Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Are You Threadening Me Master Jedi?


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Eventually, even gerrymandering and voter suppression won't suffice to keep them in power.

It is already working extremely well, provided they can also continue to convince voters that there's no point in voting and advertise through propaganda like Fox News that they've actually always been at war with Eastasia.

The Democrats won Virginia by 9 points! 9 points! Do you have any idea what would happen in Australia if a party won by that margin? There'd be no opposition party, just a super-majority and some cross-benches. The Democrats utterly and completely trounced that election and still didn't win.

Mathematically, it's almost impossible to get a much bigger win than that under the winner-takes-all system.

And there are still so many tricks the Republicans haven't deployed yet that they've threatened. Most ominously: states can refuse to list candidates on the ballot. Democratic media pundits said they should make it a condition of being on the ballot paper that candidates released their tax returns. This lit a fire under Republicans, who then said that they'd make it conditional to be listed on promising to repeal the ACA.

In other words, since the Republicans hold most states - and will continue to even when landslide results happen - they're just going to put stupid clauses on being allowed to run for president within their states. Similarly, if the Supreme Court continues to strike down Trump's dictatorship, he'll simply add another 9 judges to it, all of them his loyalists.

The important thing to note here is that none of this is against the law. The only thing stopping Republicans from doing it is that it's against the spirit of the American Republic. But now, absolutely, they've shown that they no longer care about America's institutions. They want power and will hold it at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

But at the end of the day it was their jobs to protect the Republic from itself. Make no mistake, I am not saying the blame is on anyone but Republicans. I am saying that Dems didn't even give us a real chance. Obama shouldda, Harry Reid couldda, Nancy Pelosi mighta

 

Is it though? Political parties do not see themselves as protectors of the Republic and do not regard that as their mandate. Political parties are merely protectors of themselves and their evolving (or devolving) policy manifestos. The only protector of a system is the system itself (in it's design to minimise the possibility of subversion and corruption), and the belief by the individual members in the integrity and merits of the system. Political parties and partisanship can only serve to undermine the system for their own gains, and in a poorly designed system political parties will do that quicker and with greater effect. And since the system itself embeds political parties and partisanship as integral to the system, the system is doomed at conception.

The Democrats are not passive victims in this, they are complicit. The corruption serves their interests almost as much as it serves the Republicans. If people think several terms in a row of total Democratic control will fix anything they are delluded, at best it will slow the rate of growth of the rot. And the likelihood of the Democrats achieving several terms in a row of full control is about the same as the likelihood that the Earth is flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it though? Political parties do not see themselves as protectors of the Republic and do not regard that as their mandate. Political parties are merely protectors of themselves and their evolving (or devolving) policy manifestos. The only protector of a system is the system itself (in it's design to minimise the possibility of subversion and corruption), and the belief by the individual members in the integrity and merits of the system. Political parties and partisanship can only serve to undermine the system for their own gains, and in a poorly designed system political parties will do that quicker and with greater effect. And since the system itself embeds political parties and partisanship as integral to the system, the system is doomed at conception.

The Democrats are not passive victims in this, they are complicit. The corruption serves their interests almost as much as it serves the Republicans. If people think several terms in a row of total Democratic control will fix anything they are delluded, at best it will slow the rate of growth of the rot. And the likelihood of the Democrats achieving several terms in a row of full control is about the same as the likelihood that the Earth is flat.

Post Watergate is a model for how a system can be fixed at least temporarily by a party in power. It worked this long anyway.

Presidential systems may always fail eventually. They may be a poor design that eventually collapses under the strain of polarization and constitutional hardball. Honduras is an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you're referencing this article from Vox about how American democracy and more generally presidential systems are a bad example? 

Quote

Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.

But within a presidential system, gridlock leads to a constitutional trainwreck with no resolution. The United States's recent government shutdowns and executive action on immigration are small examples of the kind of dynamic that's led to coups and putsches abroad.

I think that the article has a lot of good points and I think if we had a parliamentary system instead of a presidential one we wouldn't be having the kind of crisis we are having now. I also think the way the American system is a winner take all system which basically ensures only two viable parties really hurts things as well. A system which gives parties seats based on a percentage of the vote would allow both more liberal and more conservative options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Listen to me Larry, the Republicans have just decided to release The Memo, and the Democrats on the congressional Intelligence Committee just found out the Republican majority unilaterally opened investigations into the FBI and the Justice Department.

You people are never going to find out what the Russians did during the election and you will never find out if there was collusion. The Republicans are going to take those puppies down to the basement and drown them in the laundry sink. No, wait. These are Republicans. They are going to take those puppies out behind the house and put a couple of bullets in their heads.

Honestly, right now I finally, for the first time, believe you won't have a 2020 election. Trump and his generals are going to declare an emergency, round-up traitorous Democrats, and promise to restore elections 'once the situation is under control'.

eta: Oh, and the FBI's deputy director up and quit at noon and the guns are pointed at Rosenstein next.

There will be an election in 2020. The question is whether or not it will be fair (unlikely).

But otherwise you’re right to fear for our nation, and it’s frightening that a Canadian is more worried than most of the people in this country. They’re all so f*****g blind. I was canvassing my office, and literally no one was aware of yesterday’s events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Word on the street is that McCabe's replacement, David Bowdich, is an absolutely unimpeachable straight shooter.

You know who else were unimpeachable straight shooters? Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darzin said:

I'm assuming you're referencing this article from Vox about how American democracy and more generally presidential systems are a bad example? 

I think that the article has a lot of good points and I think if we had a parliamentary system instead of a presidential one we wouldn't be having the kind of crisis we are having now. I also think the way the American system is a winner take all system which basically ensures only two viable parties really hurts things as well. A system which gives parties seats based on a percentage of the vote would allow both more liberal and more conservative options.

Yes It was. A great article. Unfortunately it did not describe the current situation with Repubs holding 3 branches.

There is one other era of high polarization, near the start of the U.S. However there was lots less constitutional hardball. The Alien and Sedition Act is all I can think of and it backfired big time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it though? Political parties do not see themselves as protectors of the Republic and do not regard that as their mandate. Political parties are merely protectors of themselves and their evolving (or devolving) policy manifestos. The only protector of a system is the system itself (in it's design to minimise the possibility of subversion and corruption), and the belief by the individual members in the integrity and merits of the system. Political parties and partisanship can only serve to undermine the system for their own gains, and in a poorly designed system political parties will do that quicker and with greater effect. And since the system itself embeds political parties and partisanship as integral to the system, the system is doomed at conception.

The Democrats are not passive victims in this, they are complicit. The corruption serves their interests almost as much as it serves the Republicans. If people think several terms in a row of total Democratic control will fix anything they are delluded, at best it will slow the rate of growth of the rot. And the likelihood of the Democrats achieving several terms in a row of full control is about the same as the likelihood that the Earth is flat.

In what way are they complicit? How does it serve their interests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yukle said:

It is already working extremely well, provided they can also continue to convince voters that there's no point in voting and advertise through propaganda like Fox News that they've actually always been at war with Eastasia.

The Democrats won Virginia by 9 points! 9 points! Do you have any idea what would happen in Australia if a party won by that margin? There'd be no opposition party, just a super-majority and some cross-benches. The Democrats utterly and completely trounced that election and still didn't win.

Mathematically, it's almost impossible to get a much bigger win than that under the winner-takes-all system.

And there are still so many tricks the Republicans haven't deployed yet that they've threatened. Most ominously: states can refuse to list candidates on the ballot. Democratic media pundits said they should make it a condition of being on the ballot paper that candidates released their tax returns. This lit a fire under Republicans, who then said that they'd make it conditional to be listed on promising to repeal the ACA.

In other words, since the Republicans hold most states - and will continue to even when landslide results happen - they're just going to put stupid clauses on being allowed to run for president within their states. Similarly, if the Supreme Court continues to strike down Trump's dictatorship, he'll simply add another 9 judges to it, all of them his loyalists.

The important thing to note here is that none of this is against the law. The only thing stopping Republicans from doing it is that it's against the spirit of the American Republic. But now, absolutely, they've shown that they no longer care about America's institutions. They want power and will hold it at all costs.

I’ve got a fun one for you that you might not have noticed from down under. Austin is a large city in Texas with a population of about one million people, though that’s only Austin proper. It’s really a lot bigger than that, and it’s overwhelmingly liberal. Hillary got almost 66% of the vote in 2016 out of Travis county, where Austin is located. Six Congressmen represent the city. Only one is a Democrat.

#Gerrymandering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's looking more and more like McCabe's decision to retire a month early is primarily due to the forthcoming IG report that will criticize his role (which basically means failure to recuse himself) in the FBI's Clinton investigation:

Quote

A former law enforcement official close to McCabe told the New York Times that Wray was concerned about the report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz and discussed moving McCabe to a different position within the FBI. McCabe instead chose to leave the bureau altogether, per the Times.

CNN reported that Wray suggested in a memo to FBI staff that the forthcoming inspector general report played a role in McCabe’s decision to leave, citing sources who saw Wray’s memo. Wray told McCabe that he would be bringing on a new team to lead the FBI, and that McCabe could move to a different position or leave, according to CNN.

 

57 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Depressing read but likely very accurate.

It's accurate to say the future of the investigation will rest with Congress and ultimately the electorate.  It's also certainly accurate to clarify the Mueller is not going to indict the president.  It's wholly inaccurate, however, to say the crucial actor in future scenarios is Rosenstein and not Mueller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's accurate to say the future of the investigation will rest with Congress and ultimately the electorate.  It's also certainly accurate to clarify the Mueller is not going to indict the president.  It's wholly inaccurate, however, to say the crucial actor in future scenarios is Rosenstein and not Mueller.

I disagree. Rosenstein has all the power in this situation. It's his decision on what gets released to the public. It's his decision on what gets released to Congress. It's his decision on what the future recommendations are or how those are communicated. And it's his decision to keep the investigation going. So yea, really think Rosenstein is the main actor here that matters which is why the WH and Congressional assholes are going after him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I disagree. Rosenstein has all the power in this situation. It's his decision on what gets released to the public. It's his decision on what gets released to Congress. It's his decision on what the future recommendations are or how those are communicated. And it's his decision to keep the investigation going. So yea, really think Rosenstein is the main actor here that matters which is why the WH and Congressional assholes are going after him.

If Mueller concludes his investigation and recommends a referral be made to Congress on article of impeachment, and Rosenstein or whomever replaces Rosenstein refuses to make that referral or release Mueller's findings to the public, Mueller will find a way to release the information to the public.  If Rosenstein or whomever replaces Rosenstein shuts down Mueller's investigation, Mueller will find a way to release the information from the investigation to the public.  Mueller will play be the rules up and until the point his superiors are subverting the rules to repress him.  It's the exact same thing Comey did in leaking his conversations with Trump, which, btw, is why Mueller is heading a special investigation in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If Mueller concludes his investigation and recommends a referral be made to Congress on article of impeachment, and Rosenstein or whomever replaces Rosenstein refuses to make that referral or release Mueller's findings to the public, Mueller will find a way to release the information to the public.  If Rosenstein or whomever replaces Rosenstein shuts down Mueller's investigation, Mueller will find a way to release the information from the investigation to the public.  Mueller will play be the rules up and until the point his superiors are subverting the rules to repress him.  It's the exact same thing Comey did in leaking his conversations with Trump, which, btw, is why Mueller is heading a special investigation in the first place.

Why would Mueller do that? From everything we know about Mueller, he's completely by the book. He will go through proper channels and his job will be done. What in his history makes you think he will go around those channels to unilaterally leak something?

The difference with Comey was his contemporaneous notes were not classified and are entirely related to his and only his interactions with Trump. Mueller's investigation is not even remotely the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Why would Mueller do that? From everything we know about Mueller, he's completely by the book. He will go through proper channels and his job will be done. What in his history makes you think he will go around those channels to unilaterally leak something?

The difference with Comey was his contemporaneous notes were not classified and are entirely related to his and only his interactions with Trump. Mueller's investigation is not even remotely the same.

Why wouldn't he do that?  Mueller may have a pristine reputation, but he's also been a political player in DC for the better part of two decades.  Plus, that reputation has been cultivated by being perceived as standing up to power.  Everything about his history, reputation, and ego suggests he will leak his recommendations and details of the investigation if he feels he's being suppressed.  

You're right, there is a difference between Comey's notes and Mueller leaking the key points of his investigation.  In the former the White House could at least claim executive privilege.  The latter is much more similar to Comey's July 2016 press conference or October 2016 letter to Congress on the Hillary investigation - both of which violated DOJ procedure but are hardly illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...