The General American Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

32 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Honestly, the worst I can see Trump doing is ruining years of diplomatic work previous presidents have made between other countries. And that in itself is too much damage to US relations that it's not worth it, because it would take years and lots of resources that didn't need to be wasted to fix the mess he'll likely make even in a short amount of time. Nevermind that somethings won't be the same as a result given the intention ms of other great and even middle powers out there.

Oh, but it goes beyond that.

As President, he would be free to direct the various departments to do as he pleased with Executive Orders.

For example, he could prevent the Justice Department from investigating any case for racial bias. He could change how money is disbursed by the Departments to the states. He could freely enforce and not enforce any provisions. Here's another incredible power of the Presidents: regulatory agencies are free to create new laws until Congress rules on the issue, so Trump could very well create crazy laws against Muslims and the like.

Congress and the Supreme Court can overrule Executive Orders, yes, but Congress and the Court must apply oversight, and this is a difficult process... note the many years between statues being passed and then ruled unconstitutional. And the rather muddy nature of Party unity means that it will take some serious radicalism on Trump's part to get Congress to rein him in.

Part of the nature of checks and balances is the various branches obstructing each other. But there is a limit to how much it should be done, because otherwise the government breaks down. I don't think Trump would be respectful of the rule of law, and that's just one more problem of his. Would he, for example, comply with a Court order or removal by Congress, or dare them to kick him out?

In Presidential elections, it is common to drum up the importance of Congress and checks and balances. But the fact is, the President is extremely powerful due to his control over Departments that have broad latitude to make laws beyond Congress.

In short: it would take a few months at best and years at worst to put handcuffs on a lunatic President due to the nature of the system. There is the option of the military acting quickly to depose an unfit President, but this runs the risk of setting a bad precedent (see Egypt now, and the fact the military acting on its own initiative is one reason the Roman Empire collapsed). It is best to avoid the lunatic President entirely.

[Meta77]

17 hours ago, Patticus said:

Has Clinton been blabbing about things that were sent or done on that server? I haven't heard anything about that at all - be a dear and provide a link, I think we'd all like a look at that.

I do not feel like doing homework for people. you will believe what you will. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/5/clinton-contradicts-fbi-again-classified-emails/

Its all to stressful these days in politics and nuts all around.

[Patticus]

22 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

I do not feel like doing homework for people. you will believe what you will. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/5/clinton-contradicts-fbi-again-classified-emails/

Its all to stressful these days in politics and nuts all around.

I wouldn't call that blabbing, I'd call that a completely botched attempt to end the continuing headlines about the emails.

Every attempt she makes to explain herself and the emails without making herself look bad seems to result in more headlines, more negativity and she ends up looking worse anyway. She just can't win this one, there's no clean or positive way to end this thing. I don't know how she's going to resolve it without providing Trump with ammunition.

[Meta77]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

I wouldn't call that blabbing, I'd call that a completely botched attempt to end the continuing headlines about the emails.

Every attempt she makes to explain herself and the emails without making herself look bad seems to result in more headlines, more negativity and she ends up looking worse anyway. She just can't win this one, there's no clean or positive way to end this thing. I don't know how she's going to resolve it without providing Trump with ammunition.

Honestly both should just be quite on a lot. Its just ammunition for either side.

[Tani Coyote]

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/05/just-in-america-stunned-after-polls-conclusively-show-congress-going-blue-in-2016/

 

"Ruh-roh, Ronald Roo! Roo rost rus ree relection!"

 

Now those participating just need to turn out on Election Day and not develop Sanders Syndrome.

 

If they do, we're gonna see House and Senate majorities. Hopefully supermajorities as well so President Clinton has the opportunity to repair all the damage the GOP has done the last 6 years.

 

Dear God, I really hope not too many people take Clinton's victory as a given and don't turn out.

 

The time has come for the GOP to rev up its tradition of voter suppression (yes the Democrats engage in voter suppression, but the oligarchic blood is much stronger in the GOP due to its intimate relationship with the South), but hopefully Governors like North Carolina's will do their best to give them the finger.

[kboyrulez12345]

Not sure how reliable a source the NY times is, but I found this article interesting. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/us/politics/donald-trump-gop.html?_r=1&referer=

Quote

After a disastrous week of feuds and plummeting poll numbers, Republican leaders have concluded that Donald J. Trump is a threat to the party’s fortunes and have begun discussing how soon their endangered candidates should explicitly distance themselves from the presidential nominee.

For Republicans in close races, top strategists say, the issue is no longer in doubt. One House Republican has already started airing an ad vowing to stand up to Mr. Trump if he is elected president, and others are expected to press similar themes in the weeks ahead.

In the world of Republican “super PACs,” strategists are going even farther: discussing advertisements that would treat Mr. Trump’s defeat as a given and urge voters to send Republicans to Congress as a check on a Hillary Clinton White House. The discussions were described by officials familiar with the deliberations, several of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity about confidential planning.

For now, some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents are simply hoping to avoid what they see as the taint of association with their standard-bearer.

The GOP is a real joke isn't it?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well this is kinda their own fault anyway...

[Tani Coyote]

There's a wealth of sources indicating the GOP has largely thrown in the towel for President. Right now, guys like the Koch Brothers are concentrating on down ticket races, feeling them more important.

Given the coattail effect, though, it seems kind of like a fools' errand.

Where the GOP will be able to do the most damage is in 2018. They can easily render President Clinton powerless the same way they did to Obama if they have a surge of conservatives. The GOP is excellent at taking midterms, because midterms have lower turnout... which favors right-wing ideologies.

[-Robin-]

If their aim is to have good luck in lower-ticket elections, they're gonna need it. If the slaughtering of Brownback's Kansas cabinet in the primaries Tuesday is anything to go by, even politicians as far as state senators and reps are being kicked out in favor of moderates.

[Tani Coyote]

We have the benefit that the American public recognize McConnell and the GOP Congress as asshats, so they're eager to be rid of them.

However, come 2018, the situation will be different. A Democratic President with a Democratic Congress will face the challenge of maintaining a midterm majority, always a daunting task for Democrats in this day and age.

It's sad the public memory is so short, but it is what it is. That or it's some strange tactic to sink the ship to bring down the captain (sort of like how I propose Sanders voters not turn out for Clinton in 2018 if she reneges on promises) but I don't think voters are thinking that long-term.

Especially since as far as I know, most Presidents are pretty good at giving a slice of the pie to all coalition participants. It's insane to not turn out in support just because you didn't get everything.

[-Robin-]

Current Monmouth polling puts Clinton at a significant 13% lead over Trump among likely voters, and 12% among registered voters. The gap was only 2% among likelies last month.

 

http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_US_080816/

 

For context, Obama won 2012 by a 4% lead.

[Tani Coyote]

I think Clinton's victory is pretty much a given so long as people actually turn out. Trump has so many things wrong with him that he leaves a bad taste in the mouth of moderates and many conservatives alike.

Really, he's so bad that the Democrats are having a relatively easy time uniting despite a lot of bad blood from the primaries. The GOP doesn't seem quite as fortunate, with Trump having broken the coalition into pieces.

[Hyp3hat]

Can't wait for the 'But he was just being sarcastic' remarks about this one. He says what he really thinks! It's admirable! Political correctness gone mad! 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37029170

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I know Trump can be sarcastic and I think he needs to understand his words can be misinterpreted. From my understanding he meant that the people who believe in the second amendment rights could impeach whatever judges Clinton decides to pick, should they go against the constitution. However, the way he said it.....kinda suggested other wise and to be honest, I am a little afraid and I am someone who is not afraid of any politician.   

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Un un. Hell no.

Given how eager these "2nd Amendment Advocates" are in wanting to shoot folks they don't like, the implications they've been making are the exact reasons why the thought of dismantling it is even a thing. Stop with the trigger happy rhetoric and the ease in getting guns (which, surprise, doesn't mean "no guns anymore"), and this never would have been a thing. These people are acting like children and they know better...or at least they should.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

14 minutes ago, Sonikku. said:

I know Trump can be sarcastic and I think he needs to understand his words can be misinterpreted. From my understanding he meant that the people who believe in the second amendment rights could impeach whatever judges Clinton decides to pick, should they go against the constitution. However, the way he said it.....kinda suggested other wise and to be honest, I am a little afraid and I am someone who is not afraid of any politician.   

That's Trump for ya. Guy constantly says he's joking but it when gets to the constant rate of these "jokes" and just how serious they come off as,  to say the man's transparently got a nasty agenda showing is understatement at this point. 

And that's not even counting his possibly quiting, accusing the whole vote of being rigged.

Oh, and disrespecting the Purple Medal of Honor the way he did,  has made it all the more clear we're better off NOT having Trump of all candidates currently out there in the White House. 

 

 

[Tani Coyote]

The Secret Service made one of the finest subtweets in history today, making a vague remark that it is "aware of the comments made earlier," meaning it is aware of Trump's comments.

It remains to be seen if anything comes of it, but...

The fact he said normal voters can't do anything about Clinton, but gun owners can, speaks volumes. I don't buy his "I just meant voting/impeachment!" clarification. There would be no reason to single out the gun owners if so. If he's telling the truth, this is one more reason why he shouldn't be allowed in the Oval Office.

I can see why he wants to just give all his duties to his VP. Maybe beneath the facade of insanity, he actually recognizes he's not fit to be President.

Wouldn't it be beautiful if both Clinton and Trump are found guilty of wrongdoing, but neither sees any action taken against them due to their wealth and status?

[Dizcrybe]

To make things short, if he meant voters, he would've said "voters".

[Tani Coyote]

People like to bash on Clinton for lying, but it seems like every time Trump gives a speech, interview, etc., he has to "clarify" his comments in the next one.

This isn't how politics works. You don't just call a world leader a "fuckhead" and then come back later and say, "Oh I meant it in a cool way, bro!"

But Trump would probably do something of that sort. He is objectively unfit to be a world leader. He needs to go back to television, because entertainment seems to be the one thing he's good at.

[Meta77]

Got to keep things fair. I know its fun for some to bash trump so got to throw hill in their as well

https://www.rt.com/usa/355391-clinton-assassination-obama-2008/

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

25 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

Got to keep things fair. I know its fun for some to bash trump so got to throw hill in their as well

https://www.rt.com/usa/355391-clinton-assassination-obama-2008/

To be honest, she said he MIGHT get assassinated which was true, especially as a man of color in power (thank god that never happened). There was so much conspiracy theories and fear when Obama was running. She never hoped for him to be killed like the article states.

[Meta77]

16 minutes ago, Sonikku. said:

To be honest, she said he MIGHT get assassinated which was true, especially as a man of color in power (thank god that never happened). There was so much conspiracy theories and fear when Obama was running. She never hoped for him to be killed like the article states.

Nah but there was a implied action. Honestly I doubt anyone would have touched him. Not to say like the Wiki leaks guy that was killed recently. I think he knew something and they offed him on purpose. Seems to odd he was on his way to the FBI at that moment on that day and bam. They say it was a robbery attempt but as his dad said it failed cause he had his phone, wallet, money, credit cards, and his watch still.

[Tani Coyote]

38 minutes ago, Meta77 said:

Nah but there was a implied action. Honestly I doubt anyone would have touched him. Not to say like the Wiki leaks guy that was killed recently. I think he knew something and they offed him on purpose. Seems to odd he was on his way to the FBI at that moment on that day and bam. They say it was a robbery attempt but as his dad said it failed cause he had his phone, wallet, money, credit cards, and his watch still.

Nope.

If you want to talk about "too odd," how about the fact he'd only been with the DNC for two years, yet somehow he'd be entrusted with information so vital that he'd be killed for it.

Wikileaks is itself not free from bias, given it has ties to Russia... you know, the same as Trump. Of course it wants to smear Clinton. It's not what it used to be.

There's not always a grand conspiracy behind things. Sometimes bad things happen for no logical reason. This is why theism moved towards deism, because it became increasingly absurd to think there was a grand purpose behind everything that happened.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.rawstory.com/2011/01/rep-giffords-socalled-hit-list-dems-targeted-sarah-palin/

Just a reminder as to how irresponsible Trump's comments are.

Back in 2010, Sarah Palin published a "hit list" of several members of Congress who supported Obamacare. She too argued about "aiming" and "reloading" in terms of votes. One of those members was Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

A year later, that is when the infamous mass shooting involving Giffords occurred, which resulted in the deaths of 6 people and left Giffords with brain injuries she will never recover from.

Just a suggestion. When a lot of people back the Second Amendment as part of this right-wing fantasy of rising up and overthrowing the government, the last thing you should be doing is using gun language and politicians in the same sentence out of the context of gun regulation.

[Patticus]

How is this a campaign talking point? Jesus Christ, the man is actually mentally unstable, because you'd need to be to believe that absolute bullshit.

Holy cow, Billy West took those Trump quotes and voiced them as Zapp!