US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Sorry you and I are not intellectually connecting via the internet.

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme. 

Programme, is that a uk word?

 

It's English. The only program in English is a computer program. You will note that I don't live in the UK, I assume you're not geographically challenged.

[Mexal]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes they can.  The power of the purse is, functionally, more powerful than the power of the sword.  Congress is literally endowed to shut down the executive branch.  It's not the same the other way.  This is a pretty basic point.  If Congress actually united against the Executive, they are far more equipped in such a war.  So, while that's never gonna happen in this day and age, it's inaccurate to say they don't have that capacity.  Madison and co. specifically and explicitly made sure they had that capacity.

Right, so by this measure, in order to enforce oversight, the only power Congress has is to pass an appropriations bill, override a Presidential veto, enforce their oversight, then pass another appropriations bill to give funding back once their oversight is complete? Ok. I guess you're right, they're perfectly enabled to enforce their Congressional oversight.

Basically, what you're saying, is the House Dems can't do shit unless they have 2/3rds majority in the Senate or an Executive Branch that believes the law applies to themselves as well as everyone else.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme.

And you haven't provided any type of reasoning for why it shouldn't.

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Right, so by this measure, in order to enforce oversight, the only power Congress has is to pass an appropriations bill, override a Presidential veto, enforce their oversight, then pass another appropriations bill to give funding back once their oversight is complete? Ok. I guess you're right, they're perfectly enabled to enforce their Congressional oversight.

Well, no.  Congress doesn't have to pass an appropriations bill.  They can simply say they're not going to pass any appropriations bill.  We've had some experience with this recently.  Hypothetically, it's pretty damn simple, but..

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Basically, what you're saying, is the House Dems can't do shit unless they have 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  Generally, though, yeah.  You originally said Congress was powerless.  I was objecting to that.  Congress isn't powerless, it's the parties that are powerless to stand up to the president - whether it be the opposition or his own party.  That's a feature of polarization and contemporary politics generally.  It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the powers of Congress.

[Jace, Extat]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  Generally, though, yeah.  You originally said Congress was powerless.  I was objecting to that.  Congress isn't powerless, it's the parties that are powerless to stand up to the president - whether it be the opposition or his own party.  That's a feature of polarization and contemporary politics generally.  It has nothing, or at least very little, to do with the powers of Congress.

You're being obstinate here. Congress is powerless because it can no longer function. It doesn't matter what mythical powers they're supposed to have, the fact is that the legislative branch is not capable of functioning. To think, that fucking ACA is probably the last major legislation that will ever be passed other than tax cuts. What a waste of a supermajority.

[DMC]

I don't see how I'm being obstinate.  All I'm emphasizing is this isn't a structural problem, it's a contextual problem.  Everybody should be screaming at Congress to do their fucking jobs.  And that goes back loooooooooong before Trump.  But I don't think it's splitting hairs to clarify Congress does have the power to counteract, they've just been too feckless to use it for generations now.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

For whatever reason, I'm picturing you swirling brandy while saying this.

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, 3/5ths should be sufficient.  

I get the argument you're making, but if we're talking bold moves Congress needs to do, it will take a lot more than that. It's unrealistic for the foreseeable future, but eventually Democrats need to pair up with what remains of the sane right and initiate a constitutional convention because our country is so f''ing broken at the moment, and it's only going to get worse as fewer and fewer people are represented by more and more senators. Iirc, in 20 years, 30% of the population will be represented by 70 senators, and they will primarily be from red states. 

 

47 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's English. The only program in English is a computer program. You will note that I don't live in the UK, I assume you're not geographically challenged.

New Zealand, Wales, do we really need to squabble over mythical locations? 

[sologdin]

not seeing the reason for the defeatist despair.  the operativity of US institutions is in accord with their ossature. as we have not reached the end of history, further developments should be reasonably anticipated.

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't see how I'm being obstinate.  All I'm emphasizing is this isn't a structural problem, it's a contextual problem.  Everybody should be screaming at Congress to do their fucking jobs.  And that goes back loooooooooong before Trump.  But I don't think it's splitting hairs to clarify Congress does have the power to counteract, they've just been too feckless to use it for generations now.

By a strict reading of the constitution, yes. They have the power. But in reality they have none. Maybe the disconnect here is that some of us are pointing out that the legless man cannot use his bicycle but you're adamant about making it clear that he has one. The bike is useless and should not be considered as a method of travel for the legless man. Similarly congress is functionally incapable of carrying out their constitutionally granted abilities of oversight, so there's little point to repeatedly asserting that they could if reality was different.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

not seeing the reason for the defeatist despair.  the operativity of US institutions is in accord with their ossature. as we have not reached the end of history, further developments should be reasonably anticipated.

You're a smart man. What happens to an empire when its elites prioritize their own comfort and gains over the stability of the state? There's either a reform to stave off the collapse or the grip of the wealthy movers of power is too hard to break and eventually it all shatters.

Which one do you think is more likely in our case?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You're a smart man. What happens to an empire when its elites prioritize their own comfort and gains over the stability of the state? There's either a reform to stave off the collapse or the grip of the wealthy movers of power is too hard to break and eventually it all shatters.

Which one do you think is more likely in our case?

I think his response would be to flash a wry grin at the sight of the next lamppost he passes. It has so much potential, though personally, I think the French did it better. 

[sologdin]

Which one do you think is more likely in our case?

the normal roll call is revolution, reform, or mutual ruin of the contending classes--the last of which has normally worked itself out as fascist catastrophe.  we are past the point of no return on that question; what remains to be determined is the quantum and durance of the mutual ruin; the struggle's objective is to commence post-apocalyptic reconstruction as soon as possible.  that's a brave new world worthy of envisioning.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think his response would be to flash a wry grin at the sight of the next lamppost he passes. It has so much potential, though personally, I think the French did it better. 

I'd love a revolution of the proletariat as much as the next person, but c'mon man. It ain't gonna happen. There's Disney+ !!!!

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm picturing you swirling brandy while saying this.

Not sure I get the joke, but I fucking hate brandy.  Only time ever drank it was when me and my bro emptied out my parents' stash when I was 12-14.

41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Democrats need to pair up with what remains of the sane right and initiate a constitutional convention

Yeah that's not gonna happen.

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Iirc, in 20 years, 30% of the population will be represented by 70 senators, and they will primarily be from red states. 

This is fundamentally fallacious empirical analysis.  If the demographics shift in such a way, assuming those states will be "red" at the time has absolutely no basis.

41 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Maybe the disconnect here is that some of us are pointing out that the legless man cannot use his bicycle but you're adamant about making it clear that he has one. The bike is useless and should not be considered as a method of travel for the legless man.

That's an inapt analogy for what I'm trying to say.  The man isn't legless.  The man has legs.  And if he works out, those legs could make him Lance Armstrong with two balls.  Problem is the man is a lazy fuck who hasn't even thought about getting back on the bike for decades - and now is kinda afraid to start up again.  I can identify with that, btw.

[Mexal]

What a waste.

 

[Zorral]

So.  The whistle blower alert involves the prez of Ukraine, Giuliani, dirt on Biden's son for the election, etc., or so it seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/whistleblower-complaint-about-president-trump-involves-ukraine-according-to-two-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/19/07e33f0a-daf6-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html

Quote

 

A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch....

Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian and political newcomer who was elected in a landslide in May.

That call is already under investigation by House Democrats who are examining whether Trump and his attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to manipulate the Ukrainian government into helping Trump’s reelection campaign. Lawmakers have demanded a full transcript and a list of participants on the call....

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

What a waste.

 

It's only a waste if trump doesn't get re-elected in 2020. If he makes it back in then it's the people's money well spent, as far as he's concerned. $28bn is cushion money for the federal budget after all.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

Those mechanisms are only as valuable as paper though. We see that with the current DNI issue, or how Lewandowski behaved. Or how trump is siphoning money from the military for his wall. Ultimately Congress doesnt have power when the executive branch ignores their authority entirely. 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't see how I'm being obstinate.  All I'm emphasizing is this isn't a structural problem, it's a contextual problem.  Everybody should be screaming at Congress to do their fucking jobs.  And that goes back loooooooooong before Trump.  But I don't think it's splitting hairs to clarify Congress does have the power to counteract, they've just been too feckless to use it for generations now.

Not exactly. It means that Congress without a supermajority has no actual power to check the executive branch. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately Congress doesnt have power when the executive branch ignores their authority entirely. 

It's getting to the point I suspect people are willfully ignoring the very basic point I was making.  Yes, politically Congress is toothless.  But that's not due to a lack of enumerated powers and potential checks on the executive.  It's because the GOP is self-interested in swallowing any and everything Trump spews out and when the opposition only holds one chamber all they can do is prevent defense - especially when that chamber is the House.  

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not exactly. It means that Congress without a supermajority has no actual power to check the executive branch.

That's entirely untrue.  An opposition Senate can block all judicial nominations now.  If the opposition holds a simple majority in both chambers they can block all legislation as long as they stay united, which is increasingly easy to do with perpetual polarization.  An opposition Congress does not need a supermajority to make the president ineffectual beyond EOs.  That's manifest, but if you want examples of it, there's tons in, oh, pretty much every single presidency in living memory - including Carter's, in which he enjoyed vast party majorities his entire four years.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It's getting to the point I suspect people are willfully ignoring the very basic point I was making.  Yes, politically Congress is toothless.  But that's not due to a lack of enumerated powers and potential checks on the executive.  It's because the GOP is self-interested in swallowing any and everything Trump spews out and when the opposition only holds one chamber all they can do is prevent defense - especially when that chamber is the House.  

So they're powerless. Cool. 

The party in power will ignore things as long as they will get elected, which they will under almost every circumstance. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

That's entirely untrue.  An opposition Senate can block all judicial nominations now.  If the opposition holds a simple majority in both chambers they can block all legislation as long as they stay united, which is increasingly easy to do with perpetual polarization.  An opposition Congress does not need a supermajority to make the president ineffectual beyond EOs.  That's manifest, but if you want examples of it, there's tons in, oh, pretty much every single presidency in living memory - including Carter's, in which he enjoyed vast party majorities his entire four years.

The Senate does have a bit more power, but I'm not sure that matters given the projections of the senate composition. 

Blocking legislation doesnt matter at all. Trump got precisely one thing through that matters in 3 years. The things that he wants to do and is doing are entirely executive power, such as bribing other countries with foreign aid in exchange for potentially fabricating opposition research. 

The power of the purse also doesnt matter as much when money can be diverted to things he wants to do anyway and the courts say sure. 

I dont disagree that Congress can make the potus ineffective beyond all the power of the executive branch, but that is just another how was the play mrs Lincoln statement. The point everyone but you seems to get is that Congress has no way to functionally check the power of the executive branch, especially once the judiciary is in the pocket. This is precisely what we've seen with Orban as well. The only option that the dems have right now is basically the ultimate nuclear option, which is to simply not pass a budget and throw the us into a depression.