Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

JoeMorgue said:
Because every check and balance that was put into the setup of the Federal government the assumption that assumption of some level of sanity. It's how we got through 45 Presidents from all across the political spectrum wielding the power without a problem.
Click to expand...

Without a problem?

How historically ignorant are you?
 
Ziggurat said:
Without a problem?

How historically ignorant are you?
Click to expand...

Please explain it to me the other times a President have done things specifically because Congress wouldn't give them money.

Then we can judge how historically ignorant you are.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Please explain it to me the other times a President have done things specifically because Congress wouldn't give them money.

Then we can judge how historically ignorant you are.
Click to expand...

You were speaking about checks and balances and presidential powers in general. Artificially limiting consideration to this narrow and arbitrary category won't change the fact that past presidents have done far worse than what you're complaining about Trump doing.
 
Can we leave Richard Nixon out of this? ;)

By the way, a new Quinnipiac poll was released today [Mar 5]-
Congress should do more to investigate "Michael Cohen's claims about President Trump's unethical and illegal behavior," voters say 58 - 35 percent. American voters believe Cohen more than Trump 50 - 35 percent. Cohen told the truth, 44 percent of voters say, while 36 percent say he did not tell the truth. Link
Click to expand...

Oh darn.
 
cmikes said:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

ETA: I'm not claiming that Adams was right, merely supporting your point that that was his view of presidential powers.
Click to expand...

Yea and then Adams went forward and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
 
acbytesla said:
Yea and then Adams went forward and signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Click to expand...


Exactly. There's never been a perfect president for the simple reason that there's never been a perfect human. Which was the whole point of limiting the government's power in the first place.

For a good portion of US history, the identity of the president didn't matter a whit to the average person's life, unless they joined the military or worked for the post office or something. The local government or, at the most, the state government was much more important to someone's day to day life, and even that didn't come into play as much as it does now.

The problem is in the National Emergencies Act itself, not that any particular president is exercising the act's power.
 
cmikes said:
Exactly. There's never been a perfect president for the simple reason that there's never been a perfect human. Which was the whole point of limiting the government's power in the first place.

For a good portion of US history, the identity of the president didn't matter a whit to the average person's life, unless they joined the military or worked for the post office or something. The local government or, at the most, the state government was much more important to someone's day to day life, and even that didn't come into play as much as it does now.

The problem is in the National Emergencies Act itself, not that any particular president is exercising the act's power.
Click to expand...

They did a bad job. The US has some serious lack of functional rule of law.
 
cmikes said:
Exactly. There's never been a perfect president for the simple reason that there's never been a perfect human. Which was the whole point of limiting the government's power in the first place.

For a good portion of US history, the identity of the president didn't matter a whit to the average person's life, unless they joined the military or worked for the post office or something. The local government or, at the most, the state government was much more important to someone's day to day life, and even that didn't come into play as much as it does now.

The problem is in the National Emergencies Act itself, not that any particular president is exercising the act's power.
Click to expand...

Wow! I was with you right up until the second paragraph. And the National Emergencies Act wouldn't be the problem with the average President. It was intended for emergencies and we could pretty much trust most past Presidents not to abuse it to this degree.

For (small r) republican principles to work the people and particularly our leaders have to respect those principles above their petty policy interests. Trump seems to have zero respect for those principles and has been whittling away at his party's and the people's respect for those principles.

I have a great respect for John Adams. He was a great President who absolutely cherished those principles, but Adams was flawed. If you get a chance, read David McCullough's biography about Adams. It's a fantastic read.
 
acbytesla said:
Wow! I was with you right up until the second paragraph. And the National Emergencies Act wouldn't be the problem with the average President. It was intended for emergencies and we could pretty much trust most past Presidents not to abuse it to this degree.

For (small r) republican principles to work the people and particularly our leaders have to respect those principles above their petty policy interests. Trump seems to have zero respect for those principles and has been whittling away at his party's and the people's respect for those principles.

I have a great respect for John Adams. He was a great President who absolutely cherished those principles, but Adams was flawed. If you get a chance, read David McCullough's biography about Adams. It's a fantastic read.
Click to expand...

100% this

Those who wrote the Constitution, and the Laws of the country, expected that anyone who rose to the presidency would be a trustworthy, fit and proper person to do so; someone who could be counted on to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States of America. They could not conceive of the possibility that the American people could ever be collectively stupid enough to elect a criminally self-interested, untrustworthy, narcissistic, pathological liar, such as Trump, to the White House.

Americans need to be building a list of things that must be changed in future, now that they understand that a person elected president is no longer guaranteed not to try to usurp the government and take power beyond their mandate.

The way you choose judges
The National Emergency Act
The President's power of veto
The Granting of Presidential Pardons

All these things, and others, need to change to put the control back into the hands of the Senate and The House of Representatives, where it belongs.
 
Or perhaps they could look into how someone qualifies to be a presidential candidate. Without wanting to bar any US citizens from the opportunity to attain the office, of course.

Perhaps if there was a list of resume prerequisites, a qualifying examination, a sanity test and a business interests disclosure. Make the results officially public at the time candidate applications close. So at least the voters will know just how (un)qualified the people are who they are voting for.

It's a fairly common principle: You don't let randoms be truck drivers without training, testing and a license. You don't let randoms be surgeons without years of training and qualifications. So you should not let randoms be your head of state without suitable experience and qualifications. It's a pretty important job! :)
 
Norman Alexander said:
Or perhaps they could look into how someone qualifies to be a presidential candidate. Without wanting to bar any US citizens from the opportunity to attain the office, of course.

Perhaps if there was a list of resume prerequisites, a qualifying examination, a sanity test and a business interests disclosure. Make the results officially public at the time candidate applications close. So at least the voters will know just how (un)qualified the people are who they are voting for.

It's a fairly common principle: You don't let randoms be truck drivers without training, testing and a license. You don't let randoms be surgeons without years of training and qualifications. So you should not let randoms be your head of state without suitable experience and qualifications. It's a pretty important job! :)
Click to expand...


I would further argue that this kind of qualification test ought to be applied to anyone trying for election to a seat on the Senate or Congress, or Governorship of a State or in any State Legislature.
 
smartcooky said:
100% this

Those who wrote the Constitution, and the Laws of the country, expected that anyone who rose to the presidency would be a trustworthy, fit and proper person to do so; someone who could be counted on to uphold the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the United States of America. They could not conceive of the possibility that the American people could ever be collectively stupid enough to elect a criminally self-interested, untrustworthy, narcissistic, pathological liar, such as Trump, to the White House.

Americans need to be building a list of things that must be changed in future, now that they understand that a person elected president is no longer guaranteed not to try to usurp the government and take power beyond their mandate.

The way you choose judges
The National Emergency Act
The President's power of veto
The Granting of Presidential Pardons

All these things, and others, need to change to put the control back into the hands of the Senate and The House of Representatives, where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I have no problem providing the President with the ability to declare emergencies, but Congress should have the ability to veto such a decision with say a 40 percent minority vote as the act was not intended for POTUS to sidestep the authority entrusted to Congress to authorize spending.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
All these things, and others, need to change to put the control back into the hands of the Senate and The House of Representatives, where it belongs.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that would help. The Senate and House already have checks and balances on the Executive branch. Until recently they were not used, and even now are set in motion only by the Democrats in the House. This isn't just a case of a wanker getting into office, but of another entire branch of government being actively complicit in keeping him there, and working toward corrupting the third. What defense could there possibly be when the people you trust with guarding against a tyrant seizing the reins decide they're cool with him doing it?
 
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2603

The Highlights...


YES 64% - 24% NO (President Donald Trump committed crimes before he became president?)

YES 58% - 35% NO (Congress should do more to investigate "Michael Cohen's claims about President Trump's unethical and illegal behavior?)

YES 50% - 35% NO (American voters believe Cohen more than Trump)

YES 65% - 30% NO (Trump is dishonest)

YES 58% - 39% NO (Trump has poor leadership skills)

YES 58% - 39% NO (Trump does not care about average Americans)

YES 71% - 22% NO (Trump is a poor role model for children)
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks so much!

This has to be the best pro-Trump posting that I have ever seen.

This posting goes to show that while nearly all of the pro-Trump people know full well what a POS Trump actually is. However, in spite of their recognition of such an obvious fact, at the same time they are able to completely delude themselves in believing that everyone else is so much worse than Trump.

Therefore, they are much better off with Trump than without Trump because Trump is better than everyone else.

In short, Hillary Clinton was right all along: many of the Trump supporters are deplorable.
Click to expand...


To be fair to Hillary, she never said "many".

It is true that subsequent events seem to establish that to be the case, though.

Possibly (probably?) even "most".
 
JoeMorgue said:
Pointing out hypocrisy is fine within reason. Feet to the fire I think it's waaaaaaay over emphasized and manifests... badly in a lot of internet discussions, but that's a personal gripe.

It's the "You have to be perfect before you can say I did anything wrong" thing that bugs me. That's nonsense. Perfect hell I don't even have to be better than (g)you before I judge you. If I'm beating orphans to death with a bunch of kittens wrapped in a burning American flag and I point out that your safety isn't on... your safety doesn't magically go on when you point out I'm being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You probably wouldn't be able to get away with that. Politically, that is.

OTOH, Trump probably could without so much as a wiggle in his core support.
 
smartcooky said:
The way you choose judges
The National Emergency Act
The President's power of veto
The Granting of Presidential Pardons

All these things, and others, need to change to put the control back into the hands of the Senate and The House of Representatives, where it belongs.
Click to expand...

Or even better, in the hand of a Monarch!

The Constitution has held up pretty well for 230 years, I am certain that it does not need input from a minor colony of Australia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom