The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

[The Atheist]

For the whistleblower....

...it can't be that important to them if it wasn't worth pulling a Snowden.

I agree with this - the constant litany of sources without identification is wearing a bit thin.

And the other variable: at what point willl President Trump make a thinly veiled request that citizens turn violent to protect him? It is pretty clear he is not beyond doing that if he thinks things have reached a drastic point.

When he loses the election and claims fraud of 10,000,000 votes for Liz Warren.

As Captain Peacock once said of Mr Rumbold: "If one were drowning he'd be the first to extend an electric cow prod."

Greatest reference ever. Long time since I've seen an AYBS analogy.

Brilliantly played.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This little clip: Rudy has some proof** but Cuomo can't see it because Cuomo can't indict Obama and Biden.

Cuomo presses Giuliani on Ukraine: Give me the proof

President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani told CNN's Chris Cuomo he had "no idea" whether Trump talked with the Ukrainian president about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former Vice President Joe Biden.

So why hasn't the DoJ done so, it's not like tRump wouldn't have Barr do his bidding in a NY minute.

**Proof sounds like it's about as good as tRump telling us Putin said so and he was "strong" therefor tRump believes him. It's supposedly two Ukrainians swearing they were in Obama's office and they were asked to get dirt on tRump.

There's another issue being revived here: tRump's pathological projection that Obama was spying on him.

 

[Paul2]

I know that some Dems will want the presidential nominee to run on health care, the economy, etc., but some Dem unit - the DNC, whatever - needs to be solely focused on one message, and one message only, so it has a chance of sinking in:

The continual flaunting of the law by the administration has been facilitated by Republicans in Congress not holding the President accountable. This is a serious threat to our democracy and must be repudiated by voting against Republicans.

Or something like that. This would be targeted at those voters who are not already dug in.

 

[dudalb]

Not really. Benedict Arnold was if nothing else an excellent military commander who won a lot of battles. I'm not aware of any field in which Trump has demonstrated excellence.

True, but both sold out their country for personal gain. That is what Benedict Arnold is remembered for.

 

[chrispy]

I found it amazing that CNN considered it so valuable to show that they didn't have a commercial break for almost 30 minutes. It was almost a refreshing break from all the drug and insurance ads.

Huh. Y'know, I was so entranced that I didn't even notice that!! Good spot!

 

[dudalb]

I don't really buy that a system that fails to account for someone gaining power and then not following the rules is a good system. Rule of law is based on enforcement of said laws. If nobody can enforce law, it doesn't exist. I simplified the problem with the US system before. The problem runs much deeper and has to do with political appointments and a mixing of the three branches of government that are supposed to be separate.

Problem is no system is better then the people who are running it.
And what are your concrete proposols for separation of powers?
Or maybe your real quarrel with the US Constitution is it puts limitations on the power of Government....and as someone on the hard left you don't like that.

 

[varwoche]

@dudalb -- re your rule of law comment in the whistle-blower thread...

In the lawsuit where the state of NY is trying to get Trump's tax returns, Trump attorneys have argued that not only is it impermissible to prosecute Trump. It's impermissible to investigate him. In the unlikely(?) event that stands, yeah, I see rule of law as mortally wounded if not dead.

Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated

 

[dudalb]

@dudalb -- re your rule of law comment in the whistle-blower thread...

In the lawsuit where the state of NY is trying to get Trump's tax returns, Trump attorneys have argued that not only is it impermissible to prosecute Trump. It's impermissible to investigate him. In the unlikely(?) event that stands, yeah, I see rule of law as mortally wounded if not dead.

Trump Lawyers Argue He Cannot Be Criminally Investigated

We will no longer have President, but a king.
I know I will get a lot of flak for this, but if that happens it's time to start preparing for "The Appeal To Arms";it's last resort time, folks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
Our history is filled with the stories of courageous men and women who went beyond the call of duty to protect and defend.
Today. we honor those who were Prisoners of War and those Missing in Action.
You are not forgotten.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Like John McCain?

 

[Resume]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
Our history is filled with the stories of courageous men and women who went beyond the call of duty to protect and defend.
Today. we honor those who were Prisoners of War and those Missing in Action.
You are not forgotten.

Except that one guy. Commander Bonespurs is a real piece of ****.

 

[Venom]

Not really. Benedict Arnold was if nothing else an excellent military commander who won a lot of battles. I'm not aware of any field in which Trump has demonstrated excellence.

The art of the deal.

 

[uke2se]

And what are your concrete proposols for separation of powers?

I actually do have quite a few.

1. Judges should not be politically appointed. They should be hired by committees of their peers. They should also not be appointed for life. Being a judge should be just another (high paying and important) job. [ETA] Oh, and there should be a special agency of prosecutors that deal with judges, other prosecutors and police officers.
2. The heads of government agencies should not be politically appointed. The jobs should be applied for directly, in an open hiring process, and it should be the job of Congress to do the hiring.
3. The President should be a head of state, responsible for ceremonies and diplomacy. The nitty gritty should be done by a government of ministers in an open system that requires input from government agencies and public institutions for proposing laws.
4. The political parties should appoint their leader and present their proposal for a government, and then that's voted for in an election.

And while I'm on a roll:

5. You should have one (1) national police force with a standardized training regimen and with hard requirements, physical and mental, and a test to make sure applicants are suitable for work in a Democratic and multicultural nation.

 

[dudalb]

The art of the deal.

Like West Point for 10'000 pounds and a bridigier General's commission in the British Army?

And Arnold was like Donnie in another way:He did not give a damn about the people under him. Ask poor Major Andre about that....

 

[dudalb]

I actually do have quite a few.

1. Judges should not be politically appointed. They should be hired by committees of their peers. They should also not be appointed for life. Being a judge should be just another (high paying and important) job. [ETA] Oh, and there should be a special agency of prosecutors that deal with judges, other prosecutors and police officers.
2. The heads of government agencies should not be politically appointed. The jobs should be applied for directly, in an open hiring process, and it should be the job of Congress to do the hiring.
3. The President should be a head of state, responsible for ceremonies and diplomacy. The nitty gritty should be done by a government of ministers in an open system that requires input from government agencies and public institutions for proposing laws.
4. The political parties should appoint their leader and present their proposal for a government, and then that's voted for in an election.

And while I'm on a roll:

5. You should have one (1) national police force with a standardized training regimen and with hard requirements, physical and mental, and a test to make sure applicants are suitable for work in a Democratic and multicultural nation.

So with 5 you want an all powerful federal government, with state and local governments being reduced to an adminstrivie convience to the federal government. Which is what law enforcement totally controlled by a central government would amount to.Count me 100% opposed to that idea. When it comes to local law enforcement I strongly support the idea that the government closest to the people...local government ...should be in charge. It does not work perfectly, but compared to the monster a centrally controlled law enforcement could be....
And funny, you want to restore checks and balances by throwing them out and creating an all powerful parlaiament and a judiciary that basically is controlled by bureaucrats, with elected represnetives having no say in it. Count me out for that one.
Not surprised. People on the hard left love the ldea of an all powerful central government so they can force their ideas on the people, whether the people want it or not. Classic Marxist Model.

 

[uke2se]

So with 5 you want an all powerful federal government, with state and local governments being reduced to an adminstrivie convience to the federal government. Count me 100% opposed to that idea.
And funny, you want to restore checks and balances by throwing them out and creating an all powerful parlaiament and a judiciary that basically is controlled by bureaucrats, with elected represnetives having no say in it. Count me out for that one.
Not surprised. People on the hard left love the ldea of an all powerful central government so they can force their ideas on the people, whether the people want it or not. Classic Marxist Model.

I don't know how you read my post, but it certainly wasn't the right way.

A national police force doesn't make the federal government all powerful, there's nothing about throwing out checks and balances (which, as Trump has shown, don't work anyway), but rather about building actual checks and balances, and there's no all powerful parliament.

1/10, try harder.

Well, 2/10 because you did manage the effort to insult my political views while completely failing to understand any of my points.

 

[Ryokan]

Or maybe your real quarrel with the US Constitution is it puts limitations on the power of Government....and as someone on the hard left you don't like that.

Limitations on the power of government? Man, your president has powers our monarchs had before we neutered them.

The executive branch being able to break laws at will without being stopped isn't having limits put on them. That's no limits put on government at all.

 

[uke2se]

Limitations on the power of government? Man, your president has powers our monarchs had before we neutered them.

The executive branch being able to break laws at will without being stopped isn't having limits put on them. That's no limits put on government at all.

It set him up for a zinger when he dismissed my next post out of hand, tho. Maybe we just don't understand his enlightened centrist super-wit?

 

[Ryokan]

Not surprised. People on the hard left love the ldea of an all powerful central government so they can force their ideas on the people, whether the people want it or not. Classic Marxist Model.

I think you'll find that the classic marxist model is the head of state who is not accountable to the law.

 

[dudalb]

I think you'll find that the classic marxist model is the head of state who is not accountable to the law.

Sorry, just not convinced the European Parliament is all powerful model would work in the US.
And that is what you advocate:Making Congress much more powerful then the other branches of Government.
I want to see the balance restored. I suggest one reason the balance is out of balance in the US is that Congress has not done it's job and had ceded to much power to the President. I suggest the answer is to put people in congress who will restore the balance, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
And it has worked pretty well for 200 years;let's see what happens before throwing out the Constitution.
The US is not a European country, and what works there would probably not work here. It is just too big.