Re: Anyone else horrified?
Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:34 am
I wonder how much money this sham cost the taxpayers.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
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.
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.
Which we'd happily overlook if he wasn't also a corrupt, incompetent buffoon.
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.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:20 amA 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'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.Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:20 amI 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.
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.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:16 amI'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.Byblos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:20 amI 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.
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.
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.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:16 am ... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.
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.PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:26 pm Ed,
Do you think the majority of the Democratic party would agree with that 1956 Republican party platform?
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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:10 pmIn 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.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:16 am ... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.
I think you've answered my question. I'll leave it at that in this thread.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:14 pmI 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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:10 pmIn 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.edwardmurphy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:16 am ... not a member of the far left, and neither is the majority of the Democratic Party.