[PassedOut]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-19, 07:55, said:

We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President.

I'm not sure that still holds true.

[barmar]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-19, 07:55, said:

Our forefathers understood this and developed an electoral college system for electing the President and Vice President. We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President.

That was the theory behind the original design of the Electoral College. But the way it has evolved, the electors are mostly just rubber-stamping the vote of the people.

[y66]

From Ross Douthat's amusing take on the staging of Julius Caesar at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park:

Quote

The problem with staging a “Julius Caesar” in which Caesar clearly resembles Donald Trump, the culture-war controversy du jour thanks to Shakespeare in the Park, isn’t that doing so encourages the president’s assassination. The rough-and-tumble of democratic politics has always been rife with classical call-outs and far more egregious forms of lèse-majesté. The theatergoers who show up to watch a Shakespeare play in Central Park are — I hope — not high on the Secret Service’s watch list. And the play’s tragic arc does not exactly make tyrannicide look like the wisest of strategies, even if the director is crude and on-the-nose enough to dress his Cassius for the Women’s March.

No, the problem with a Trumpified Caesar is that the conceit fails to illuminate our moment the way a good classical allusion should.

The decadent years of the Roman Republic are as good a comparison point for our late-republican discontents as any in the history books, and a creeping Caesarism in the executive has been a feature of our politics for many years. But between his military prowess, his reforming energy and his immense (if fluctuating) popularity, old murdered Julius himself is a relatively poor analogue for Trump. Our president is a different sort of character, in need of a different sort of script. More

[billw55]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-17, 18:57, said:

Now wasn't that a gratuitous smear? Did I provoke you in some way, or are you always this nasty?

 ldrews, on 2017-June-18, 20:53, said:

Barmar,

View Postbarmar, on 2017-June-17, 18:39, said:
No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.


As Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time ..."

So your gratuitous smear gets picked up and repeated and becomes a meme. Sort of like a drive-by-shooting, you don't care who you kill or what damage you do as long as you can score a point.

Your mother must be proud of you.

Dare I say ... snowflake? No, impossible, that is only for liberals that claim a grievance.

[RedSpawn]

 barmar, on 2017-June-19, 09:04, said:

That was the theory behind the original design of the Electoral College. But the way it has evolved, the electors are mostly just rubber-stamping the vote of the people.

Agreed. So it appears over time the Electoral College has abdicated its original Constitutional responsibilities. It was not designed to be a rubber-stamp of the popular vote. Our government is taking the path of least resistance by choosing political expediency over the rule of law.

And when the rule of men trumps the rule of law, violence becomes the means by which disagreements are settled. Enter the Scalise shooting as a harbinger of vigilantism.

We really need to put this last election season under an academic microscope and conduct a postmortem because I fear we have reached a dangerous turning point in our nation's history.

[RedSpawn]

 PassedOut, on 2017-June-19, 08:08, said:

I'm not sure that still holds true.

Agreed. I'm glad you noticed how we are gravitating away from that Constitutional foundation.

Quote

I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. --The Wizard of Oz

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-19, 09:52, said:

We really need to put this last election season under an academic microscope and conduct a postmortem because I fear we have reached a dangerous turning point in our nation's history.

It would indeed be a turning point if a foreign enemy power were able to make a deal with a candidate and subsequently buy the result through loans and propaganda and then get away with it without any sort of repercussions. It would be as much a symbolic passing of the baton as Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon. I sincerely hope that this does not end up being the case.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-19, 11:52, said:

It would indeed be a turning point if a foreign enemy power were able to make a deal with a candidate and subsequently buy the result through loans and propaganda and then get away with it without any sort of repercussions. It would be as much a symbolic passing of the baton as Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon. I sincerely hope that this does not end up being the case.

I hear you, but we are nation of laws not men. We also have intelligence services that conduct seemingly ubiquitous world-class surveillance on a large swath of the population. If Congress or the intelligence community has the irrefutable, damning evidence to impeach President Trump that adheres to the judicial system's rules of evidence, then let the Law & Order episode begin with the articles of impeachment.

It appears Congress has thrown several types of spaghetti against the wall to determine which charge might actually stick to President Trump or any of his alleged henchmen. Also, I have seen a lot of pathos appeals from the media to try to sway the public to endure the winding, pothole filled road to impeachment. The media has also made several logical appeals containing logical fallacies, so its hard to get excited about an upcoming political takedown.

I've seen a lot of kabuki theater, Senate hearings, political posturing and well-timed media leaks, but not much else. I'm not suggesting Trump is innocent, but I believe the bird's eye view will reveal the narrative is probably more layered, nuanced, and classified than anything we've seen thus far. Finally, I must remember that the millstones of justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine.

Quote

Justice, though moving at a tardy pace, has seldom failed to overtake the wicked in their flight. -- Horace

Stay tuned.

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-19, 14:58, said:

If Congress or the intelligence community has the irrefutable, damning evidence to impeach President Trump that adheres to the judicial system's rules of evidence, then let the Law & Order episode begin with the articles of impeachment.

What has impeachment to do with the judicial system? The process is political - it will only happen under the current Congress if Trump is such an electoral liability that House representatives fear for their seats or, perhaps more likely, the campaign funders (Kochs, et al) decide to pull the plug.

The difference can be illustrated by the recent reports about a potential obstruction of justice charge. My understanding is that it is practically impossible to make a judicial case against Trump for firing Comey as he has the defence available that he is simply carrying out his duties as head of the executive branch. It is, however, quite possible to impeach a sitting President for obstruction, as can be seen in the previous cases of Clinton and Nixon. Impeachment can occur without there being evidence of any criminal activity or indeed even without a crime having occurred.

In the long run, the real problem here is probably going to be that the entire administration feels the need to "lawyer up", which is something that makes life extremely uncomfortable for everyone in government. This is already happening at the top and it is likely that the process will continue down the ranks in the coming months. I strongly doubt that any charges, whether judicial or political, will be brought against DT personally during his presidency. That is not to say that no charges will be brought at all though, nor that the effects of the investigations will not be far-reaching even if no formal charges end up being tabled. Also, do not be surprised if the investigation continues well into the next term should the Democrats take over power. This is a case people might still be talking about in 50 years, complete with multiple conspiracy theories.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-20, 02:26, said:

What has impeachment to do with the judicial system? The process is political - it will only happen under the current Congress if Trump is such an electoral liability that House representatives fear for their seats or, perhaps more likely, the campaign funders (Kochs, et al) decide to pull the plug.

The difference can be illustrated by the recent reports about a potential obstruction of justice charge. My understanding is that it is practically impossible to make a judicial case against Trump for firing Comey as he has the defence available that he is simply carrying out his duties as head of the executive branch. It is, however, quite possible to impeach a sitting President for obstruction, as can be seen in the previous cases of Clinton and Nixon. Impeachment can occur without there being evidence of any criminal activity or indeed even without a crime having occurred.

In the long run, the real problem here is probably going to be that the entire administration feels the need to "lawyer up", which is something that makes life extremely uncomfortable for everyone in government. This is already happening at the top and it is likely that the process will continue down the ranks in the coming months. I strongly doubt that any charges, whether judicial or political, will be brought against DT personally during his presidency. That is not to say that no charges will be brought at all though, nor that the effects of the investigations will not be far-reaching even if no formal charges end up being tabled. Also, do not be surprised if the investigation continues well into the next term should the Democrats take over power. This is a case people might still be talking about in 50 years, complete with multiple conspiracy theories.

Agreed. Very good analysis.

Thank you for correcting me. I totally forgot that the Presiding Officer of the trial is the Chief Justice and he will determine the rules of evidence for the impeachment trial. He will rule in matters regarding the materiality, sufficiency, reliability, and redundancy of evidence presented in the case.

And as you correctly stated impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, but a political act designed as a safeguard against corruption or misconduct while in office. Therefore there is no trial by jury. Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body who will hear the case and vote on the articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence. The rules of procedure for this trial are fundamentally different than a plain vanilla criminal trial. And the final question on impeachment is what vote is in the best interest of our country, of our nation, and our people.

But as you have mentioned, impeachment can get very partisan very quickly as demonstrated with President Clinton's proceeding. The Senators probably factor the impact of their votes on their midterm elections because it's all about politics and containing political fallout.

[barmar]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-19, 09:52, said:

Agreed. So it appears over time the Electoral College has abdicated its original Constitutional responsibilities. It was not designed to be a rubber-stamp of the popular vote. Our government is taking the path of least resistance by choosing political expediency over the rule of law.

As I understand it, it's the state governments that did this, not the EC itself. The method of choosing electors is delegated to the states, and all but 2 states (Maine and Nebraska, a total of 9 electors between them) choose electors on a winner-take-all basis based on the popular vote in the state. While electors are not legally required to vote according to their pledge, they nearly always do (I think the electors themselves are chosen by the political parties) -- the few times there have been "faithless electors" there weren't enough to affect the outcome.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-19, 11:52, said:

It would indeed be a turning point if a foreign enemy power were able to make a deal with a candidate and subsequently buy the result through loans and propaganda and then get away with it without any sort of repercussions. It would be as much a symbolic passing of the baton as Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon. I sincerely hope that this does not end up being the case.

PUtin seems beloved by most Russians, much more than Trump is beloved by Americans. If we are going to have the state have more power over the economy to end inequality and injustice having CZAR Putin or CZAR Warren may be a starting point. Even the labour party in the UK with its manifesto of govt control is gaining popularity.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-16, 08:44, said:

Amen! But now that the precedent has been set I expect some right-wing nut to retaliate.

If that happens, we may have just witnessed the beginning of the 2nd US Civil War, where logic and reason become subservient to AK-47s.

Just food for thought....

[RedSpawn]

Oh where, oh where are we on this political map?

Should we be afraid of Trump or Big Business and Wall Street that seem to heavily influence (control) Washington D.C. policy at the expense of the body politic?

Are all of these parties a great threat to our constitutional republic?

https://www.thestude...42&d=1389003001

[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-21, 17:12, said:

Just food for thought....

I like, I like.

[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-21, 17:50, said:

I like, I like.

Wings don't argue over the size and duties of the bird.

[Cyberyeti]

 mike777, on 2017-June-21, 14:30, said:

PUtin seems beloved by most Russians, much more than Trump is beloved by Americans. If we are going to have the state have more power over the economy to end inequality and injustice having CZAR Putin or CZAR Warren may be a starting point. Even the labour party in the UK with its manifesto of govt control is gaining popularity.

The Labour party situation is different. They were largely voted for by people too young to remember what this sort of policy does. Far fewer of the people who lived through the 20%+ inflation and interest rates of a tax and spend Labour government voted for them.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2017-June-21, 14:30, said:

PUtin seems beloved by most Russians, much more than Trump is beloved by Americans. If we are going to have the state have more power over the economy to end inequality and injustice having CZAR Putin or CZAR Warren may be a starting point. Even the labour party in the UK with its manifesto of govt control is gaining popularity.

Most Russians have no idea what Putin stands for or what the alternatives might be as the opposition parties there have no voice. If DT could shut down all of those "fake news" sites and channels and lock up anyone that made any sort of protest against him, I daresay he could be just as popular in time.

"Gaining popularity" is one way of putting it. The Labour party was so low in opinion polls that a correction was pretty much on the cards. Opinion polls in the UK have been struggling for some time now and the poll companies appear to have overcompensated for some recent errors this time around. In particular, they vastly underestimated the turnout of younger voters in the wake of dissatisfaction with Brexit.

Another way of putting the Labour result is that they have reached almost the same position as when they lost disastrously under Gordon Brown. Claiming a Labour victory here is a little like declaring Georgia 6 a victory for Democrats because they increased their vote and share. The difference is simply in expectation and perception.

[mike777]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-21, 17:29, said:

Oh where, oh where are we on this political map?

Should we be afraid of Trump or Big Business and Wall Street that seem to heavily influence (control) Washington D.C. policy at the expense of the body politic?

Are all of these parties a great threat to our constitutional republic?

https://www.thestude...42&d=1389003001

If DC is going to have more and more power over our economy and our lives then someone or something is going to try and "heavily influence" Washington

----


As for the Labour party, you guys may know more about UK politics and how power operates there. On this side of the pond the evidence looks like Labour gained/won more power at the expense of May even if they are still the minority party.

[jogs]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-22, 03:21, said:

Most Russians have no idea what Putin stands for or what the alternatives might be as the opposition parties there have no voice. If DT could shut down all of those "fake news" sites and channels and lock up anyone that made any sort of protest against him, I daresay he could be just as popular in time.

We finally agree on something. There's no destroy Putin media in Russia. Also would you really tell an unknown pollster you dislike Putin?