Political Roundtable Part XXVI

popper · Post #1441 » by **popper** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:32 pm

Jamaaliver wrote:
GREY 1769 wrote:
popper wrote:Our constitutional republic is effective (somewhat) in empowering the minority to hold the majority party accountable. Since most current IG’s were appointed by Obama you should rest assured that justice will be served.

I was genuinely looking for checks and balances answers and have no interest in partisan interjections.

Bingo. Many OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE STEADFASTLY AGAINST POLITICAL PARTIES. Congress wasn't meant to be a check on a majority party, but instead a check on the powers of the executive branch and judiciary.

Spoiler:
The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart

The Constitution's framers viewed political parties as a necessary evil.

The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments.

When Washington stepped aside as president in 1796, he memorably warned in his farewell address of the divisive influence of factions on the workings of democracy: “The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

“He had stayed on for a second term only to keep these two parties from warring with each other,” Randall says of Washington. “He was afraid of what he called ‘disunion.’ That if the parties flourished, and they kept fighting each other, that the Union would break up.
History.com

Bringing partisan politics to a debate on the efficacy of the constitution is truly...deplorable.

“Bringing partisan politics to a debate” on any subject is the essence of this thread, in case you haven’t noticed. I do agree though that the founders had it right about political factions.

I_Like_Dirt · Post #1442 » by **I_Like_Dirt** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:33 pm

doclinkin wrote:I’m not even saying pander to stupid people. Cory Booker is a reasonable candidate. I do think it is smart gamesmanship simply to have an umbrella that is inclusive even of stupid people. They are Americans too. Might as well find the shorthand that helps them vote in their own best interest. Which in most cases frankly is a progressive platform. So OK, maybe the candidate looks presidential and has some hook that gets them to notice. If that includes a celebrity girlfriend and a tall guy who has bona fides both in Congress and as an executive, so much the better. Stacey Abrams is bright and a badass, and I don't think our country is ready for her. Joe Biden is a tall folksy white guy who pretends to be tough. That's all it takes for him to be leading in the polls.

If you're going based on who the masses think "looks" more presidential, it's a one-man race: Joe Biden. The buck basically stops there as far as the Democrats go. I'd also suggest he's one of the least likely candidates to actually make headway to beat Trump but Booker isn't presidential. Obama was presidential and still caused a bunch of the people you're suggesting the Democrats pander towards to doubt that it was the greatest of ideas and vote against their own best interests. And this isn't to denigrate Booker. He's a very accomplished dude. He's just up against some other very accomplished people and hasn't actually done anything to set himself apart despite being a man with a celebrity girlfriend.

Pointgod · Post #1443 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:19 pm

GREY 1769 wrote:
dobrojim wrote:Congress' only remedy is to sue the executive branch (whatever dept you wanna look at)
and hope the courts side with you (which in most cases, they clearly should).
The scary thing is what would happen if the executive branch, after losing,
refuses to recognize the authority of the courts. We're not there yet but
there are worrying signs. I think it would take a mass scale protest, the likes of
which we have yet to see...protests making say the Woman's march of Jan 2017
look small by comparison, to make them stand down in that situation.

Pointgod wrote:
Spoiler:
GREY 1769 wrote:Let's say there's corruption in the DOJ. What checks and balances are there in the US system to root it out? I'm curious because it looks as if more departments are being headed by people willing to look past the rules of their departments, so...

I’d assume it would be up to Congress to investigate, expose it and root it out. They have a few tools that they haven’t used for I don’t know what reason. They can hold witnesses that don’t show up in contempt, they have the power to arrest non compliant witnesses and they can go after their money which would be the best way to make sure people testify. They’ve also forgotten that they’re in control of the budget.

Thanks to you both. It's tricky about Congress now though, right, since one chamber can keep stymieing the other? Then there's potential pardons for those who don't comply. Are there any checks and balances for pardons being given that have a pattern of compliance to silence which potentially help the pardoner?

And going through the court system can take time, may not be recognized, all the while being filled with judges that one party favours far more (I know judges are supposed to be impartial).

This is a pretty good explainer regarding the powers of Congress. Turns out, holy **** they can’t actually do much legally. It’s crazy that these powers never considered a completely corrupt President and Administration that truly don’t give a **** about the constitution.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-hard-hitting-are-u-s-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1SC1YE

Democrats need to be clear that the President is covering up his own personal crimes, not any type of Executive actions. Democrats have absolutely failed on the messaging here.

Pointgod · Post #1444 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:22 pm

popper wrote:
GREY 1769 wrote:
popper wrote:
Yes. How astute you are. There is that problematic opposition. If only we could silence it. Look to China and Russia to learn how.

I see this is the useless sarcasm portion of the discussion. Thanks for popping by.

Useless? The answer to your original question is that the minority party can request an IG investigation on any matter they deem appropriate. Our constitutional republic is effective (somewhat) in empowering the minority to hold the majority party accountable. Since most current IG’s were appointed by Obama you should rest assured that justice will be served.

So do you think that the DNI should follow the law and release the whistle blower complaint that the IG brought forward to Congress? Because he’s not doing that now in case you haven’t been following the topic closely.

Pointgod · Post #1445 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:28 pm

I_Like_Dirt wrote:
doclinkin wrote:I’m not even saying pander to stupid people. Cory Booker is a reasonable candidate. I do think it is smart gamesmanship simply to have an umbrella that is inclusive even of stupid people. They are Americans too. Might as well find the shorthand that helps them vote in their own best interest. Which in most cases frankly is a progressive platform. So OK, maybe the candidate looks presidential and has some hook that gets them to notice. If that includes a celebrity girlfriend and a tall guy who has bona fides both in Congress and as an executive, so much the better. Stacey Abrams is bright and a badass, and I don't think our country is ready for her. Joe Biden is a tall folksy white guy who pretends to be tough. That's all it takes for him to be leading in the polls.

If you're going based on who the masses think "looks" more presidential, it's a one-man race: Joe Biden. The buck basically stops there as far as the Democrats go. I'd also suggest he's one of the least likely candidates to actually make headway to beat Trump but Booker isn't presidential. Obama was presidential and still caused a bunch of the people you're suggesting the Democrats pander towards to doubt that it was the greatest of ideas and vote against their own best interests. And this isn't to denigrate Booker. He's a very accomplished dude. He's just up against some other very accomplished people and hasn't actually done anything to set himself apart despite being a man with a celebrity girlfriend.

Booker would make a great VP in a different era. But what Democrats should focus on his making him the Governor of New Jersey. Actually Democrats need to start building a pipeline to Governorships because when a Democratic President gets into power they’ll need to work with Governors to enact a more Progressive agenda. Booker would make a great Governor, Mayor Pete should be gunning for a Senate run and then Governorship. Beto should be building the groundwork for a Governship in Texas. This is the work that needs to be done in the background if they ever want to reverse all the destruction Republicans have done to the country.

popper · Post #1446 » by **popper** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:58 pm

Pointgod wrote:
popper wrote:
GREY 1769 wrote:I see this is the useless sarcasm portion of the discussion. Thanks for popping by.

Useless? The answer to your original question is that the minority party can request an IG investigation on any matter they deem appropriate. Our constitutional republic is effective (somewhat) in empowering the minority to hold the majority party accountable. Since most current IG’s were appointed by Obama you should rest assured that justice will be served.

So do you think that the DNI should follow the law and release the whistle blower complaint that the IG brought forward to Congress? Because he’s not doing that now in case you haven’t been following the topic closely.

Sure, assuming that’s the conclusion of the due process conflict.

dobrojim · Post #1447 » by **dobrojim** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:59 pm

Pointgod wrote:
popper wrote:
GREY 1769 wrote:I see this is the useless sarcasm portion of the discussion. Thanks for popping by.

Useless? The answer to your original question is that the minority party can request an IG investigation on any matter they deem appropriate. Our constitutional republic is effective (somewhat) in empowering the minority to hold the majority party accountable. Since most current IG’s were appointed by Obama you should rest assured that justice will be served.

So do you think that the DNI should follow the law and release the whistle blower complaint that the IG brought forward to Congress? Because he’s not doing that now in case you haven’t been following the topic closely.

My understanding is that it is completely irregular for the WH or DoJ to have any
involvement in this situation. The law states the DNI 'shall' furnish congress with
the report, not that they should seek the approval of these other parties first.

The big tell is that if there is nothing to hide, why not release the transcript?
This is SOP for these people as shown by the analogous income tax non-disclosure,
another case of black letter law.

gtn130 · Post #1448 » by **gtn130** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:08 pm

popper wrote:Useless? The answer to your original question is that the minority party can request an IG investigation on any matter they deem appropriate. Our constitutional republic is effective (somewhat) in empowering the minority to hold the majority party accountable. Since most current IG’s were appointed by Obama you should rest assured that justice will be served.

the DNI IG is a Trump appointee, and your view of checks and balances in this country shows you have no idea how much Trump has eroded norms and the independence of formerly apolitical institutions. Gotta stop watching Fox News, bro

gtn130 · Post #1449 » by **gtn130** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:09 pm

As usual, popper dropping by to pretend he's a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan right winger.

cOnStItUtIoNaL rEpUbLiC

popper · Post #1450 » by **popper** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:55 pm

gtn130 wrote:As usual, popper dropping by to pretend he's a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan right winger.

cOnStItUtIoNaL rEpUbLiC

As usual, gtn dropping by with his normal adolescent comments pretending he’s a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan Antifa clown. I’ve said from the beginning of this administration, on numerous occasions, that Trump’s a buffoon. How partisan is that?

gtn130 · Post #1451 » by **gtn130** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:17 pm

popper wrote:
gtn130 wrote:As usual, popper dropping by to pretend he's a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan right winger.

cOnStItUtIoNaL rEpUbLiC

As usual, gtn dropping by with his normal adolescent comments pretending he’s a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan Antifa clown. I’ve said from the beginning of this administration, on numerous occasions, that Trump’s a buffoon. How partisan is that?

I don't at all pretend I'm a neutral observer. I am very open about being far to the left

popper · Post #1452 » by **popper** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:03 pm

gtn130 wrote:
popper wrote:
gtn130 wrote:As usual, popper dropping by to pretend he's a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan right winger.

cOnStItUtIoNaL rEpUbLiC

As usual, gtn dropping by with his normal adolescent comments pretending he’s a neutral observer and not an extremely partisan Antifa clown. I’ve said from the beginning of this administration, on numerous occasions, that Trump’s a buffoon. How partisan is that?

I don't at all pretend I'm a neutral observer. I am very open about being far to the left

And likewise, I’ve been open about being a conservative for ten years on this thread.

Post #1453 » by **Ruzious** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:00 pm

Some state Republican organizations are actually cancelling their state presidential Republican primaries - to help out Trump. Am I missing something, or is this beyond crazy?

FAH1223 · Post #1454 » by **FAH1223** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:12 pm

Read on Twitter

Pointgod · Post #1455 » by **Pointgod** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:38 pm

Ruzious wrote:Some state Republican organizations are actually cancelling their state presidential Republican primaries - to help out Trump. Am I missing something, or is this beyond crazy?

Nope you’re not going crazy. It’s brazenly corrupt, remember when Trump claimed the DNC screwed Bernie? (Again a blatant lie). Remember everything the Republicans accuse Democrats of doing is entirely projection.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-21/gop-strategy-to-shield-trump-by-canceling-primaries-carries-risk

verbal8 · Post #1456 » by **verbal8** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:17 am

GREY 1769 wrote:Let's say there's corruption in the DOJ. What checks and balances are there in the US system to root it out? I'm curious because it looks as if more departments are being headed by people willing to look past the rules of their departments, so...

That is Trump's only qualification to head a department, being willing to look the other way.

verbal8 · Post #1457 » by **verbal8** » Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:23 am

Pointgod wrote:
Ruzious wrote:Some state Republican organizations are actually cancelling their state presidential Republican primaries - to help out Trump. Am I missing something, or is this beyond crazy?

Nope you’re not going crazy. It’s brazenly corrupt, remember when Trump claimed the DNC screwed Bernie? (Again a blatant lie). Remember everything the Republicans accuse Democrats of doing is entirely projection.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-21/gop-strategy-to-shield-trump-by-canceling-primaries-carries-risk

They will look really stupid if Trump is in jail and Pence is president with a 25% approval rating.