Anyone else horrified?

[RickD]

I wonder how much money this sham cost the taxpayers.

[DBowling]

I wonder how much money this sham cost the taxpayers.

Well the National Debt has increased by over $3 Trillion dollars over the last three years.
Is that the sham you are referring to?

[PaulSacramento]

We are giving you guys a run for that:

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/justi ... institute/

[RickD]

I wonder how much money this sham cost the taxpayers.

Well the National Debt has increased by over $3 Trillion dollars over the last three years.
Is that the sham you are referring to?

No, not quite. And that was a pretty poor attempt to deflect. FYI, Trump isn’t even in the top 10 of presidents with debt increases.

And btw, Trump still has most of the year to live up to his promise to balance the budget.

[Kurieuo]

It's great what Trump has done for the unborn. Best POTUS ever there, considering he obviously (to me) didn't understand the issues years back. Seems he fully understands now. I don't think that's an act.

[RickD]

It's great what Trump has done for the unborn. Best POTUS ever there, considering he obviously (to me) didn't understand the issues years back. Seems he fully understands now. I don't think that's an act.

But he’s very brash, and says some mean things.

[edwardmurphy]

No, not quite. And that was a pretty poor attempt to deflect. FYI, Trump isn’t even in the top 10 of presidents with debt increases.

That's meaningless unless you look at debt increases in context. For example, FDR increased the debt by a much larger percentage than Trump, but he was dealing with the Great Depression and World War II. Woodrow Wilson was fighting World War I. G.W. Bush had 9/11, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the 2008 financial collapse. Reagan cut taxes and then cranked military spending as part of his plan to lure the Soviets into bankrupting themselves. Obama was trying to get us out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression while dealing with two off-the-books wars started by his predecessor.

Trump inherited a strong, growing economy and hasn't had to deal with any world wars, 9/11s, or financial collapses. When you have a strong economy you're supposed to use that chance to collect the extra tax money generated by that prosperity and use it to balance the budget and pay down the debt. The Republicans did neither. Instead they implemented a massive, unfunded tax cut that mostly just gave more money to people who already had more than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes. Trump then put constant pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates down, and started a trade war with the world's second largest economy.

When the recession comes - and it will - Trump (or more likely his unfortunate Democratic replacement) will be in a hell of a bind, since interest rates can't really go any lower, massive deficit spending for a stimulus package won't be popular, and pulling a Hoover will be even worse.

It'd be interesting to see the GOP try to deal with a financial collapse. Typically the economy breaks on their watch, and then they hand it to the Democrats to fix. If Trump somehow wins in 2020 the GOP will have a major recession that's undeniably of their own making and 100% theirs to fix.

And btw, Trump still has most of the year to live up to his promise to balance the budget.

Sure, Rick, Trump is going to cut taxes and lower spending during an election year. That's one of the funniest things you've ever said. I'm literally crying over here. Donald Trump is going to do something hard and unpopular just because it's the right thing to do! HAHAHAHA! Please, stop.

But he’s very brash, and says some mean things.

Which we'd happily overlook if he wasn't also a corrupt, incompetent buffoon.

[Byblos]

I don't see a problem at all. Anyone can assert anything they want. How do we decide if those assertions are merit-worthy? What a novel idea, we resort to the courts. Please Ed, stop with the red herring. It is really unbecoming.

A red herring?

The Republicans are saying that Trump had the right to deny the Dems the evidence that they requested and to fight subpoenas in court. They are simultaneously in court arguing that the House Dems have no standing because impeachment is the proper venue to address the President's conduct.

They're not asserting privilege. They're not citing national security. They're saying that the Courts have no right to interfere in a dispute between the House and the Administration.

That is, at the very least, and incredibly cynical, bad faith argument.

Beyond that, we can't just look at abstractions. We have to think about how things play out in the real world. If the House issues a subpoena as part of an impeachment inquiry and the Administration fights it in court the following process unfolds:

1) The House files suit in the district court. The Administration resists the suit, and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins. Meantime the Administration is free to keep on doing whatever it is they were impeached for doing.

2) The Administration appeals the decision to the circuit court and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins. Meantime the Administration is free to keep on doing whatever it is they were impeached for doing.

3) The Administration appeals the decision to the Supreme Court and most likely does its best to slow the process down by seeking delays, filing motions, and so forth. Months go by. Eventually the House wins.

4) Now that they have their witnesses and/or documents the House can finally get around to launching an investigation - a process which will take a couple of months - not that it matters because the election was last week.

In short, in the real world this process allows the Administration - any Administration - to obstruct Congressional oversight of their actions by literally years, and perhaps even to run out the clock before the House is able to move forward. Therefore, unless the President's malfeasance takes place within the first year or so, impeachment is not a realistic option.

The power of the Executive Branch has been steadily increasing for my entire life, but under Trump the balance has shifted further and more rapidly than ever before. The President can now apparently take money appropriated to the military budget and redirect it to build a border wall. He can now apparently decline to release money allocated as foreign aid, even if all of the legal requirements for releasing that aid have been met. And now he can apparently reject Congressional oversight simply because he doesn't feel like dealing with it.

I know that you have faith in the strength of our institutions and in the democratic process, but I don't think that you're recognizing that that strength is being steadily eroded due to executing overreach and partisan politics. The Constitution is deliberately vague, and our system relies heavily on established precedents and norms and on our elected leaders following both the letter and the spirit of the law. Trump is ignoring those precedents and norms, and the Congressional GOP, rather than following their Constitutional responsibility and checking his overreach, is giving him cover.

We're literally watching as the system breaks down.

I can come up with several doomsday scenarios from the other side but what would be the point? How about you and I, right here, us who represent the far left and right (I didn't want to say extreme) agree on a few things, just for kicks, knowing full well we will not impact change either way.

How about we start here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/rick-scott-a ... 20519.html

- Rick Scott is proposing a constitutional amendment to raise the impeachment threshold in the house from simple majority to 3/5th. This way some measure of bipartisanship is somewhat assured before impeachment is voted on.

- I propose a similar amendment to make the senate vote for conviction the same, 3/5th instead of 2/3rd

- Another idea, some kind of an impeachment process reform bill that will clearly define the following:

• 1. The respective roles of the house and senate. The house does the investigation, subpoenas, evidence gathering and so forth. The senate tries the case and renders a verdict

• 2. Expedited redress in the courts (this is not unprecedented, though I forget the case specifics)

• 3. Guaranteed due process, the president's legal counsel is involved every step of the way

I'm sure you can come up with a few more suggestions Ed, how about it, can you get behind something like this? I sure can. Maybe if the two of us can agree here, I am willing to call my reps in the house and the senate (assuming Nadler and Schumer will take my call ). For all the good it''ll do, it will at least make me feel better that I did something about it to protect future presidents, irrespective of their party affiliation, and preserve the constitution, rule of law, and the spirit of bipartisanship. What say ye?

[edwardmurphy]

I can come up with several doomsday scenarios from the other side but what would be the point? How about you and I, right here, us who represent the far left and right (I didn't want to say extreme) agree on a few things, just for kicks, knowing full well we will not impact change either way.

I'm happy to engage in this, and really any thought experiment about how things could be done better, but first I have to push back on being labeled "far left." I am not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.

This is the 1956 Republican Party Platform. I encourage you to read it. I agree with the vast majority of this platform and would vote for it in a heartbeat. If I represent the far left then so does the Administration of President General Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in the European Theater in WWII and two term Republican President (1952-1960). If I'm a lefty then so is he, and if he is then that word has become a meaningless pejorative.

The Democratic Party has become extremely socially liberal, but that's as far as it goes. In every other area the Democrats - including the progressive wing - are about as liberal as 1950s Republicans.

I'll get back to you on the rest.

[Byblos]

I can come up with several doomsday scenarios from the other side but what would be the point? How about you and I, right here, us who represent the far left and right (I didn't want to say extreme) agree on a few things, just for kicks, knowing full well we will not impact change either way.

I'm happy to engage in this, and really any thought experiment about how things could be done better, but first I have to push back on being labeled "far left." I am not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.

This is the 1956 Republican Party Platform. I encourage you to read it. I agree with the vast majority of this platform and would vote for it in a heartbeat. If I represent the far left then so does the Administration of President General Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in the European Theater in WWII and two term Republican President (1952-1960). If I'm a lefty then so is he, and if he is then that word has become a meaningless pejorative.

The Democratic Party has become extremely socially liberal, but that's as far as it goes. In every other area the Democrats - including the progressive wing - are about as liberal as 1950s Republicans.

I'll get back to you on the rest.

Your objection is well noted, my sincere apologies for the mischaracterization. I don't consider myself on the far right either. It seems that recent events (more like since 2016) have been extremely polarizing to the point that centrists (left or right) are seen more as extremists. Sign of the times.

I look forward to your contribution.

[Byblos]

... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.

In the same spirit of objecting to mischaracterizations, however, I just want to point out that, in addition to the squad who are as far left as any democrat, probably ever, 44 congressional democrats recently proposed a new bill called H.R. 5383: New Way Forward Act. Are you familiar with it? I'm wondering what you think about it and where you think those 44 democrats who proposed it are on the center-far-extreme left scale. This may need a new thread so if you want to create a new one I'm fine with that.

[PaulSacramento]

Ed,
Do you think the majority of the Democratic party would agree with that 1956 Republican party platform?

[Byblos]

Ed,
Do you think the majority of the Democratic party would agree with that 1956 Republican party platform?

Heck even James Carville, a llife-long Democrat and self-professed liberal said today the democratic party swung too far left. He's terrified at the prospect.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-carville

[edwardmurphy]

... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.

In the same spirit of objecting to mischaracterizations, however, I just want to point out that, in addition to the squad who are as far left as any democrat, probably ever, 44 congressional democrats recently proposed a new bill called H.R. 5383: New Way Forward Act. Are you familiar with it? I'm wondering what you think about it and where you think those 44 democrats who proposed it are on the center-far-extreme left scale. This may need a new thread so if you want to create a new one I'm fine with that.

I read about 2/3 of the bill and nothing really jumped out at me. What's your specific concern? And yeah, probably a new thread.

[Byblos]

... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.

In the same spirit of objecting to mischaracterizations, however, I just want to point out that, in addition to the squad who are as far left as any democrat, probably ever, 44 congressional democrats recently proposed a new bill called H.R. 5383: New Way Forward Act. Are you familiar with it? I'm wondering what you think about it and where you think those 44 democrats who proposed it are on the center-far-extreme left scale. This may need a new thread so if you want to create a new one I'm fine with that.

I read about 2/3 of the bill and nothing really jumped out at me. What's your specific concern? And yeah, probably a new thread.

I think you've answered my question. I'll leave it at that in this thread.