dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I support Graham (and his 'questions') even less. If one party is misusing the system, the solution is not to have the other party misuse it, too.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Mueller Investigation pt 6
- Thread starter dasmiller
- Start date
- Status
I support Graham (and his 'questions') even less. If one party is misusing the system, the solution is not to have the other party misuse it, too.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,806
yes it is.
Because what a Democracy needs is balance. And if only one side plays by the rules, that side loses if there is no independent referee.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I obviously don't subscribe to that view, but by this point we (okay, it's mostly me) are wandering from the thread topic.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
[citation needed]
Belz...
Fiend God
Who's trying to reverse the 2016 election results?
The parties aren't "sides." They are arbitrary clustering of ideologies not intended parts of the system.
Balance needs to be maintained between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches not between two rival clubhouses.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
...no?
Even if Trump is impeached, Clinton would not be ome POTUS. No one is tryong to reverse anything.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,806
agreed.
But in practice, the balance between the Executive and Legislature is usually between the two parties after the Midterms.
The starkest example of one side breaking the rules is of course McConnell not having a hearing about Garland.
Given how important the Supreme Court is, the Dems should absolutely do the same, given a similar situation. If they play by the rules, they will never manage to bring the SC back into balance.
I don't think the Democrats are trying to "overturn" the 2016 election in any real sense of the term.
I do think they are relaying too much on legal challenges to specific things to serve as some big either litmus test or "Canary in the Coalmine" test for the Trump Presidency in general.
I don't disagree on any particular point you are making, especially in regards to SCOTUS is, as of this moment, the only Trump has done that can not pretty much be immediately undone with the stroke of a pen by the next President.
That's the problem with being such a blustering, "Because I say so," "I'm too good to work within the system" type of leader, it doesn't leave anyway to maintain what you did once you leave the system. Right now the only thing sustaining anything Trump wants is... Trump. To use a rather lowhanded metaphor Trump's administration is a cult, not a religion. It's more dangerous while it is a thing, but it won't survive for long after the head is cut of. Unlike other political movement I don't see "Trumpism" being self sustaining beyond Trump. I could very well be wrong though.
I was just speaking to the suggestions I keep hearing that "the system" needs some sort of official way to "balance" the Democrats and Republicans which is very, very bad way of looking things in my opinion.
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Just to correct one item in your posting ...
Trump has been the only one who has tried to reverse the 2016 election by repeatedly saying that 'I [Trump] would have won the popular vote (which Trump actually lost) if it were not for the 3 to 5 million illegal votes that were cast for Clinton (who actually won the popular vote).
Interesting opinion piece in the NY Times
Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report
by Neal K. Katyal who apparently drafted the special counsel regulations.
Why Barr Can’t Whitewash the Mueller Report
by Neal K. Katyal who apparently drafted the special counsel regulations.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,661
False equivalence
Interesting update (I don't know whether this fits better in this thread or over the general Trump thread, move if necessary) but Barr has no-showed the House Hearing and the House Judiciary Committee is considering holding him in Contempt.
Belz...
Fiend God
And here's the problem: the Trump clique can cock-block the Democrats until the cows come home. The US political system simply has no recourse for a total stonewall by a President of the same party of the Senate (mainly because originally the Senate was not elected).
Oh I agree. I mean they might very well charge him with Contempt but that will have all the effect of giving him the Evil Eye.
It's obviously true that both parties will try to use investigations / hearings for political gain. This causes me the same level of surprise as when I contemplate death and taxes.
Knowing this, does it make one iota of sense for investigations and hearings to be hand-waved away on this basis alone? Of course not. The facts are what matters, and the Trump facts are more damning than anything I've seen in my life, Watergate included.
This is why drewbot's comments are vacuous.
The idea that it's possible for one party to be monumentally better then the other and still dirty enough to warrant criticism really just breaks some people's brain for some reason.
We are not limited to gushing over the absolute purity of one side while demonizing the other or "All sides are teh same" false equivalency.
We are not limited to gushing over the absolute purity of one side while demonizing the other or "All sides are teh same" false equivalency.
Nancy Pelosi sounds like she's getting ready to begin impeachment proceedings against Barr.
Cabbage
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,598
I respectfully disagree: You don't like it, I don't like it, but it's quite evident that a large portion of the general population; even those in elected positions, have entrenched themselves into two sides. I don't recommend denying it simply because you think it shouldn't be that way. "Not intended" does not imply "Does not exist".
- Status