US Politics Thread 2016-2020 - Page 182

vienna · 05-12-17, 10:28 AM

...yes, and GOP support only garnered Trump a second place finish at barely over 46% of the vote and 3 million votes less than the DEM candidate. No matter how you slice it, the GOP was/is a minority party and Trump is a minority president; 54% of us voters voted for any one else but Trump and no matter how many times you crow about how 'popular' Trump is with GOP voters, the fact remains the rest of us, the majority of voters, have no use for him or his 'politics'. Trump won, not by the will of the voters, but, rather by a machination of the Electoral College process, something the Clinton camp took for granted; do not assume the same mistake will be repeated...

Basing your conclusion Trump still has a shot at reelection (if he doesn't manage to get himself removed) on his high numbers within the GOP is specious; taking a selected sample of the whole and saying it represents the whole is a questionable tactic. Here in Los Angeles, there are a large number of former New Yorkers and a large number of them have formed a NY Yankees booster club; if I were to ask them what they think of their team, I am fairly confident I would get an overwhelmingly positive answer regarding the Yankees; does this prove the Yankees are the overwhelming favorite baseball team in the city of LA? Well, the Yankees are that group's overwhelming favorite, and those fans are a 'core' group, and they are very vocal about their stance, but I think, realistically, the very much larger group of LA Dodger fans have more of a say as to who the majority of LA thinks is the better team. So, Trump is popular among the GOP: so what? It's a minority of the voters, and, at the rate some of the non-"core" elements are wavering, if not actually bailing, the very small "core" may be all the GOP will have left. Look at the graph Nipplespanner posted: what does it say about Trump that the two lines, Approve and Disapprove, are moving steadily apart? And what does it say that Trump is the first president to have his ratings at or below the ratings when he took office, something not even the worst presidents have experienced. You say elections are won by coalitions; very true. But reelections are won by broadening the size of the coalition beyond the base or "core". In this, Trump is failing miserably; and, if his decline continues, the GOP stands to lose everything come 2020 and to lose significantly in 2018. Consider this: if Trumpcare gets enacted as Trump has fashioned it, a very large number of those who will lose healthcare coverage or have coverage severely curtailed are voters in the states that helped Trump win the Electoral College in 2016; will they look favorably on Trump and, by extension, the GOP, in 2020? Beyond those "core" states, what about other issues such as the newly revived Federal efforts to re-criminalize marijuana or rollback environmental protections, etc.? As the effects of Trump policies becomes closer to the everyday lives of the voters, do you really think they are going to sit there and say "Well, he and the GOP have taken away the health care I and my family really need, but you know what? I'm gonna vote for him again, anyway."?...

For the GOP, the really most important number is not the GOP support; they already have that and they are, numerically, the minority party. In 2018, the Mid-Terms are a pure vote: no electoral colleges, no swing states, no finagling;one person, one vote. They need numbers to win and they need numbers larger than what they have now. They need to retain control of the House and their 'core' cannot guarantee that outcome. If Trump continues to hobble the GOP, there is very little chance the non-GOP voters will be sympathetic enough to the GOP to lend them their vote. Without a goodly portion of the non-GOP vote, they have no coalition and they will have no win, and that will be thanks to Trump and the GOP backing him...

<O>

vienna · 05-12-17, 10:47 AM

An analysis of the whole Trump/Comey mess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...69b209cf2b814/

<O>

Bilge_Rat · 05-12-17, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

An analysis of the whole Trump/Comey mess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...69b209cf2b814/

<O>

analysis? you mean DNC press release....

Bottom line, POTUS has the power to remove the FBI director at will.

The only way POTUS can be removed is through impeachment and that will not happen as long as Republicans control Congress, not matter how much journalists who pretend to be lawyers try to twist facts to try to create potential legal issues.

According to a recent poll, 50% of voters don't even know who the FBI director is, do you really they are going to get worked up about his firing?

Platapus · 05-12-17, 12:47 PM

We live in interesting times....

vienna · 05-12-17, 01:41 PM

Nobody disputes the president's ability to dismiss an FBI director; it's the how, when, and why that's the bottom line issue, one for which Trump and/or his minions have been unable to even coordinate a coherent explanation, and don't haul out the old saw that 'a president doesn't have to explain his actions'; real life doesn't work that way and, while it may be the norm for third-world banana republics or old world oligarchies, our system, the US system of law and governance, does, in fact, require accountability and oversight; the president is neither a law unto himself nor is he above or beyond the purview of the Congress or the investigative reach of the Judiciary. If Trump, or his followers, believe otherwise, then they are sorely lacking in knowledge or understanding of this nation, odd given how much they wrap themselves in the flag. If Trump is removed, or any President, for that matter, it will be because of a broad range of transgressions or failings; there have been two impeachment proceedings in US history and both of them failed, ending in acquittals both times. Why? Because the political forces trying to remove those Presidents based their accusations and arguments on a very narrow scope and did not meet the degree of severity associated with full impeachment and removal. Nixon resigned after the a House committee voted in favor of three articles of impeachment to be sent to the full House for action; in Nixon's case the charges were for cumulative and widespread violations and transgressions, not just one or two matters, and Nixon opted to resign rather than face the inevitable. If Trump is removed, it will be for a broad range of issues, to which he seems to be hell-bent on providing. And the claim that it is mainly journalists who are raising concerns about the actions and activities of Trump & Co. is also specious: there is broad criticism and concern, across party lines, by legal scholars and law enforcement and investigatory experts over the conduct of the White House and its occupants, concerns about matters beyond just the firing of an FBI director. Remember, Nixon's articles of impeachment were handed down for 1) obstruction of justice, 2) abuse of power, and 3) contempt of Congress. Trump seems well along on the first two and also seems to be leaning towards the third...

The really odd part of this whole situation is no one has actually linked Trump personally to any personal involvement or collusion with Russia, yet he continues to act as if he is about to be held accountable. The only persons being actively investigated by Congress and the Justice Department (at least until Sessions scuttles the probe) are members of Trump's campaign and transition teams, not Trump himself, but he seemingly insists on engaging in furtive, combative behavior as if the hammer was about to fall on him, personally. Is there something he is afraid will be revealed that will lead to his removal?; Is that why, by his own account, he has been repeatedly asking if he was under investigation? If there isn't, then he should just let the Russian investigations play out and, if some of his associates should happen to be found to be criminally involved, then he will have already distanced himself from taint. All he is doing now is just adding to the idea he has something very serious to hide...

I've said it before and I will say it again: Barring a massive 'smoking gun' situation, I don't believe Trump will be swept up in the Russia investigation fallout, as long as he distances himself from the process. He should just do what Clinton did when he was being assailed: just do the job you were elected to do, don't act guilty, and let the process play out. If Trump is brought up on charges at all, it will most likely be where he is most vulnerable: the questions of conflict-of-interest regarding his (and his family's) business interests, the possibility of emoluments infractions, and an active effort to obstruct justice; he could avoid the latter just by not doing anything at all...

...but, given Trump's personality, style, and overweening ego, the chance he's going to take the wiser course and keep out of it is negligible...

<O>

Catfish · 05-12-17, 01:51 PM

German newspaper claims Trump's son Barron (11) will be the new head of the FBI. Evidence:
http://www.der-postillon.com/2017/05/barron-fbi.html

Platapus · 05-12-17, 02:45 PM

Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI?

vienna · 05-12-17, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI?

A very good question. Should this possible change be extended to other high impact appointments, Secretary of State, Defense Secretary, etc.?

<O>

August · 05-12-17, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI?

I'd think it'd take more than a simple rules change. Wouldn't such an action require a constitutional amendment?

vienna · 05-12-17, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I'd think it'd take more than a simple rules change. Wouldn't such an action require a constitutional amendment?

Perhaps, not. The Constitution just requires two-thirds approval for treaties in the same clause where the need for approval of appointments is specified, but the two-thirds requirement apparently does not extend to the appointments. Someone more familiar with Senate rules will have to weigh in on this, but, IIRC, the Senate has been making up the rules for appointments as exhibited when the Senate modified the votes needed in order to secure the approval of Gorsuch to the SCOTUS. Since the Constitution seems to have left the nature, rules and practice of approving appointments to the Senate and does not specify explicitly the need for Senate approval of a removal of an previously Senate-approved appointee, nor does it bar such, it seems possible to argue, if the Senate can make up the rules to approve, they are within their purview to establish rules for removal...

<O>

vienna · 05-12-17, 03:48 PM

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...bIN/story.html

<O>

vienna · 05-12-17, 03:58 PM

Just in -- another Trump lie held up to the light and some good advice from James Clapper:

Quote:

The former intelligence chief also dismissed Trump’s assertion that the Russia investigation is “fake news,” and indirectly issued some advice to the White House to cooperate with the inquiry.

“What needs to happen here is to clear this cloud, the cloud that’s hanging over the administration, over the president, over the White House, and it would be in everyone’s best interest to get to the bottom of this.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clapper-r...180540949.html

<O>

Platapus · 05-12-17, 04:59 PM

No constitutional change needed.

28 US CODE section 532 was amended in the mid 1970's to require senate confirmation of new Directors. That law can easily be changed again.

August · 05-13-17, 05:11 PM

In more news Rhode Island Democrats are considering legislation to require a candidate for public office to release his taxes before he can be added to the ballot.

Not all that bad of an idea but I think they need to extend it to birth certificates and college transcripts too or it's just another Dem attempt to legislate Trump out of the White House.

mapuc · 05-13-17, 05:46 PM

I hope I'm not stepping on somebody's toes, when having read my comments

This Trump Vs the fired FBI Director story looks more and more like a bad B-version of a sitcom made by Hollywood.

Markus

05-12-17, 10:28 AM	#2716
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,720 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	...yes, and GOP support only garnered Trump a second place finish at barely over 46% of the vote and 3 million votes less than the DEM candidate. No matter how you slice it, the GOP was/is a minority party and Trump is a minority president; 54% of us voters voted for any one else but Trump and no matter how many times you crow about how 'popular' Trump is with GOP voters, the fact remains the rest of us, the majority of voters, have no use for him or his 'politics'. Trump won, not by the will of the voters, but, rather by a machination of the Electoral College process, something the Clinton camp took for granted; do not assume the same mistake will be repeated... Basing your conclusion Trump still has a shot at reelection (if he doesn't manage to get himself removed) on his high numbers within the GOP is specious; taking a selected sample of the whole and saying it represents the whole is a questionable tactic. Here in Los Angeles, there are a large number of former New Yorkers and a large number of them have formed a NY Yankees booster club; if I were to ask them what they think of their team, I am fairly confident I would get an overwhelmingly positive answer regarding the Yankees; does this prove the Yankees are the overwhelming favorite baseball team in the city of LA? Well, the Yankees are that group's overwhelming favorite, and those fans are a 'core' group, and they are very vocal about their stance, but I think, realistically, the very much larger group of LA Dodger fans have more of a say as to who the majority of LA thinks is the better team. So, Trump is popular among the GOP: so what? It's a minority of the voters, and, at the rate some of the non-"core" elements are wavering, if not actually bailing, the very small "core" may be all the GOP will have left. Look at the graph Nipplespanner posted: what does it say about Trump that the two lines, Approve and Disapprove, are moving steadily apart? And what does it say that Trump is the first president to have his ratings at or below the ratings when he took office, something not even the worst presidents have experienced. You say elections are won by coalitions; very true. But reelections are won by broadening the size of the coalition beyond the base or "core". In this, Trump is failing miserably; and, if his decline continues, the GOP stands to lose everything come 2020 and to lose significantly in 2018. Consider this: if Trumpcare gets enacted as Trump has fashioned it, a very large number of those who will lose healthcare coverage or have coverage severely curtailed are voters in the states that helped Trump win the Electoral College in 2016; will they look favorably on Trump and, by extension, the GOP, in 2020? Beyond those "core" states, what about other issues such as the newly revived Federal efforts to re-criminalize marijuana or rollback environmental protections, etc.? As the effects of Trump policies becomes closer to the everyday lives of the voters, do you really think they are going to sit there and say "Well, he and the GOP have taken away the health care I and my family really need, but you know what? I'm gonna vote for him again, anyway."?... For the GOP, the really most important number is not the GOP support; they already have that and they are, numerically, the minority party. In 2018, the Mid-Terms are a pure vote: no electoral colleges, no swing states, no finagling;one person, one vote. They need numbers to win and they need numbers larger than what they have now. They need to retain control of the House and their 'core' cannot guarantee that outcome. If Trump continues to hobble the GOP, there is very little chance the non-GOP voters will be sympathetic enough to the GOP to lend them their vote. Without a goodly portion of the non-GOP vote, they have no coalition and they will have no win, and that will be thanks to Trump and the GOP backing him... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

05-12-17, 10:47 AM	#2717
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,720 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	An analysis of the whole Trump/Comey mess: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...69b209cf2b814/ <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

05-12-17, 12:47 PM	#2719
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,396 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	We live in interesting times.... __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

05-12-17, 01:41 PM	#2720
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,720 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Nobody disputes the president's ability to dismiss an FBI director; it's the how, when, and why that's the bottom line issue, one for which Trump and/or his minions have been unable to even coordinate a coherent explanation, and don't haul out the old saw that 'a president doesn't have to explain his actions'; real life doesn't work that way and, while it may be the norm for third-world banana republics or old world oligarchies, our system, the US system of law and governance, does, in fact, require accountability and oversight; the president is neither a law unto himself nor is he above or beyond the purview of the Congress or the investigative reach of the Judiciary. If Trump, or his followers, believe otherwise, then they are sorely lacking in knowledge or understanding of this nation, odd given how much they wrap themselves in the flag. If Trump is removed, or any President, for that matter, it will be because of a broad range of transgressions or failings; there have been two impeachment proceedings in US history and both of them failed, ending in acquittals both times. Why? Because the political forces trying to remove those Presidents based their accusations and arguments on a very narrow scope and did not meet the degree of severity associated with full impeachment and removal. Nixon resigned after the a House committee voted in favor of three articles of impeachment to be sent to the full House for action; in Nixon's case the charges were for cumulative and widespread violations and transgressions, not just one or two matters, and Nixon opted to resign rather than face the inevitable. If Trump is removed, it will be for a broad range of issues, to which he seems to be hell-bent on providing. And the claim that it is mainly journalists who are raising concerns about the actions and activities of Trump & Co. is also specious: there is broad criticism and concern, across party lines, by legal scholars and law enforcement and investigatory experts over the conduct of the White House and its occupants, concerns about matters beyond just the firing of an FBI director. Remember, Nixon's articles of impeachment were handed down for 1) obstruction of justice, 2) abuse of power, and 3) contempt of Congress. Trump seems well along on the first two and also seems to be leaning towards the third... The really odd part of this whole situation is no one has actually linked Trump personally to any personal involvement or collusion with Russia, yet he continues to act as if he is about to be held accountable. The only persons being actively investigated by Congress and the Justice Department (at least until Sessions scuttles the probe) are members of Trump's campaign and transition teams, not Trump himself, but he seemingly insists on engaging in furtive, combative behavior as if the hammer was about to fall on him, personally. Is there something he is afraid will be revealed that will lead to his removal?; Is that why, by his own account, he has been repeatedly asking if he was under investigation? If there isn't, then he should just let the Russian investigations play out and, if some of his associates should happen to be found to be criminally involved, then he will have already distanced himself from taint. All he is doing now is just adding to the idea he has something very serious to hide... I've said it before and I will say it again: Barring a massive 'smoking gun' situation, I don't believe Trump will be swept up in the Russia investigation fallout, as long as he distances himself from the process. He should just do what Clinton did when he was being assailed: just do the job you were elected to do, don't act guilty, and let the process play out. If Trump is brought up on charges at all, it will most likely be where he is most vulnerable: the questions of conflict-of-interest regarding his (and his family's) business interests, the possibility of emoluments infractions, and an active effort to obstruct justice; he could avoid the latter just by not doing anything at all... ...but, given Trump's personality, style, and overweening ego, the chance he's going to take the wiser course and keep out of it is negligible... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

05-12-17, 01:51 PM	#2721
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,801 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	German newspaper claims Trump's son Barron (11) will be the new head of the FBI. Evidence: http://www.der-postillon.com/2017/05/barron-fbi.html __________________ >^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong.

05-12-17, 02:45 PM	#2722
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,396 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Since these days, the President needs the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the Director of the FBI, should the rules be changed to require the advice and consent to fire the Director of the FBI? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

05-12-17, 03:48 PM	#2726
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,720 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...bIN/story.html <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

05-12-17, 04:59 PM	#2728
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,396 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	No constitutional change needed. 28 US CODE section 532 was amended in the mid 1970's to require senate confirmation of new Directors. That law can easily be changed again. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

05-13-17, 05:11 PM	#2729
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,226 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	In more news Rhode Island Democrats are considering legislation to require a candidate for public office to release his taxes before he can be added to the ballot. Not all that bad of an idea but I think they need to extend it to birth certificates and college transcripts too or it's just another Dem attempt to legislate Trump out of the White House. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

05-13-17, 05:46 PM	#2730
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,559 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I hope I'm not stepping on somebody's toes, when having read my comments This Trump Vs the fired FBI Director story looks more and more like a bad B-version of a sitcom made by Hollywood. Markus