ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 8th May 2019, 08:05 AM   #201
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Hey, our president just floated the idea that his term be extended 2 years for no real reason whatsoever. Implicit in such a suggestion is that elections would be postponed. This is all just fine.
And what about the states that said screw that and held elections?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:06 AM   #202
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I'm sure Trump believes his SCOTUS picks will pay him back. I'm not sure they will. The Federalist Society picked those justices because they hope to overturn Roe. And probably because they would make Scalia-like pro-business decisions. They weren't picked by Trump from his stable of peons and crazies.

Even if RapeyMcRapeface feels obligated to Trump, I can't see that Justice Roberts feels that way.
the Federalists have moved far to the Right of Scalia.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:09 AM   #203
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes. I'm certain that Trump secured an oath of loyalty from them prior to nominating them.
It appears though that Trump likes to use that 'rid me of this meddlesome priest' type of loyalty discussions rather than blatantly stating his meaning. That kind of loyalty oath could easily be reneged on.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:10 AM   #204
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's not his place to refuse.
Exactly.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:15 AM   #205
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes it is. Congress can't just look at anyone's tax return just because it wants to. And if it's not his place to refuse, whose place is it? Who can say no to Congress when they demand something they aren't entitled to?
Notice the way you changed the argument from "that's not what the Special Council law says" to the 'POTUS has the right to defy checks and balances even if the law says he does not have that right'.

Picking and choosing which laws you like?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:17 AM   #206
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh please. Show me in the Constitution where it says Congress gets to make laws.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:17 AM   #207
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your position is not universally shared.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3381974
From your link:

Quote:
...a statute cannot transcend the constitutional limits on Congressís investigative authority
...and evidently you agree with that.

How is that any different from the National Emergencies Act actually allowing the President to usurp Congress' Constitutional power of the purse, which you also evidently agree with? A statute cannot transcend limits on Congress but it CAN transcend Constitutional limits on Presidential power?

You claim you're not actually a Trump supporter, I believe, yet EVERY single position you take is one that enables Trump. I find that juxtaposition quite indicative of disingenuity.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:21 AM   #208
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Notice the way you changed the argument from "that's not what the Special Council law says" to the 'POTUS has the right to defy checks and balances even if the law says he does not have that right'.

Picking and choosing which laws you like?
The Constitution is always the supreme law.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:24 AM   #209
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Your position is not universally shared.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3381974
And like a SCOTUS decision, the court will likely be split. So the fact a legal scholar says X doesn't mean SCOTUS won't say Y.

On top of that, the argument is the Congressional investigation needs to be related to impeachment. Who says it isn't? You have to investigate in order to know if impeachment is called for. Remember the are active charges against Trump for violating the Emoluments Clause.

And, you are back to you trying to lead the discussion away from Trump's hunger for dictatorial power. I think we can say there is no more argument there.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:31 AM   #210
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
the Federalists have moved far to the Right of Scalia.
Well, yeah. But that doesn't guarantee they'll be Trump cronies.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:33 AM   #211
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The Constitution is always the supreme law.
Great! Then we agree that the President was expanding his powers (by usurping Congress' powers) when he declared the Emergency to get funding for his Wall even though Congress denied. You say Congress can change that National Emergencies Act, but no need: The Constitution supercedes it.

Thanks for the debate!
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:42 AM   #212
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,297
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The judiciary steps in to resolve disputes between Congress and the executive. But if there is no dispute, the judiciary doesnít step in. So Congress has no check if the executive branch simply rolls over.
Yeah. That's what I said. The Judiciary is who says "no", not the Executive. The Executive can contest it, which takes it to the court, but the Executive doesn't get to decide. This is civics 101.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And Congress has no oversight role over anyoneís personal finances.
They aren't overseeing just anyone's personal finances. They are exercising oversight over the President, specifically whether or not he has a financial conflict of interest. And Trump has certainly given plenty of reason, publicly, for raising the question of his having conflicts of interest.

Despite what I hear them claim over on Fox News, the President actually does have fewer rights than regular people. More power, definitely, but fewer rights.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 08:56 AM   #213
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,992
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Good. Heís right, it serves no legislative purpose.
Are articles of impeachment legislation?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He is refusing to testify under certain unusual conditions.
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell his objections is that he doesn't want to be questioned by congressional staff lawyers. What are the other unusual conditions, and why does he object to them?

My theory is he doesn't want to be questioned to lawyers because they'll pin him down. As far as I can tell congresspeople aren't particularly good at cross-examining witnesses. They're too busy asking 5-minute-long questions to get on the boob tube. IMO, Barr knows he would not come out well if he were questioned by his legal peers.

I give credit to Al Franken for asking Sessions if Trump surrogates met with Russians during the campaign, but Franken's question was not that easy to parse - it was filled with a bunch of extra verbiage, but it was there ... IIRC, would Sessions recuse himself under such circumstances. Sessions opened his mouth to give some folksy response, collegial, then suddenly realized he'd met with Russians and promptly shut his mouth. And later recused himself.

Sessions caught himself from saying more because he's a lawyer. Most lawyers resist lying under oath. Barr doesn't want to be grilled by practiced career attorneys. I don't really know why he objects, but I have a theory. Their questions would be brief and coherent.

Well I've wandered pretty far off topic. To bring it back: Yes Trump will allow transfer of power. Because he actually doesn't want to be a dictator. He wouldn't mind playing one on TV though.
Minoosh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:03 AM   #214
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That's because it serves a constitutional congressional oversight purpose. You do remember the Constitution, right? Trump seems to have forgotten it.
Where was all this objection to the very idea of congressional hearings when it was over Benghazi?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:06 AM   #215
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Yes the military would if he did something as stupid as refusing to give up power. But I don't think that would ever be tested because Trump really is a coward inside.
Ah but the supreme court and senate have his back so it is totally legit and the military will know and defend him. The whole point is to do this would require broad republican support for it and as such it will certainly have an appearance of legitimacy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:11 AM   #216
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,036
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Yeah. That's what I said. The Judiciary is who says "no", not the Executive.
Ah but there is always the beloved president Andrew Jackson's response to that. I mean there is totally precedent for the president just ignoring the supreme court and getting away with it so why should we view the supreme court and being relevant?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:50 AM   #217
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell his objections is that he doesn't want to be questioned by congressional staff lawyers. What are the other unusual conditions, and why does he object to them?
I thought there were additional ones, can't find a source right now. Might come back to that in the future.

Quote:
My theory is he doesn't want to be questioned to lawyers because they'll pin him down. As far as I can tell congresspeople aren't particularly good at cross-examining witnesses.
Most of the committee members are lawyers, including the chairman.

Quote:
Well I've wandered pretty far off topic. To bring it back: Yes Trump will allow transfer of power. Because he actually doesn't want to be a dictator. He wouldn't mind playing one on TV though.
Quite so. Which is why these squabbles about the exact extent of executive privilege are silly. Presidents and Congress have been squabbling about those issues probably since the beginning. Whatever you think the specific merits of any individual such dispute, they don't presage tyranny.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 09:59 AM   #218
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Great! Then we agree that the President was expanding his powers (by usurping Congress' powers)
He didn't usurp them. Congress gave them to him, and to every other president. If that delegation is unconstitutional, then Congress wrote a bad law, and Trump isn't the first president to use it.

Quote:
You say Congress can change that National Emergencies Act, but no need: The Constitution supercedes it.
I'd be happy to conclude that the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional. But that hasn't happened. And realistically it's not likely to happen. But if it does happen, the consequences will likely be much broader than just that act.

And I've been saying for years now that the presidency is too powerful, and should be restrained. So it's not like I'm in love with declarations of national emergency. But until it is restrained by either legislation or by court rulings, Trump is not doing anything that's beyond the power of the presidency any more than any other president in recent history.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 10:03 AM   #219
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And like a SCOTUS decision, the court will likely be split. So the fact a legal scholar says X doesn't mean SCOTUS won't say Y.
Sure. But it indicates that there's a serious argument to be made for that position, even if it doesn't win the day. And if there's a serious argument for that position, how likely is it that it's an omen of a coming dictatorship?

Quote:
On top of that, the argument is the Congressional investigation needs to be related to impeachment. Who says it isn't?
It cannot be because there are no impeachment proceedings. Hell, there aren't even any actual articles of impeachment under consideration.

Quote:
And, you are back to you trying to lead the discussion away from Trump's hunger for dictatorial power. I think we can say there is no more argument there.
Oh, I'm QUITE happy to return to that subject, because your position on it is ridiculous. We can tell Trump is an incipient dictator because he doesn't want to release his tax returns. Can you even hear yourself?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 10:50 AM   #220
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He didn't usurp them. Congress gave them to him, and to every other president. If that delegation is unconstitutional, then Congress wrote a bad law, and Trump isn't the first president to use it.
But you just posted a link to support that statutes (which are written by Congress) don't transcend the Constitutional separation of powers. Here we are talking about a statute written by Congress that transcends the Constitution's declaration that Congress has the power of the purse. In the previous instance (regarding Congress' investigational authority) you claim that the law which grants the authority doesn't transcend the Constitution so this presidential administration can ignore the subpoenas and so forth. But now, when I make the same argument about the Constitution transcending the National Emergencies Act, and you're like, oh well, the law was written that way, it does transcend the Constitution but that's Congress' fault for writing that way in the first place, so it sticks.

You're consistent, all right, but always in favor of Trump, not the Constitution.


Quote:
I'd be happy to conclude that the National Emergencies Act is unconstitutional. But that hasn't happened. And realistically it's not likely to happen. But if it does happen, the consequences will likely be much broader than just that act.

It hasn't happened regarding Congress' investigational powers, either, but you choose to treat that one differently for some reason...oh yeah, because you consistently adjust your arguments to favor Trump even though you claim not to favor Trump.

Quote:
And I've been saying for years now that the presidency is too powerful, and should be restrained. So it's not like I'm in love with declarations of national emergency. But until it is restrained by either legislation or by court rulings, Trump is not doing anything that's beyond the power of the presidency any more than any other president in recent history.

Then why are you favoring national emergencies over Congress' investigational authority (regarding your respectively different interpretations of the same argument)?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 10:55 AM   #221
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure. But it indicates that there's a serious argument to be made for that position, even if it doesn't win the day. And if there's a serious argument for that position, how likely is it that it's an omen of a coming dictatorship?



It cannot be because there are no impeachment proceedings. Hell, there aren't even any actual articles of impeachment under consideration.



Oh, I'm QUITE happy to return to that subject, because your position on it is ridiculous. We can tell Trump is an incipient dictator because he doesn't want to release his tax returns. Can you even hear yourself?

There you go oversimplifying and straw manning again.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:00 AM   #222
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
And one more thing: Yesterday theprestige and Zig were trying to argue that a person doesn't just change who they are at age 70. While I think I've already made clear I disagree that's a universal property of people at all, I thought it worth pointing out:

Trump is showing some cognitive decline in various ways, such as his speaking ability, for example. Indeed, there is evidence to suspect he may be in the early stages of dementia; I know from first hand experience dementia CAN change who they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/h...mpairment.html

I find the opening paragraph especially applicable:

Quote:
“Has the person become agitated, aggressive, irritable, or temperamental?” the questionnaire asks. “Does she/he have unrealistic beliefs about her/his power, wealth or skills?”

Last edited by Cabbage; 8th May 2019 at 11:01 AM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:11 AM   #223
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,657
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
It appears though that Trump likes to use that 'rid me of this meddlesome priest' type of loyalty discussions rather than blatantly stating his meaning. That kind of loyalty oath could easily be reneged on.
I suspect that the time will come (if it hasn't already) when Trump is outraged to learn that he can't fire the Supreme Court Justices he appointed.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:13 AM   #224
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
You claim you're not actually a Trump supporter, I believe, yet EVERY single position you take is one that enables Trump. I find that juxtaposition quite indicative of disingenuity.
Depends what you mean by a Trump supporter. I like some of what he's doing, I don't like some of what he's doing, and I'm indifferent to some of what he's doing. Around here, that evidently counts as a Trump supporter. I don't generally bother voicing my disagreements with Trump, because I don't feel I have much to contribute to those discussions, since all the bases are generally already covered.

And I'm not sure why you think I'm always enabling Trump since I've been saying for years that the presidency should be less powerful than it is. I had hoped Trump's election would wake up people on the left to that fact, but so far they only seem to consider Trump as the problem, not the powers of the office itself.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:14 AM   #225
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
And one more thing: Yesterday theprestige and Zig were trying to argue that a person doesn't just change who they are at age 70. While I think I've already made clear I disagree that's a universal property of people at all, I thought it worth pointing out:

Trump is showing some cognitive decline in various ways, such as his speaking ability, for example.
To the extent that this may be happening, it's going to make it harder, not easier, for Trump to become a dictator.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:16 AM   #226
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,931
Whether Trump can hold onto power will be determined by whether Fox can hold onto advertisers.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:33 AM   #227
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And I'm not sure why you think I'm always enabling Trump since I've been saying for years that the presidency should be less powerful than it is. I had hoped Trump's election would wake up people on the left to that fact, but so far they only seem to consider Trump as the problem, not the powers of the office itself.
For me, the essence of the conflict seems to be:

I want limited government. Everyone else here wants government that's limited when serving my interests, and unlimited when serving theirs.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:49 AM   #228
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,297
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Everyone else here wants government that's limited when serving my interests, and unlimited when serving theirs.
....are you Putin?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:50 AM   #229
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Depends what you mean by a Trump supporter. I like some of what he's doing, I don't like some of what he's doing, and I'm indifferent to some of what he's doing. Around here, that evidently counts as a Trump supporter. I don't generally bother voicing my disagreements with Trump, because I don't feel I have much to contribute to those discussions, since all the bases are generally already covered.

And I'm not sure why you think I'm always enabling Trump since I've been saying for years that the presidency should be less powerful than it is. I had hoped Trump's election would wake up people on the left to that fact, but so far they only seem to consider Trump as the problem, not the powers of the office itself.
Oh, so no comment on your inconsistency regarding the Constitution, huh?
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:52 AM   #230
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
To the extent that this may be happening, it's going to make it harder, not easier, for Trump to become a dictator.
His cognitive decline does not affect his enablers, nor his Constitutional powers, nor his ability to abuse or expand those powers. He's still basically functional; at worst it's early stage as I said.

Always a loophole for you to willfully ignore that something is rotten in the White House.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:53 AM   #231
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
For me, the essence of the conflict seems to be:

I want limited government. Everyone else here wants government that's limited when serving my interests, and unlimited when serving theirs.
You mean like when Zig has a double standard regarding the Constitution trumping statutes (or vice versa)?

Yeah, I agree.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 11:58 AM   #232
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
Oh, so no comment on your inconsistency regarding the Constitution, huh?
My consistency on the constitution is irrelevant, only the Supreme Court's matters. I don't think they're super-consistent, but they're the relevant authority, and any inconsistencies they have don't stop them. And they don't seem to have a problem with the emergency powers act.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 12:23 PM   #233
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
My consistency on the constitution is irrelevant, only the Supreme Court's matters. I don't think they're super-consistent, but they're the relevant authority, and any inconsistencies they have don't stop them. And they don't seem to have a problem with the emergency powers act.

That's funny; I thought I was debating you, not the Supreme Court.

Guess I just wasted my time.

Dodge, Dodge, nothing but Dodge. I was right when I said earlier that Zig will always dodge, deflect, and dissemble to defend Trump.

Last edited by Cabbage; 8th May 2019 at 01:08 PM.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 12:36 PM   #234
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,378
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I suspect that the time will come (if it hasn't already) when Trump is outraged to learn that he can't fire the Supreme Court Justices he appointed.
(Snicker)

I hadnít thought of that.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 12:53 PM   #235
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Ah but the supreme court and senate have his back so it is totally legit and the military will know and defend him. The whole point is to do this would require broad republican support for it and as such it will certainly have an appearance of legitimacy.
I don't believe the SCOTUS is that far gone, yet.

As for the lawyer questioning, the point is the problem with 5 minute limits, Barr simply has to filibuster the questions that actually matter. He did that very thing in the Senate hearing. Nadler wants to stop that.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th May 2019 at 12:57 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 12:59 PM   #236
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,887
Will Trump allow a transfer of power?

Thread title immediately following this question:

The Trump Presidency 14
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 01:00 PM   #237
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,331
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure. But it indicates that there's a serious argument to be made for that position, even if it doesn't win the day. And if there's a serious argument for that position, how likely is it that it's an omen of a coming dictatorship?
There are many steps in between, making your argument one of straw.



Quote:
It cannot be because there are no impeachment proceedings. Hell, there aren't even any actual articles of impeachment under consideration.
Moot point, we all know better.



Quote:
Oh, I'm QUITE happy to return to that subject, because your position on it is ridiculous. We can tell Trump is an incipient dictator because he doesn't want to release his tax returns. Can you even hear yourself?
More distorting the actual argument with these straw sidetracks.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 01:48 PM   #238
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
That's funny; I thought I was debating you, not the Supreme Court.
But we're debating what is, not what I want.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 02:52 PM   #239
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But we're debating what is, not what I want.
....but neither has ever come before the Supreme Court to be decided, yet you did in fact express inconsistent positions regarding both. I merely asked you to explain your inconsistency.

It's OK if you don't have a good canned response to that question. I understand; it's difficult to rationalize double standards.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2019, 03:05 PM   #240
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by Cabbage View Post
....but neither has ever come before the Supreme Court to be decided, yet you did in fact express inconsistent positions regarding both. I merely asked you to explain your inconsistency.

It's OK if you don't have a good canned response to that question. I understand; it's difficult to rationalize double standards.
Yes, that is my prediction, based on what I think is. Again, distinct from what I want.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.