• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2018 mid-term election

jimbob said:
I am sure that the GOP in both Congress and the Senate personally detest him - he is so unlikable that the more people know him, the more they dislike him.

However, how does that help if in that time he's undermined the checks and balances so that the GOP can install a competent demagogue to finish the job?
Click to expand...

I'm unable to imagine a plausible mechanism by which the president could undermine the checks and balances of the American system of government - let alone maneuver the country into a position where a party could "install" future presidents.
 
Belz... said:
That's what Hindenburg said.
Click to expand...

I suspect that President Hindenburg was too busy dealing with problems in his own country, to give much thought to the plausibility of failure modes in the US system of government.

It would, however, be amusing if he happened to agree with me. Do you happen to have a cite handy?
 
theprestige said:
I'm unable to imagine a plausible mechanism by which the president could undermine the checks and balances of the American system of government - let alone maneuver the country into a position where a party could "install" future presidents.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear how that could happen. Already Trump is engaged in behavior that a dutiful legislative branch would take action to curtail. Checks and balances only work if the various branches are interested in exerting their constitutional authority.

On the emoluments clause, it seems pretty clear that Trump is personally enriching himself via the presidency in direct violation. The Republican legislature has no interest in performing their constitutional duty to stop this.
 
The problem was when designing this country nobody thought "Checks and balances exist but nobody is bothering to use them" was going to be a problem we were gonna wind up having.
 
Belz... said:
That's what Hindenburg said.
Click to expand...

Quibble:Hindenburg had little to do with choosing Hitler as chancellor.He pretty much did what his cabinent said. It was the political bosses in his cabinent who made that disasterous decision. Van Papen seems to have been the real brain behing that decision. He thought that Hitler would either be controllable (His famous "But we have bought him" ) comment or Hitler would make such a mess of things that he would collapse and destroy himself and the "repspectable " right could take over, their main opposition on the right being destroyed. Did not turn out that way.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think it's pretty clear how that could happen. Already Trump is engaged in behavior that a dutiful legislative branch would take action to curtail. Checks and balances only work if the various branches are interested in exerting their constitutional authority.

On the emoluments clause, it seems pretty clear that Trump is personally enriching himself via the presidency in direct violation. The Republican legislature has no interest in performing their constitutional duty to stop this.
Click to expand...

If you have a corrupt electorial system where the opposition has no real chance of winning no matter how many votes they get you are 90% of the way there.
Why do I suspect that for some people here an authoritarian one party system would be fine as long as it was their party in charge?
 
dudalb said:
If you have a corrupt electorial system where the opposition has no real chance of winning no matter how many votes they get you are 90% of the way there.
Why do I suspect that for some people here an authoritarian one party system would be fine as long as it was their party in charge?
Click to expand...

That's the obvious inference to draw from the highlighted part below - but I presume that isn't what is meant.

theprestige said:
I think this is an interesting take on the issue. I hope that you and I can continue to develop these ideas in this and other threads.

I think that probably the worst possible president would be a competent and unifying demagogue who had the full support of the legislature. That would be a president and a government that could do anything without anyone stopping them.

One advantage to the two-party system is that it makes it very hard for a demagogue to be truly unifying. There's always going to be as substantial out-group that will dissent from his message and work to obstruct his policies.

And that's one reason I think that a terrible president isn't an existential crisis for the US. Trump is a demagogue, but he's also incompetent and divisive. And while the GOP knows what side its bread is buttered on, Republicans in Congress don't actually have a lot of love for Donald Trump. He can nominate conservative judges, and he can sign whatever bills the legislature happens to pass, but I'm pretty sure the GOP establishment would love to replace him with one of their own as soon as they can.
Click to expand...
 
dudalb said:
If you have a corrupt electorial system where the opposition has no real chance of winning no matter how many votes they get you are 90% of the way there.
Why do I suspect that for some people here an authoritarian one party system would be fine as long as it was their party in charge?
Click to expand...

Confession. I am legit scared how any people would honestly vote for some variation on a law, amendment, process, procedure, or whatnot that basically was just "My side has more power than the other side" with window dressing.
 
theprestige said:
I'm unable to imagine a plausible mechanism by which the president could undermine the checks and balances of the American system of government - let alone maneuver the country into a position where a party could "install" future presidents.
Click to expand...
You have a supreme court that his heavily oriented towards the conservatives. They even managed to get Drunky McRapeface approved for the supreme court, and he is a man who made absolutely no attempt to hide his bias during the confirmation hearings.

Laws are complex things, with lots of vague phrasing and sometimes contradictory sections and precedents. Two different legal experts (judges) can look at the same case and come up with completely different conclusions based on their own preconceived biases, citing some small word or phrase in some law. Remember, in the "land of Freedom", the U.S. managed to lock up thousands of people with Japanese backgrounds.

In order to become a one-party state, you only need a supreme court that is willing to approve ever more stringent voter suppression (ID laws, etc.) and gerrymandering, along with targeting of the opposition (with increasingly trumped up charges). With that the republicans become more entrenched, which allows them to appoint even more judges to support their right-wing agenda.

You can launch all the legal challenges you want at various Republican legal abuses. But if the case gets to the supreme court, and Justice Drunky McRapeface says "Nope, the law that says only white people can vote is legal because that's the way it was in the good old days" then there is no further recourse.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Confession. I am legit scared how any people would honestly vote for some variation on a law, amendment, process, procedure, or whatnot that basically was just "My side has more power than the other side" with window dressing.
Click to expand...

I disagreed with a lot of Tony Benn's politics but this is pretty succinct

https://www.thenation.com/article/tony-benn-and-five-essential-questions-democracy/
”—he reminded me of his belief that those in positions of economic, social and political power should always be asked five questions:

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”
Click to expand...

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system,” Benn explained.

“Only democracy gives us that right. That is why no one with power likes democracy,” he would continue. “And that is why every generation must struggle to win it and keep it—including you and me, here and now”
Click to expand...
 
dudalb said:
If you have a corrupt electorial system where the opposition has no real chance of winning no matter how many votes they get you are 90% of the way there.
Why do I suspect that for some people here an authoritarian one party system would be fine as long as it was their party in charge?
Click to expand...
To be fair, we're coming off eight years of Obama. Too early to say the Republicans have locked it.
 
Segnosaur said:
You have a supreme court that his heavily oriented towards the conservatives. They even managed to get Drunky McRapeface approved for the supreme court, and he is a man who made absolutely no attempt to hide his bias during the confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...
And the main relatively unique thing about him as opposed to other conservative candidates, which is pretty transparently what Trump's people picked him for, is his history of writing things that look like he things the President is or should be a dictator; he's there for the specific purpose of protecting Trump from any obstacles to his dictatorship.

And he's only one of TWO fundamentally illegitimate judge approvals they've shoved down our throats now, the last one by such obvious Senatorial abandonment of duty that they would have all been kicked out and probably arrested if this were anywhere near a functional democracy/republic, so just the fact that they were even still there at all to have a chance to do it to us a second time for that out-of-control conspiracy theorist lunatic was already a step closer to their obvious goal of a "Republican" dictatorship even before the public ever heard of him.

Elections could completely straighten out the Legislative and Executive Branches immediately in the next couple of elections, and the party of fascists would still be able to take everything those two Branches did to their pet "Supreme Court" for decades to come (unless we're rescued from that by premature deaths or unforeseen resignations).
 
theprestige said:
I suspect that President Hindenburg was too busy dealing with problems in his own country, to give much thought to the plausibility of failure modes in the US system of government.

It would, however, be amusing if he happened to agree with me. Do you happen to have a cite handy?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you understand the point, which isn't that Hindenburg literally thought or said this. Come on.
 
Why does a US politician feel the need to weigh-in on the Toronto mayoral race? To support a neo-nazi of course.

To the extent the mask was ever on, whackjob Rep Steve King's mask slipped badly.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) publicly declared his support for white nationalist and neo-Nazi figures and, once again, Republican leadership remains silent.
...
“Faith Goldy, an excellent candidate for Toronto mayor, pro Rule of Law, pro Make Canada Safe Again, pro balanced budget, &...BEST of all, Pro Western Civilization and a fighter for our values. @FaithGoldy will not be silenced,” the eight-term congressman tweeted
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
Why does a US politician feel the need to weigh-in on the Toronto mayoral race? To support a neo-nazi of course.

To the extent the mask was ever on, whackjob Rep Steve King's mask slipped badly.
Click to expand...



Over the past week King has really gone open with his bigotry.
To the extent that the head of the Republican Congressional Committee has withdrawn their support from King.
I guess making pals with Austrian Nazis, and comparing the GOP to them was going too far.
Best comment on Steve King of Iowa was made some time ago by the other Stephan King...the writer from Maine, modern king (no pun intended) of horror:

"Steve King of Iowa is a lot more frightening then anything that this Steve King of Maine ever dreamed up".
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
That's the obvious inference to draw from the highlighted part below - but I presume that isn't what is meant.
Click to expand...

And the ignoring of the damage that an incompetent, demagogic president can do the US is cheerfully ignored. Nothing matters but tax cuts and Supreme Court Justices.
 
BREAKING NEWS: Democrat-supporting women strip off for photo shoot called 'Grab Them By The Ballot' in an attempt to persuade people to vote against Republicans. They're hoping the images will encourage people to vote on November 6.

-- Grab Them By The Ballot (Nov 1, 2018)
Click to expand...


"Ugly Democrats always take their clothes off then falsely accuse men of sexually assaulting them."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom