Martell Spy Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Quote Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that President Donald Trump is "a fraud" and is working with Wall Street as he looks to roll back some banking regulations. "It is hard not to laugh, to see President Trump alongside these Wall Street guys. I have to say this, Jake, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, this guy is a fraud," Sanders told host Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union." Sanders criticized Trump for appointing "all of these billionaires" to his Cabinet, and singled out his major financial adviser, who comes from Goldman Sachs. The Vermont senator said that during his campaign, Trump said he would not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid but "then he appoints all of these guys who are precisely going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." Sanders on Trump: 'This guy is a fraud' http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-trump-is-a-fraud-234662 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 The Mexican peso got stronger in the international markets after the inauguration. Not that I know anything about these matters, but it seems to me that this says less about how the peso is actually performing and more about how the US dollar is weakening, for so many reasons. http://www.reuters.com/article/emerging-markets-idUSL5N1FN2X0 http://www.marketpulse.com/20170123/latam-currencies-rise-after-trumps-inauguration/ http://www.businessinsider.com/mexican-peso-donald-trump-inauguration-2017-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said: So? Bannon hasn't said he thinks Christianity and Capitalism are the same thing has he? (from what we can tell) He thinks there is a Christian form of capitalism which is the best way to run an economic system, and contrasts it to the ruthless/international globalist capitalism of the present age. Are you saying Christians can't be capitalists, or that capitalists can't try to conduct economic activity in ways compatible with Christianity because the NT rules this out? Maybe he means we're in the days of the Hansa, whose stated objective was ANYTHING for profit, profit trumps everything, including murdering one's own family members, allowing a member city of the league to burn to the ground rather than give up any capital, etc. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Quote But government funding will run out on April 28, and Democrats could filibuster any bill to keep the government open— and force a showdown over keeping the government down. It's unlikely to happen, admitted Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), although other Democrats suggest it could. The summer will see a vote on increasing the nation's $20-trillion-plus debt ceiling. Republicans can push an increase through the House on their own, but need 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats could get leverage there. I'll go on the record and right now and say that if the Democratic Party goes down this route, I will be extremely pissed with them. The Republican Party did this bullshit and it was detestable. This move would be extremely dumb for the Democtratic Party to make as it just feeds into the conservative hysteria over debt and inherent government dysfunction I read that article and what came to my mind is how Trump will react to these bills. I don't feel he understands the financing of government and will balk or trash talk and add chaos to the process because he fundamentally doesn't understand it. So I agree the D's shouldn't go down the shutdown route, but but what turbulence will Trump and Bannon introduce to the process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Commodore said: is the 9th Circus Court of Appeals invalidating this law? because if not, they have no leg to stand on https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 Yes, if it has never been tested it has never been tested. The question is when Trump will go full "Andrew Jackson". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The question is when Trump will go full "Andrew Jackson". You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it exactly? Genocide? Marital law? I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying say. I am respectfully asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Nasty LongRider said: You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it exactly? Genocide? Marital law? I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying say. I am respectfully asking. As far as I understand Scott, he's referring to Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 For the non-yanks with the more rudimentary grasp of the history of the US Presidents. Andrew Jackson was the Civil war general with the alcohol problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 From another Non-Yank: You're thinking of Ulysses Grant. Andrew Jackson was the pre-Civil War president responsible for the Trail of Tears (i.e., forcible removal of Native Americans living in the Appalachian Mountains and the Eastern Mississippi Basin). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said: So? Bannon hasn't said he thinks Christianity and Capitalism are the same thing has he? (from what we can tell) He thinks there is a Christian form of capitalism which is the best way to run an economic system, and contrasts it to the ruthless/international globalist capitalism of the present age. Are you saying Christians can't be capitalists, or that capitalists can't try to conduct economic activity in ways compatible with Christianity because the NT rules this out? Speaking as someone raised Christian, I would say that it is impossible to align yourself with both the teachings of Christ and the policies of the current US administration. You've got to be lying to yourself about one of these things, or possibly both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Going a little deeper, the Courts in America do not have any enforcement power. The branches are designed that the lgeislature makes laws, the executive carries out the laws, and the courts interpret the law. The Supreme Court can (and often does) decide that a certain White House policy is unconstitutional and must stop. However, if the executive chooses to simply ignore the court, then the Court has no real recourse. Impeachment is done by the Legislature, not the SC. So while the SC could appeal to the legislature to impeach the president for dereliction of duty, they couldn't do anything more than that. If the Executive and Legislature are in more or less agreement on a policy, the Courts are powerless to stop them. This has really only happened once in American history, almost 200 years ago when Andrew Jackson refused to acknowledge the rights granted to native americans by various treaties. Even though the SC said that he couldn't legally expel the Indians, he went ahead and did it anyway. Could anyone who knows more about the history of the era talk a bit more about the ramifications of that for Jackson? How did Congress react to that? Were there any grumblings about impeachment? I know Jackson was a very popular president. Did Congress say "this time it's ok, but if you do this again, we'll take it seriously", and thus it became a one-off constutitional crisis? Or did Congress not really care because giving rights to Indians was extremely unpopular to white voters nationwide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, butterbumps! said: Thanks for clarifying; it looked like you were putting both under the aegis of "provocateurs." I somewhat disagree that there's no categorical difference in identity politics, but I'm not sure if that discussion belongs in the thread. I don't know if we just see identity politics differently (I understand it to be basically civil rights advocacy, naming specific issues faced due to one's identity). I think you see it more as forming alliances based on identity, to where it becomes tribalistic, right? Yes. I will start a new thread (probably tomorrow) to elaborate on this as it is not specific to US Politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: As far as I understand Scott, he's referring to Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. Well, that but also Andrew Jackson was known for record-breaking veto numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: You keep saying this, but what do you mean by it exactly? Genocide? Marital law? I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying say. I am respectfully asking. I know. When will Trump say "the SCOTUS has made its decision... now let them enforce it." When the does this, and he will, the only remedy is impeachment, a fundamentally political action that only Congress can undertake. That's what I mean. Courts have no inherent "power" to force the executive to take an action. They rely upon the executive branch for enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said: From another Non-Yank: You're thinking of Ulysses Grant. Andrew Jackson was the pre-Civil War president responsible for the Trail of Tears (i.e., forcible removal of Native Americans living in the Appalachian Mountains and the Eastern Mississippi Basin). Ah, thanks. Too many Presidents to remember which one was which. Well, for the future I guess you just need to know George Washington and Donald Trump. The first and the last POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 21 minutes ago, Notone said: For the non-yanks with the more rudimentary grasp of the history of the US Presidents. Andrew Jackson was the Civil war general with the alcohol problem? No. He was the first true populist. He liked thumbing his nose at existing conventions and was the Genocide who ordered the "Trail of Tears". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Notone said: Ah, thanks. Too many Presidents to remember which one was which. Well, for the future I guess you just need to know George Washington and Donald Trump. The first and the last POTUS. I'd love if the US would convert to a parliamentary system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Was just reading up on Worcester v. Georgia. One key thing about it is that the Supreme court didn't order the US marshals to enforce it, as they had with previous orders. What it looks like is they purposely avoided a political confrontation with the Executive branch. They wanted to make a pro Indian legal decision, but likely thought a confrontation with the Executive over it would be damaging to our democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I know. When will Trump say "the SCOTUS has made its decision... now let them enforce it." When the does this, and he will, the only remedy is impeachment, a fundamentally political action that only Congress can undertake. That's what I mean. Courts have no inherent "power" to force the executive to take an action. They rely upon the executive branch for enforcement. I see, so if Trump does this, what then? Would the majority R congress have the backbone to do this? Oh man, with the R's for years squawking about 'activist judges' I could see where it might be difficult to proceed on impeachment. shit, we're screwed Thanks for your answer and the rest who also answered, it has helped to me understand this. I haven't been comparing Trump to Hitler because I don't think that is a good comparison. However, understanding our own Presidential history is a better way to understand the risks, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Was just reading up on Worcester v. Georgia. One key thing about it is that the Supreme court didn't order the US marshals to enforce it, as they had with previous orders. What it looks like is they purposely avoided a political confrontation with the Executive branch. They wanted to make a pro Indian legal decision, but likely thought a confrontation with the Executive over it would be damaging to our democracy. Oh this is interesting, so the SCOTUS could call on agencies to enforce the law. Good grief, what a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.