|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
marc9000 writes: Garland has never been on the Supreme Court, so we can't reference any SCOTUS decisions of his. But we can reference his decisions and philosophies in other positions he's held. Why can't we do the same for Kavanaugh who is replacing a liberal judge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Percy writes: Seems like a good list, but of course they'll have to work with the Senate and Trump will have to sign it. It will be interesting to see if the Senate and/or Trump will stand against bills that protect people with pre-existing conditions. If they do, it will be used against them in 2020. I live in a deep Red state where Republicans won every state-wide race and both House seats. However, the proposition to extend Medicare to more people (aka Obamacare) passed 60-40, even in a very deep red state. We will see if Republicans can find their way in this new reality where people actually prefer Democratic policies when it comes to health care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Diomedes writes: Well that didn't take long. Who's next? Rosenstein, presumably. Since they don't have a third in charge right now the line of succession would then go to the number 4 person in the DoJ which is Solicitor General Noel Francisco. It just so happens that Francisco was the lawyer for the Trump campaign before being appointed. To prevent Francisco from recusing himself they have already issued an executive order for an ethics waiver back in April. They have been planning this for a while. IOW, Trump already has plans of putting his own lawyer in charge of the investigation into his own wrongdoings. It's as if he is going out of his way to create new articles of impeachment against himself. Read more here:Next-in-line Mueller supervisor got White House ethics waiver in April - POLITICO Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
LamarkNewAge writes: I dont know too much about these jokers the Democrats just elected (they got 2 seats in southern Florida from what would have been pro immigration Republican areas), but we shall see if they genuinely believe in the rights of "others". I remain skeptical. Pelosi has stated quite clearly that protecting DACA recipients is high on the priority list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
caffeine writes: If you had some kind of runoff voting system then there's no need for open primaries. The only reason you have this strange primary system in the US is because your system favours everyone deciding to get behind one of two candidates. Change the system to one without this bias and the Republican and Democratic parties would be free to fracture into parties representing the half a dozen or so ideologies they currently subsume.
That wouldn't work. If one party fields 5 candidates while the other party fields 1 candidate then the party with 1 candidate will have a much better chance of winning. If you take the top 2 candidates and then a run off you can have a situation where 2 candidates from the same party are running which favors running just 2 candidates in the initial election. If you take the top vote getters in each party and then have them go head to head you have the primary system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
caffeine writes: I am unsure why you think an individual candidate from one party would have an advantage over five of the other (where I'm assuming by 'party' you actually mean some broad left and right blocs). The one party candidate could not win on a plurality; they could only win if most of the electorate voted for them. If the majority of the electorate prefers the one Republican to any of the five Democrats, why would one Democrat fare better? The US Constitution grants the presidency to the winner of the Electoral College. The winner does not require a majority, only a plurality. Therefore, you could have a situation where a single conservative candidate could get 20% of the Electoral College and beat out left leaning candidates who get 16% of the vote each. It comes down to Game Theory. In the infamous bar room scene in "A Beautiful Mind", Nash explains how if they all go after the same girl they will all lose out. However, they can ban together and help one person get the girl. The same happens in politics. If you compete with each other for the same electorate then you will all lose. However, if you ban together and field one candidate then you can get all of the votes that agree with that platform. This is why there are two major political parties in the US. It would take a serious overhaul of the US Constitution to change anything. People are very reticent to change the US Constitution so they have devised strategies to work within the US Constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Percy writes:
From today's Washington Post: Trump on climate change: ‘People like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers.’
Intelligent people throughout history have denied reality. Being intelligent is not a guarantee of infallibility. It would be interesting if Trump were asked about the science of the greenhouse effect, adiabatic cooling, IR absorption, blackbody radiation, and the rest. I think he would quickly be shown to be a blubbering fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Percy writes: The Republicans who have been in control of Congress the past two years are complicit in all this malfeasance. If politicians had any shame then Republicans would be ashamed, but shame isn't in the politician's repartoir, from any party. Instead they will try to minimize the damage to their political careers. You only have to ask yourself one question. What would Republicans be doing right now if Obama or Clinton had done 1/10th of what Trump has done? Look at what little it took for Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
AZPaul3 writes: I think the most important reason Trump continues to work for the Russians is because Putin has the pee video.
It's much simpler than that. Trump doesn't want anyone to question the legitimacy of his electoral victory. That's what Russia has over him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Even more about Cohen's work . . .
Trump instructed Cohen to lie about the Trump Tower deal in Russia. On top of that, Trump as well as Trump Jr. and Ivanka were much more involved in the deal than they have claimed, including in Trump Jr.'s testimony to Congress. Donald Trump Told Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About Moscow Tower Project
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
AZPaul3 writes: The next election will come and go before anything useful, like impeachment and conviction, result from any of this.Maybe pull a Nixon? Resign under pressure from major republicans with the understanding of a full pardon from ... ech, gag ... President Pence? He could also pull an LBJ and refuse to run for a 2nd term, or lose in the Republican primary. The best solution for Democrats is make a lot of noise about impeachment, carry out investigations, and then ultimately stop short of impeachment hearings using the excuse that they don't have enough votes in the Senate. Impeachment hearings would drag the Dems into the pig sty with Trump. I also have the same feelings of revulsion towards Pence. It's like choosing between a snake oil salesman and a corrupt televangelist. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Percy writes: PS - The bookkeeper in me notices that that McConnell's name contains three double letters. I wonder if there's any word that has three consecutive double letters. You should form a committee and find out . . . Oh, wait. [they aren't consecutive, but close]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Most presidents would take the most recent news and ride the wave for a while. Not Trump.
Trump Administration Says Entire Affordable Care Act Should Be Repealed The Trump administration, straight off the heels of a positive Mueller report, are doing their best to sabotage the Republican party and their chances in the 2020 election. Even other Republicans are shaking their heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Percy writes: In other words, Sarah Sanders lied to reporters, and knew she was lying to reporters, on two occasions when she stated that Comey had lost the confidence of rank-and-file FBI members.Sarah Sanders next appearance before reporters should be an interesting one. I don't think she cares. Sanders has been performing for an audience of 1 her entire career at the White House.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Diomedes writes: My concern is still the political fallout. Which is why I am wearing two hats here. One is looking at the evidence resulting from the Mueller investigation and determining the legal ramifications. And the other is trying to gauge the political ramifications and fallout from investigative or potential impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached over lying about having sex in the White House, and possibly taking steps to cover it up. In a strict legal sense, Republicans had grounds for impeachment proceedings. However, the politics didn't work out for them. They lacked the votes in the Senate to kick Clinton out of office, and it did look like a witch hunt. Democrats should keep this piece of history in mind. The one difference is that Clinton was actually an effective and sane president.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024