u.s. politics: molotov cocktail through the overton window

[denstorebog]

It's crazy when you think about it. How much media time and speculation is spent on the investigation, and how, even if it up shedding light on any number of provable offenses, it may just run out into the sand and have no real relevance in the Real World.

If nothing else, the result of the investigation may tell us how disconnected American reality has truly become from the fictional reality of Rule of Law.

[maarsen]

15 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I think it is very optimistic to think Republicans will act on the Mueller probe if he finds wrongdoing. Just on the face of it, obstruction of justice looks very plausible, but after the Comey testimony, Ryan basically said "he is new to all of this, he didn't mean it like it sounded," the R talking points have also shifted from No Collusion to what does collusion mean, really?

Sort of like when are sexual relations not sexual relations. 

[Kalbear]

35 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I think it is very optimistic to think Republicans will act on the Mueller probe if he finds wrongdoing. Just on the face of it, obstruction of justice looks very plausible, but after the Comey testimony, Ryan basically said "he is new to all of this, he didn't mean it like it sounded," the R talking points have also shifted from No Collusion to what does collusion mean, really?

It's optimistic to think that they'd take actual action against Trump to get him removed. I don't think it's as optimistic to think that they'd look to make the system in general more secure and robust, because they don't like Trump either, and they REALLY don't like the idea of our election being influenced by external countries. 

 

20 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Sort of like when are sexual relations not sexual relations. 

ZING

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Probably the best case outcome I can see from the probe showing how messed up everything is would be to have the following happen:

• Congress as a whole does not support Trump at any level and passes a number of laws and possibly constitutional amendments restricting executive power
• Changing of the electoral college rules or obliterating them outright

?? If Congress is passing constitutional amendments to restrict executive power and superseding the electoral college (one way or another), then we've already reached the point in which impeachment and conviction has already happened.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

Trump once again refers to Kim Jong-Un as "Rocket Man" during his speech to the UN General Assembly. He also says that the US may have no choice but to "totally destroy North Korea." 

It's all just a dick measuring contest to this buffoon. Hurling childish insults at a nuclear armed dictator. Fucking hell.

Lost in the context of his comments is that the President of the United States, the so called leader of the free world, just threatened to kill 25,000,000 people, just to as you say, show how he measures up. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m listening to NPR and they’re reporting that at one point members in the audience were laughing at Trump.

Sorry world, our bad.

The only thing that confuses me about that report is "at one point."

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, dmc515 said:

?? If Congress is passing constitutional amendments to restrict executive power and superseding the electoral college (one way or another), then we've already reached the point in which impeachment and conviction has already happened.

Do you think an impeachment is even possible with a Republican Congress short of hard evidence that Trump committed a heinous crime? And I'm not just talking about Russiagate. I feel like they've already signaled that they'll give him a pass on it if there's no hard evidence that Trump himself was behind everything even if everyone around him is caught red handed. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The only thing that confuses me about that report is "at one point."

It was on the fly reporting, but they said a lot of representatives of socialist governments openly laughed at him when he said that Venezuela is prime example of why socialism is a complete failure (paraphrasing). 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you think an impeachment is even possible with a Republican Congress short of hard evidence that Trump committed a heinous crime? And I'm not just talking about Russiagate. I feel like they've already signaled that they'll give him a pass on it if there's no hard evidence that Trump himself was behind everything even if everyone around him is caught red handed. 

My point was I think it's (much) more likely than passing constitutional amendments, or changing the electoral college.  And yes, once again, if he gets mired in the mid-to-low twenties after a midterm shellacking (a HUGE BIGLY if), I think impeachment is entirely possible, even plausible.  Of course, in that case it'd be a Democratic House, albeit who owns the Senate really doesn't matter as it's marginal regardless.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Do you think an impeachment is even possible with a Republican Congress short of hard evidence that Trump committed a heinous crime? And I'm not just talking about Russiagate. I feel like they've already signaled that they'll give him a pass on it if there's no hard evidence that Trump himself was behind everything even if everyone around him is caught red handed.

 They might remove him if he keeps tanking in popularity and effects an election badly. Perhaps in 4 years they just won't nominate him. It'd be quite bizarre, but then everything around Trump bizarre.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/obamacare-repeal-senate-democrats-242860

Dems rush back to Obamacare battle
Party leaders are mobilizing opposition to the GOP’s revived repeal push.

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

?? If Congress is passing constitutional amendments to restrict executive power and superseding the electoral college (one way or another), then we've already reached the point in which impeachment and conviction has already happened.

Why do you say that? 

Trump has shown zero sign of fighting these types of rules, even when they directly oppose him. I'm assuming more of the same. Same goes with the Electoral College, especially if it's popular to remove it. 

[Kalbear]

Also, Trump's polling numbers are going back up. 3% less disapproval and 2% more approval since his pit a couple weeks ago. 

I think that short of an economic meltdown that's where he's going to be. 

[Red Tiger]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m listening to NPR and they’re reporting that at one point members in the audience were laughing at Trump.

Sorry world, our bad.

Very few of them. I saw the entire speech.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why do you say that? 

Because it's easier for Congress to remove a president than it is to pass a constitutional amendment or do anything to "change" the electoral college.  The latter would generally also be an amendment, although I suppose they could pass some law expressing the states should abide by the National Popular Vote pact.  Still, that'd be non-binding until the states actually did it.

More importantly, the only reason the GOP would get on board with any of such measures is if Trump is toxic.  In which case, it's much more politically viable to just get rid of him than change the constitutional role of the president (which each party of Congress has been complicit in the extension of since FDR with the slight hiccup of the War Powers Act), or divert from the electoral college - which would be the GOP gifting away an institutional advantage just for the sake of keeping Trump, in this hypothetical.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, Trump's polling numbers are going back up. 3% less disapproval and 2% more approval since his pit a couple weeks ago. 

I think that short of an economic meltdown that's where he's going to be. 

Yup, I honestly haven't looked at approval numbers in a couple weeks but I assume they're going up.  That doesn't mean they can't go down, and go down very fast, in the future.  He's riding a wave of Chuck and Nancy and Harvey and Irma, but he still hasn't done jack shit.  His basement is still lower than many analysts think, and if he doesn't get anything actually done, he may well find himself in the shit.  If the economy tanks he's fucked, but I don't like hoping for that.

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Because it's easier for Congress to remove a president than it is to pass a constitutional amendment or do anything to "change" the electoral college.  The latter would generally also be an amendment, although I suppose they could pass some law expressing the states should abide by the National Popular Vote pact.  Still, that'd be non-binding until the states actually did it.

It's easier from a procedural position, but not a political one. I can see a lot of ways in which congress considers Trump behavior not acceptable but cannot take the hit of impeachment. 

15 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

More importantly, the only reason the GOP would get on board with any of such measures is if Trump is toxic.  In which case, it's much more politically viable to just get rid of him than change the constitutional role of the president (which each party of Congress has been complicit in the extension of since FDR with the slight hiccup of the War Powers Act), or divert from the electoral college - which would be the GOP gifting away an institutional advantage just for the sake of keeping Trump, in this hypothetical.

But the GOP has already gotten on board with a number of those things. They already passed a law restricting Russian restrictions being lifted, as an example, and they did it overwhelmingly. There are a number of bills on the table to keep Mueller around no matter what. I'm simply extending this to further ideas along those lines. Things like a new AUMF (again, on the table by the GOP), restrictions on budget cuts to programs (also already happening), restrictions on executive orders (possible), restrictions on appointments (likely). 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's easier from a procedural position, but not a political one. I can see a lot of ways in which congress considers Trump behavior not acceptable but cannot take the hit of impeachment. 

Ways in which they pass constitutional amendments?  Please explain.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But the GOP has already gotten on board with a number of those things. They already passed a law restricting Russian restrictions being lifted, as an example, and they did it overwhelmingly. There are a number of bills on the table to keep Mueller around no matter what.

Right.  I feel through the looking glass here - this is what I've been saying to you for months...

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm simply extending this to further ideas along those lines. Things like a new AUMF (again, on the table by the GOP), restrictions on budget cuts to programs (also already happening), restrictions on executive orders (possible), restrictions on appointments (likely). 

Again, I think that's all possible before impeachment.  What I took issue was the notion of amendments or changing the EC.  Other than that, I agree - although restrictions on EOs will likely start from the courts, and restrictions on appointments is another sticky issue.

[Kalbear]

42 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ways in which they pass constitutional amendments?  Please explain.

Well, there's the 38 state way for constitutional amendments, and depending on what it is I could see that getting through. Again, though, I really don't think that Trump will resist much other than to be pissed off. And I think that if it comes out that the Trump campaign did some Really Bad Things, both parties will want to crack down hard, but the GOP will still not want to impeach Trump, preferring instead to primary him.

Here's one example: all states choose to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that anyone who wants to run for POTUS must release at least X years of their tax returns. This would likely be pretty popular, it's never been a problem for GOP candidates prior to this, and it would likely solve a lot of the issues - especially if it turns out a smoking gun is in the tax returns. 

42 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Right.  I feel through the looking glass here - this is what I've been saying to you for months...

The difference is that I don't see a lot of it so far, and it hasn't been all that effective in curbing the worst of the excesses. I don't see them stopping his rampage over the EPA or the DoJ, for instance. I don't think that they'll do much to kick Trump out or really stop most of what he wants to do; I think they might pass things to make the next Trump harder to do. 

42 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Again, I think that's all possible before impeachment.  What I took issue was the notion of amendments or changing the EC.  Other than that, I agree - although restrictions on EOs will likely start from the courts, and restrictions on appointments is another sticky issue.

I think that amendments regarding executive powers are quite possible, enough to be veto-proof even. And that's not going to happen until it's been shown how bad he is. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

The projected financial hit to states has pitted some Republican governors against their own Senate delegation. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval — in a break with bill co-sponsor Dean Heller — and Ohio Gov. John Kasich both signed onto a 10-governor letter urging the GOP to abandon Graham-Cassidy in favor of propping up Obamacare. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, opposed the bill too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/obamacare-repeal-backlash-242903

Backlash throws last-ditch Obamacare repeal effort into doubt
Opponents of the proposal seized on its plan to overhaul Obamacare’s subsidized insurance and Medicaid expansion and replace those with block grants.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, there's the 38 state way for constitutional amendments, and depending on what it is I could see that getting through.

Yeah, I really, really don't.  Go count the 13 most Trumpist states.  You see them passing amendments that will curb his authority?  Before he's removed from office already?  No matter how you cut the amendment process - which there are a lot of (well, four) fun ways to cut it - it's always going to be more politically palatable to rid thyself of Trump than go through the enactment process, let alone passage.  This is getting silly at this point.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The difference is that I don't see a lot of it so far, and it hasn't been all that effective in curbing the worst of the excesses. I don't see them stopping his rampage over the EPA or the DoJ, for instance. I don't think that they'll do much to kick Trump out or really stop most of what he wants to do; I think they might pass things to make the next Trump harder to do. 

K.  To the bolded, there's not much they can do unless he does something a majority of Republicans object to in those two agencies.  Thus far, that absolutely has not been the case.  As @Tywin et al. intimated earlier, you seem to want the Republican Congress to reign in a Republican President for directing agencies to align with Republican preferences.  That's just not realistic.

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that amendments regarding executive powers are quite possible, enough to be veto-proof even. And that's not going to happen until it's been shown how bad he is. 

Love to see it!  Although, this is one instance in which I'm the pessimist and you're the optimist.  Neither party is going to curb executive power much because they enjoy that power once they capture the presidency.  Another one of those "be ecstatic to be proven wrong" things.

[LongRider]

I really want them to rein in Trump not reign in Trump.