminal and they support him.
The End
Also GH, thanks for clarification. I definitely agree that the “nominal” purpose of the checks and balances system is not being met. Do you happen to have examples of cases in which the checks and balances system specifically aided in keeping non-oligarchs out of power (the “real” purpose of the system)?
|
United States43568 Posts
On July 25 2019 01:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +LIEU (D-CA): "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct. This is the only thing that came from the hearing really. It conflicts with the combined statement of Barr/DoJ that he emphatically stated that this was not the case. I assume Mueller will walk it back someway though
This has always been what the report said and what Mueller has said. That’s why Barr’s summary was so heinous. He summarized an impeachment referral into an exoneration.
|
On July 25 2019 01:20 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2019 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 25 2019 00:12 Ben... wrote:On July 24 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
"More than now" is vague and a pretty low bar, and retiring with loads of cash and your freedom isn't what I would consider accountability or "making sure the president wasn't a lunatic". It's a shitty, way too low bar, but I'm pretty sure at this point most people would take a Nixon-style exit if they could get some sanity back into the WH. It'd be great to be able to wake up and not have the news be "The president just talked about how he could stop the war in Afghanistan by killing 10 million people". What people would take wasn't what I was asking about? I was asking whether checks and balances did what people thought and it doesn't seem they ever have in the US. The idea that if Obama was back in office (as if 3 terms was legal or something) or Clinton had won, or Biden wins (or Pence was president) things would be acceptable is part of why we have Trump in the first place imo. I wasn’t arguing with you, I was agreeing with your assessment. The system is obviously broken because it relies on people to act with principle, and it is clear that this cannot be relied upon, as has been shown time and again. Many politicians have chosen to instead focus on scoring points for their team rather than doing anything productive, and that extends to how Trump’s conduct has been handled. All I was saying was at this point that the majority of people just want Trump gone, and they don’t care how. His conduct prevents any chance of productive change or discussion being done because most days are now consumed with putting out the various fires he starts.
My point is just that "not Trump" and "don't care how" is a big part of how we got to Trump and people got genuinely nostalgic for Bush (who lied us into a war that cost 100's of thousands of people's lives and trillions of dollars). Which Trump, despite his best efforts isn't really touching that (depending on how much credit you give him for conflicts he didn't start).
|
The Republicans did make good political use out of the fact that Mueller couldn't go beyond the boundaries of the public report. They could get angry and raise their voice and ask certain questions, and then mueller couldn't answer. It was pretty pointless for the democrats to call Mueller to testify.
|
On July 25 2019 01:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2019 01:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:LIEU (D-CA): "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct. This is the only thing that came from the hearing really. It conflicts with the combined statement of Barr/DoJ that he emphatically stated that this was not the case. I assume Mueller will walk it back someway though This has always been what the report said and what Mueller has said. That’s why Barr’s summary was so heinous. He summarized an impeachment referral into an exoneration.
I mean that's how I'd read the report too but there is the problem of Barr saying that Mueller said:
AG Barr on May 1: "Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction
and there is the join statement:
The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.
So his answer to Lieu here is interesting in that regard that it differs from what Barr testified that Mueller said and which the joint statement kind of confirmed by not denying it.
|
On July 25 2019 02:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2019 01:42 KwarK wrote:On July 25 2019 01:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:LIEU (D-CA): "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct. This is the only thing that came from the hearing really. It conflicts with the combined statement of Barr/DoJ that he emphatically stated that this was not the case. I assume Mueller will walk it back someway though This has always been what the report said and what Mueller has said. That’s why Barr’s summary was so heinous. He summarized an impeachment referral into an exoneration. I mean that's how I'd read the report too but there is the problem of Barr saying that Mueller said: Show nested quote +
AG Barr on May 1: "Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction
and there is the join statement: Show nested quote +The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements. So his answer to Lieu here is interesting in that regard that it differs from what Barr testified that Mueller said and which the joint statement kind of confirmed by not denying it.
One issue I've noticed is a conflation of legal concepts and colloquial understandings. Legally (and in line with the guidelines he cites) Mueller can't opine on what he would do were it not for the OLC guideline, it would be unconstitutional in his own opinion if I'm understanding correctly.
Also GH, thanks for clarification. I definitely agree that the “nominal” purpose of the checks and balances system is not being met. Do you happen to have examples of cases in which the checks and balances system specifically aided in keeping non-oligarchs out of power (the “real” purpose of the system)?
EDIT: I mean it's aided in keeping Trump in power? Which is also what I would put under it's "real" purpose.
I would say it serves to organize and formalize the concentration of power rather than prevent it from being co-opted by a single interest group. It only works imo if the groups have mutually exclusive interests (so that you can't please them all with the same plan/action). It's abundantly clear to me that the US has always been run by affluent white men, even when Obama was president. They don't have all identical interests, but they all have the common material interest of maintaining their position of power. That means a false sense of accountability for politicians among the electorate serves them all.
|
Didn't watch this but apparently he walked it back as expected
|
Yeah, he walked it back first thing in his second hearing
|
Is "pass" typically an acceptable answer in this kinda thing? Gonzales at least had to keep repeating that he couldn't remember.
"If it's in the report I support it" further indicates to me Mueller was in more of a managerial position than an investigative one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
