Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Sign in to follow this  
Doro

US Elections 2020

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

actually it is you who is not understanding.  so let me help a Brit out.

the US has 3 Branches of Government & key to those 3 branches is the separation of powers.

the US Government Accountability Office (US GAO) is a branch of the Legislative. the same branch as the Congress. The US Government Office of Accounting was created in 1921 & in 2004 changed Accounting to Accountability, (i am sure nothing else changes as a result *snark)

yes the legislative does make laws & if those laws are sound & do not harm the separation of powers, or extend the power of Congress (the legislative) to the detriment of the other 2 branches, the Executive (the President) & the Judiciary (Supreme Court & lesser courts)  they tend to go on year after year unchallenged.

The US GAO ruling is non binding.  they aren't the Judiciary.  to get that ruling to be binding, they need to involve the Judiciary (civil suit.)

so whilst the timing of this ruling, 2 weeks ago, is no surprise.  it means next to nothing without trial.  just ask Barack Obama: Seven Times the GAO Found the Obama Administration Violated Federal Law.  and no i am not saying this excuses anything.  just pointing out these rulings aren't exactly as incriminating as you seem to think.

so if the Judiciary is involved, you need to ask...  how was Congress harmed by the timely Deferrals of Ukrainian Aid by the US Office of Management & Budget (US OMB) & President Trump?

you should also consider the US OMB & the President part of the Executive branch with its own "Separate Powers"

additionally how historically has the Judiciary reacted when reviewing spats between the Legislative and Executive Branches?

perhaps drop that British mental framework and understand this is the US with a whole different rule set.

Literally irrelevant bullshit, so thanks for showing you still don't get it.

1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

OK so tell me, have you read section:  §686. Reports by Comptroller General of the Impound Control Act?

Yep, but apparently you still haven't.

1 hour ago, LasraelLarson said:

and if yes, can you tell me what went wrong?

What went wrong where? Are you asking me to explain yet again how Trump broke the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Papi said:

but they have a commander in chief who has mastered it. 

40 minutes ago, Papi said:

and then there are the member's of the Republican party...

and you guys on the left should get the video super-cut comparisons ready, because when this Impeachment fails...   the next act is the 25th amendment.

deploy them then.

unless of course you go for a real long Senate Impeachment trail, then the next 25th amendment attacks will be too late.  ;)

i swear it is almost like the scripts write themselves.   ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every move Trump makes to not be found guilty makes the Biden conspiracy look legit. Biden could have been charged and removed from office at the time of his alleged actions. Yet he was not. Every point Trump stands on, as to why his call was perfect, announces Biden was doing nothing wrong.  Framing it like this does no good for the US, but Trump can't have it both ways. All the privilege afforded to the President also applies to the Vice President. The big difference here between the two, is Biden didn't ask or demand an investigation into any political opponent. Hunter Biden is immaterial and irrelevant to any and all of this.

 

What's really going on here is Trump doesn't want to lose the next election. Anything and everything is expendable to that goal, including the Constitution and the freedom it represents.

33 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

can't count the times when disdain has turned to praise...

There is a huge difference between political posturing and swearing an oath in a trial setting. Opinions are everywhere, but the search for truth and facts through sworn testimony is another thing all together. Let's not confuse the two.

 

On Dershowitz: I had a degree of respect for his views on the Constitution through out my life. I read many papers he wrote during that time. What I heard him say yesterday, just made me cringe. Mixing and blending motivations to declare basically nothing is Quid Pro Quo unless it can be affixed to a statutory crime, will haunt his remaining days as a Constitutional Historian.

 

I can see more House investigations leading to a second Impeachment process. Yes, they can do it again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Doro said:

What went wrong where? Are you asking me to explain yet again how Trump broke the law?

no i am asking why the provision for failure of the President to report, did not happen.

like there is literally a provision in the Law you claim to know soo well, for exactly when a President does not transmit notifications to both bodies of Congress.

you did say you read the actual law.  so you must have seen this provision...

it isn't talked about in the many commentaries, or in the actual GOA ruling, so...   ;)


7 minutes ago, Splay said:

I can see more House investigations leading to a second Impeachment process. Yes, they can do it again.

perhaps.

i still say the next move is a 25th amendment attack.

time will tell.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LasraelLarson said:

i still say the next move is a 25th amendment attack.

I'm not sure how that is relevant. No one has a motive to attack the 25th Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Splay said:

Every move Trump makes to not be found guilty makes the Biden conspiracy look legit. Biden could have been charged and removed from office at the time of his alleged actions. Yet he was not. Every point Trump stands on, as to why his call was perfect, announces Biden was doing nothing wrong.  Framing it like this does no good for the US, but Trump can't have it both ways. All the privilege afforded to the President also applies to the Vice President. The big difference here between the two, is Biden didn't ask or demand an investigation into any political opponent. Hunter Biden is immaterial and irrelevant to any and all of this.

 

What's really going on here is Trump doesn't want to lose the next election. Anything and everything is expendable to that goal, including the Constitution and the freedom it represents.

There is a huge difference between political posturing and swearing an oath in a trial setting. Opinions are everywhere, but the search for truth and facts through sworn testimony is another thing all together. Let's not confuse the two.

 

On Dershowitz: I had a degree of respect for his views on the Constitution through out my life. I read many papers he wrote during that time. What I heard him say yesterday, just made me cringe. Mixing and blending motivations to declare basically nothing is Quid Pro Quo unless it can be affixed to a statutory crime, will haunt his remaining days as a Constitutional Historian.

 

I can see more House investigations leading to a second Impeachment process. Yes, they can do it again.

 

Yes Dershowitz has tarnished himself, it was a poorly worded argument at best. 

Regarding more investigations, there is the small matter of the election which is coming sooner rather than later. Washington in classic form has operated in a bubble, again. Both sides seem to be pandering to a base of voters that doesnt account for the majority. This isnt completely a new phenom because you always start with your base but demographics are changing fast. As an example, I had a chat with a die hard conservative who told me "Texas will always be a red state". I then explained to him the curious case of California who up until 1992 had gone republican in every election save 1964. 

The point here is washington and the presumption of washington action is static. They seem to operate in this never ending Dem V republican regardless of what the rest of the country wants. It's high likely that the legislative branch flips again, either the house of the senate and possibly the executive. 2020 should be a highly mobilized vote, many people on both sides are vulnerable so the presumption that more investigations happen, assumes that democrats retain the house. That might not occur. It's also possible that the senate flips as well and not only does another impeachment happen but it is ratified by the new democratic senate on a reelected President Trump. 

We'll see. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

no i am asking why the provision for failure of the President to report, did not happen.

like there is literally a provision in the Law you claim to know soo well, for exactly when a President does not transmit notifications to both bodies of Congress.

you did say you read the actual law.  so you must have seen this provision...

it isn't talked about in the many commentaries, or in the actual GOA ruling, so...   ;)

I'm well aware of it, but again nothing went wrong. The comptroller general submits a report that acts as the message IF the President hasn't done so. Problem is, Trump's team claims they did. By them saying it was contained in the footnotes (which it wasn't, if you look up what's required of the special message, and I'm sure you've not bothered to look at either), it meant the comptroller general didn't need to write up a report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karac avalron said:

Yes Dershowitz has tarnished himself, it was a poorly worded argument at best. 

Regarding more investigations, there is the small matter of the election which is coming sooner rather than later. Washington in classic form has operated in a bubble, again. Both sides seem to be pandering to a base of voters that doesnt account for the majority. This isnt completely a new phenom because you always start with your base but demographics are changing fast. As an example, I had a chat with a die hard conservative who told me "Texas will always be a red state". I then explained to him the curious case of California who up until 1992 had gone republican in every election save 1964. 

The point here is washington and the presumption of washington action is static. They seem to operate in this never ending Dem V republican regardless of what the rest of the country wants. It's high likely that the legislative branch flips again, either the house of the senate and possibly the executive. 2020 should be a highly mobilized vote, many people on both sides are vulnerable so the presumption that more investigations happen, assumes that democrats retain the house. That might not occur. It's also possible that the senate flips as well and not only does another impeachment happen but it is ratified by the new democratic senate on a reelected President Trump. 

We'll see. 

 

The House would have to undergo a radical change to flip power to Republicans. By today's count that would have to be 35 seats switching. Honestly, I don't see this happening during this next election cycle. The Senate is a different story. It is already a close margin and I wouldn't presume to know the minds of all 50 states.

 

I said early on in this thread, I wished we had more than a two party system. The arguments against this is it would lessen the power of a particular party. While on its face that would be true, but I see a third successful party as a balance check to the existing fringes of political ideologies pervasive in today's American politics. Ideally, I like to see a moderate party and in so hope they could contrive thoughtful sensible decisions, thus avoiding extreme views becoming prevalent in the ordinary citizen's life. The problem facing a third party is they are attacked from both directions and those very ideologies would try with great effort to absorb the third party. Example: Ross Perot and his efforts ended being usurped by conservatives. Rather underhandedly, I will add.

A third party will not come about unless a young person can inspire the masses for near a generation to sustain the initial forces that put it in motion. That is a steep order considering American politics currently is supported by life long politicians who have no motivation to compete with outsiders. Imo Ross Perot had the right vision but lacked the longevity for his conviction. I'm not saying he had the right political views, just the right view on how to make American politics not so black or white, red or blue, right or wrong. Perot is just an example of how there was a cross section of America who did find their existence in sync with the concept of a third party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Doro said:

I'm well aware of it, but again nothing went wrong

on that we disagree.

35 minutes ago, Doro said:

if you look up what's required of the special message, and I'm sure you've not bothered to look at either), it meant the comptroller general didn't need to write up a report.

the contents of the message are simple enough.  easy in fact.

what is relevant is if the submission falls into:

Quote

b) Consistency with legislative policy

Deferrals shall be permissible only—

(1) to provide for contingencies;

(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or

(3) as specifically provided by law.

now without president, how does one define the above? broad? narrow? #1 alone has all kinds of wiggle room.

the scope of those 3 conditions could ultimately fall to the Judiciary, which is why what i have posted about the 3 branches and separation of powers actually does matter.  because those conditions cannot infringe on the separate powers of the Executive branch.

& it could be the game Trump has been playing all along. to push this to trial.

but without a trial (Judiciary review) the GOA ruling is non binding & extremely one-sided.

also looks plagiarized if i am to be honest.

image.png.b9f7c495476c05deb8a260b9c28e571b.pngshould sue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

the contents of the message are simple enough.  easy in fact.

You'd think so, but they failed to meet the criteria required of the special message (read the contents of the law involved).

1 minute ago, LasraelLarson said:

now without president, how does one define the above? broad? narrow? #1 alone has all kinds of wiggle room. 

Wiggle room was lost the moment the OMB admitted to doing it for policy reasons (read the GAO report).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Doro said:

You'd think so, but they failed to meet the criteria required of the special message (read the contents of the law involved).

maybe they are waiting to release that in an actual trial.

6 minutes ago, Doro said:

Wiggle room was lost the moment the OMB admitted to doing it for policy reasons (read the GAO report).

again. no.

the GOA report is non binding.

if this passes political posturing between the 2 branches of Government and goes to Judicial review,  the scope will get some definition and president.  but the Legislative risks losing ground if the scope overreaches.  so don't expect this to go further than political posturing, because if it does...  §686. Reports by Comptroller General, will also become VERY relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

maybe they are waiting to release that in an actual trial.

By that point it is far too late. The law is already broken.

10 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

again. no.

the GOA report is non binding.

if this passes political posturing between the 2 branches of Government and goes to Judicial review,  the scope will get some definition and president.  but the Legislative risks losing ground if the scope overreaches.  so don't expect this to go further than political posturing, because if it does...  §686. Reports by Comptroller General, will also become VERY relevant.

Doesn't matter about the GAO report's results (I told you to read it to see the information, not because you don't think it's binding), what matters is that the OMB admitted the deferral was for policy reasons, which is not allowed.

This won't go further because the Republicans hold the majority in the senate, and they're not going to turn on Trump. That's the only reason, and not because Trump broke the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Splay said:

The House would have to undergo a radical change to flip power to Republicans. By today's count that would have to be 35 seats switching. Honestly, I don't see this happening during this next election cycle. The Senate is a different story. It is already a close margin and I wouldn't presume to know the minds of all 50 states.

 

I said early on in this thread, I wished we had more than a two party system. The arguments against this is it would lessen the power of a particular party. While on its face that would be true, but I see a third successful party as a balance check to the existing fringes of political ideologies pervasive in today's American politics. Ideally, I like to see a moderate party and in so hope they could contrive thoughtful sensible decisions, thus avoiding extreme views becoming prevalent in the ordinary citizen's life. The problem facing a third party is they are attacked from both directions and those very ideologies would try with great effort to absorb the third party. Example: Ross Perot and his efforts ended being usurped by conservatives. Rather underhandedly, I will add.

A third party will not come about unless a young person can inspire the masses for near a generation to sustain the initial forces that put it in motion. That is a steep order considering American politics currently is supported by life long politicians who have no motivation to compete with outsiders. Imo Ross Perot had the right vision but lacked the longevity for his conviction. I'm not saying he had the right political views, just the right view on how to make American politics not so black or white, red or blue, right or wrong. Perot is just an example of how there was a cross section of America who did find their existence in sync with the concept of a third party.

we disagree on radical 35 seats is an 8% swing, I think its possible, however unlikely but Im not here to quibble really. My overarching point is that the election will likely sort things out, everyone has had their say except the american people. 

You and I are on the same page for a 3rd party. Ive voted Libertarian the last few elections and in 2016 they had a shot to really push 5%+ had they not picked Gary Johnson who was an absolutely travesty of a candidate. Frankly Im surprised more on the far left havent splintered to their own party or taken over the greens. People like AOC, Bernie et al have done a remarkable job of branding and would certainly be able to muster a 5-10 % of the vote in 2020 IMHO.  I think its one of Bernie's biggest failings, that he didnt start a 3rd party after 16, it was all lined up for him he had national name recognition, a hard core base of fans, on the ground infrastructure and a donation apparatus other candidates would die for. 

Anyway thanks for the chat, take care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much done now. Those witnesses Trump was initially saying were desperately needed for the sake of fairness? Yeah, they don't want any witnesses now, not with Bolton flipping on them. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander admits that it's obvious Trump did what he did and it's been fully proven, but that he doesn't think it's impeachable, therefore he's voting against witnesses that could make the situation worse for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Doro said:

It's pretty much done now. Those witnesses Trump was initially saying were desperately needed for the sake of fairness? Yeah, they don't want any witnesses now, not with Bolton flipping on them. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander admits that it's obvious Trump did what he did and it's been fully proven, but that he doesn't think it's impeachable, therefore he's voting against witnesses that could make the situation worse for them.

It's fucking sickening because now future Presidents will do whatever the fuck they want.  That is unless they get four republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amenhir said:

It's fucking sickening because now future Presidents will do whatever the fuck they want.  That is unless they get four republicans.

Future presidents can now be impeached much easier then in the past. The bar for engaging in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors has been lowered significantly. Trump is guilty, you would have to be a complete naive to think he didnt try and use aid as leverage to get dirt on Biden, I mean thats what Trump does. You would also have to be a naive to think that Trump is the only president to do this, or will be the last to do so. 

This wasnt the final battle though, the 2020 election is the knockout blow if the democrats can parlay this into momentum with voters. We'll see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doro said:

It's pretty much done now. Those witnesses Trump was initially saying were desperately needed for the sake of fairness? Yeah, they don't want any witnesses now, not with Bolton flipping on them. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander admits that it's obvious Trump did what he did and it's been fully proven, but that he doesn't think it's impeachable, therefore he's voting against witnesses that could make the situation worse for them.

Was just going to post his Twitter thread admitting that the House has proved its case against Trump but you've beat me to the gist of it.

IMO, this should have been their position all along. If Trump had shown contrition (I know, something he is incapable of) in August/September this would all have blown over long ago. He would be on his umpteenth different Twitter outrage by now without many seeing the ridiculous shitshow that he's accomplished.

But, no, he's playing 6th dimensional chess and pwning the Libs so it's all good in Trumpville, the whole thing a ploy to get some extra judges confirmed. Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, karac avalron said:

Future presidents can now be impeached much easier then in the past. The bar for engaging in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors has been lowered significantly. Trump is guilty, you would have to be a complete naive to think he didnt try and use aid as leverage to get dirt on Biden, I mean thats what Trump does. You would also have to be a naive to think that Trump is the only president to do this, or will be the last to do so. 

This wasnt the final battle though, the 2020 election is the knockout blow if the democrats can parlay this into momentum with voters. We'll see.  

I prefer my politicians to fuck me in private.  What Trump and the Republicans are doing at this very moment is like if your g/f cheated on you, admitted it, brought over a highlight reel of the fucking, and then downed a cup of the guys spunk in front of you.  It's sad but we expect our politicians to be shady assholes.  This is why the legislative branch has a 12% approval rating or some crap.  The President is supposed to the one person who you kinda, sorta, believe might be rooting for you.

This whole fiasco is going to bite them square on the ass in November.  People were pissed when Nixon resigned because they felt he didn't get what was coming to him.  Then Ford really pissed them off by giving him a pardon.  Needless to say, Ford wasn't elected for his own term.  My prediction is that there will be a reckoning at the ballot box.  Democrats will retain the majority in the House and gain the Senate.  Trump will not be reelected and there will be some really lovely indictments waiting for him when he leaves the WH.  He won't be able to escape those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Republican Senators are now saying they decided to vote NO on witnesses because they know it wont change anything--that their Republican comrades will still vote to acquit him regardless of who comes forward.  

I don't care what party you profess to belong to, that is some fucked up shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Amenhir said:

I prefer my politicians to fuck me in private.  What Trump and the Republicans are doing at this very moment is like if your g/f cheated on you, admitted it, brought over a highlight reel of the fucking, and then downed a cup of the guys spunk in front of you.  It's sad but we expect our politicians to be shady assholes.  This is why the legislative branch has a 12% approval rating or some crap.  The President is supposed to the one person who you kinda, sorta, believe might be rooting for you.

This whole fiasco is going to bite them square on the ass in November.  People were pissed when Nixon resigned because they felt he didn't get what was coming to him.  Then Ford really pissed them off by giving him a pardon.  Needless to say, Ford wasn't elected for his own term.  My prediction is that there will be a reckoning at the ballot box.  Democrats will retain the majority in the House and gain the Senate.  Trump will not be reelected and there will be some really lovely indictments waiting for him when he leaves the WH.  He won't be able to escape those.

Clearly your expectations are way higher than mine. I have no love for Trump, but I simply cant categorize him has this horrific monster others seem to (not saying your one of them BTW). I mean in my life time most of the republican presidents have either started or escalated wars (Nixon, Regan, Bush, Bush jr) the only two who didnt were Ford and Trump. That doesnt make him any less corrupt though, but we have a whole slew of presidents to chose from on both sides that were corrupt to the core. 

I agree with you on the reckoning at the ballot box, but after 2016 I simply refuse to believe the loudest voices in the room anymore. I look at real clear politics website, it aggregates national polls, hundreds of them and Trumps approval/support remains steady between 40-45%. That's not a lot of wiggle room for someone to dethrone him. Nothing would make me happier than a coherent strong democratic nominee who had a liberal vision for the country, but as of now im not seeing it. 

In terms of indictments after leaving office, I recall democrats saying the same thing about Bush, and republicans saying the same thing about Clinton. Im not saying it wont happen, but proclaiming someone is a criminal is one thing, proving it is another matter entirely, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, on a former president is nearly beyond the pale. As a hopeful libertarian I try and be as pragmatic as I can, I dont see how any of this helps the country. The last thing I want to do in 2021 after he loses (if he does) is spent MORE time talking about Donald Trump. I'd like to move on, so would a lot of people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Amenhir said:

It's fucking sickening because now future Presidents will do whatever the fuck they want.  That is unless they get four republicans.

 

4 hours ago, Amenhir said:

I prefer my politicians to fuck me in private.  What Trump and the Republicans are doing at this very moment is like if your g/f cheated on you, admitted it, brought over a highlight reel of the fucking, and then downed a cup of the guys spunk in front of you.  It's sad but we expect our politicians to be shady assholes.  This is why the legislative branch has a 12% approval rating or some crap.  The President is supposed to the one person who you kinda, sorta, believe might be rooting for you.

This whole fiasco is going to bite them square on the ass in November.  People were pissed when Nixon resigned because they felt he didn't get what was coming to him.  Then Ford really pissed them off by giving him a pardon.  Needless to say, Ford wasn't elected for his own term.  My prediction is that there will be a reckoning at the ballot box.  Democrats will retain the majority in the House and gain the Senate.  Trump will not be reelected and there will be some really lovely indictments waiting for him when he leaves the WH.  He won't be able to escape those.

I'm honestly starting to believe that they won't let us elect another president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah, when you throw together completely shoddy articles of impeachment that can't stand up in a court of law.... what do you expect?

In other words:

See the source image

Keep em flowing bitches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, warspeech said:

 

I'm honestly starting to believe that they won't let us elect another president.

Ok, this is crazy talk, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...