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 , Hunter Biden , joe biden , rudy giuliani , Trump controversies , US-Ukraine relations

Reply
Old Yesterday, 03:42 PM   #1961
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 4,174
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"You're impeaching me anyway. Go fish."
I bet this "go fish" gambit will work out as well for Trump as it did for Nixon.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n 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 Yesterday, 03:51 PM   #1962
Senex
Philosopher
 
Senex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: School for Rumpology, CT
Posts: 5,834
I'm speed reading this thread and it looks to me at least the recent posts are about the rules of impeachment. I'd like to ask if anyone believes that it is in the best interest of anyone not in Trump's circle, that Trump stays in office. Will anyone say they believe this man should continue as president of the United States?
Senex 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 Yesterday, 04:06 PM   #1963
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,399
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not so. Requests for information are not a priori proper and deserving of cooperation. The executive can redact. It can refuse. Especially when the request for information is about removing a sitting president, and/or influencing voters against a sitting president. Congress must rely on its actual Consitutional authority, not some ersatz appeal to a standard of cooperation that doesn't actually exist, when proceeding with something like impeachment.
This is absurd garbage and patently untrue.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No it is not. The defense is expected to raise every objection that reasonably applies, and block the prosecution by any legal means, at every step of the process. Indeed, a defense lawyer who fails to contest a subpoena, or fails to object to the prosecutor's objectionable motions, may be guilty of malpractice, and subject to severe sanctions.
Again, absurdly not true.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I already cited a legal advice column that points out that it's actually okay to dispute a subpoena, and that doing so removes the defense's obligation to cooperate with the subpoena until the dispute is resolved.
And it was nonsense. There may be some limits to subpoena power, but a blanket refusal is not one of them. Neither is it's a witchhunt and unconstitutional. You have to provide a legal basis and this has none.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The defense is expected to cooperate with a judge, sure, but in an impeachment proceeding there is no judge. Just the House on one side, and the Executive branch on the other. That's the state of play unless and until the Judiciary agrees to get involved. Which it very well might not.


Irrelevant to the question we're actually looking at. That question being: Is the president required to comply with Congressional subpoenas, or is he allowed to dispute them and get that dispute resolved, similarly to how subpoenas are applied in many (most? all?) similar scenarios?


Yes.


Complex question.

First, there's a question of whether the information requested is actually necessary. I don't believe the President is required to assume it's necessary just because the opposition party in the House says it is. I believe it's well within the Executive's authority and responsibility to question whether the information is necessary, before complying with the request.

Second, there's a question of whether the request for information is a proper request. An improper request for necessary information can be properly denied, even though the information itself is actually necessary for oversight. Congress's responsibility for oversight is not carte blanche to ignore the law in the exercise of that responsibility. I believe it's well within the Executive's authority to dispute the propriety of a request for information, and see that dispute resolved, before they comply with the request.

Please note that my position isn't a get out of jail free card for the President, either. The House can always make a case that the President should be removed due to his capricious and unconstitutional refusal to cooperate with Congress's legitimate attempts at oversight.
That's almost as bad a two-step as Spicer last night. This isn't just about POTUS refusing a congressional subpoena but the Pentagon, the DOJ and the State Department and entirely without anything close to a a valid legal reason. Please please make an argument why Congress should be denied information about the inner workings of a foreign policy initiative.

What you're arguing is really a carte blanche excuse for POTUS to do whatever he wants and keep that secret from Congressional oversight.

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; Yesterday at 04:09 PM.
acbytesla 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 Yesterday, 04:19 PM   #1964
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
What you're arguing is really a carte blanche excuse for POTUS to do whatever he wants and keep that secret from Congressional oversight.
This really nails it. Thprestige has no cognizable standard for how the government ought to operate. Rather, he is merely suggesting a set of values that works in Trump's favor. He does not actually believe that the executive branch ought to be able to operate without any Congressional oversight, but he will gladly argue that case if it advances his political goals.
I Am The Scum 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 Yesterday, 04:27 PM   #1965
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,046
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The dispute seems to be whether Congress has the authority to demand compliance with an impeachment proceeding, prior to the House actually having a floor vote to decide whether to proceed with impeachment.
It's not a dispute, it's a propaganda based claim.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 Yesterday, 04:30 PM   #1966
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,046
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
They have the power to subpoena.

They don't have the ability to make him listen or comply. That's a very important distinction.
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Subpoena isn't a suggestion. Look up the Latin.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Cool. Go tell Trump that, see how it works.

Democrats: "You HAVE to do this. It's in the rules."
Trump: "No."
Democrats: "I'm sorry I don't think you heard us. You HAVE to."
Trump: "No."

In other words... if a subpoena isn't a suggestion then you explain to me why nobody is in front of Congress right now.

Again the Democrats have got to stop bringing out the rule book going "That's not a legal move in chess! You can't do that!" against people who are playing "Flip the board over."
Listen to yourself Joe. You're essentially saying no laws matter because Trump ignores the law.

Isn't that what he's being impeached over?
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
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 Yesterday, 04:34 PM   #1967
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,399
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
This really nails it. Thprestige has no cognizable standard for how the government ought to operate. Rather, he is merely suggesting a set of values that works in Trump's favor. He does not actually believe that the executive branch ought to be able to operate without any Congressional oversight, but he will gladly argue that case if it advances his political goals.
Yep.

There is absolutely no reason that anyone who knows about the details of Trump's Ukraine foreign policy should not be complying with Congressional requests. They shouldn't require a subpoena either. But if I was a State Department employee, I would request the subpoena and handover anything and everything I might have and run to the hill and testify. The subpoena would give them cover.

THE ONLY RESAON that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH is not cooperating is they are afraid of the truth and its consequences. It's why they moved the transcripts of the call to a code word secure server. It demonstrated consciousness of guilt.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 Yesterday, 04:34 PM   #1968
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,887
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post

What you're arguing is really a carte blanche excuse for POTUS to do whatever he wants and keep that secret from Congressional oversight.

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
This really nails it. Thprestige has no cognizable standard for how the government ought to operate. Rather, he is merely suggesting a set of values that works in Trump's favor. He does not actually believe that the executive branch ought to be able to operate without any Congressional oversight, but he will gladly argue that case if it advances his political goals.
It only applies to Republican presidents, of course.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 Yesterday, 04:35 PM   #1969
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,887
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I bet this "go fish" gambit will work out as well for Trump as it did for Nixon.
And Nixon was smarter than Trump. He knew when he no longer had a leg to stand on and stepped down. It's hard to see Trump doing that.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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 Yesterday, 04:37 PM   #1970
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,399
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
It only applies to Republican presidents, of course.
They only climbed up Hillary's ass on Ben Ghazzi for 3 years.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 Yesterday, 04:51 PM   #1971
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,399
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
And Nixon was smarter than Trump. He knew when he no longer had a leg to stand on and stepped down. It's hard to see Trump doing that.
I think you're giving Nixon way way too much credit. Reports are he was still desperately hoping his Republican colleagues would bail him out.

It took a delegation of Republican Senators to burst that bubble. They marched into the White House and told Nixon that he had ZERO chance of not being convicted and removed from office. This was like two days after the House committee and half the Republican delegation voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the the full House for a vote.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 Yesterday, 05:18 PM   #1972
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,068
This kangaroo court impeachment inquiry, which has zero chance of conviction in the Senate, is all about hurting Trump in the 2020 election.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen."
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain 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 Yesterday, 06:41 PM   #1973
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,595
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This kangaroo court impeachment inquiry, which has zero chance of conviction in the Senate, is all about hurting Trump in the 2020 election.

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen."
Nobody gives a **** about Hillary any more with regards to the election. Why do you guys keep bringing it up?
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner 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 Yesterday, 06:49 PM   #1974
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Fourth suspect in the case arrested at an airport trying to leave the country.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 Yesterday, 06:50 PM   #1975
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is absurd garbage and patently untrue.


Again, absurdly not true.


And it was nonsense. There may be some limits to subpoena power, but a blanket refusal is not one of them. Neither is it's a witchhunt and unconstitutional. You have to provide a legal basis and this has none.


That's almost as bad a two-step as Spicer last night. This isn't just about POTUS refusing a congressional subpoena but the Pentagon, the DOJ and the State Department and entirely without anything close to a a valid legal reason. Please please make an argument why Congress should be denied information about the inner workings of a foreign policy initiative.

What you're arguing is really a carte blanche excuse for POTUS to do whatever he wants and keep that secret from Congressional oversight.

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
All Power to Dear Leader!
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 Yesterday, 07:25 PM   #1976
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,003
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Maybe you think we're at that point already. I don't know.
I've thought we were at that point since Erik Prince told Congress to go jump in a lake back in the early days of the Mueller investigation.
Beelzebuddy 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 Yesterday, 07:31 PM   #1977
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Nobody gives a **** about Hillary any more with regards to the election. Why do you guys keep bringing it up?
Hi, alfaniner, meet Cain. He jokes about stuff.
I Am The Scum 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 Yesterday, 08:52 PM   #1978
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,757
In an actual Court, refusal to comply with a legitimate request for information can result in the presumption that the evidence would have showed what the prosecution said it would have showed.
In other words, if the Senate would run a proper trial, Trump/Rudi not producing documents can be taken as evidence that they did what they are being accused of, on top of charges of obstruction.
So refusing a Subpoena is not a way to get out of jail, it's just a delaying tactic.
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 Today, 12:05 AM   #1979
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,569
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's all true. And I don't mean that snarkily or passive aggressively.

But at a certain point we have to stop playing 3 dimensional chess and deal with the immediate problem.

There's a scene in one of my favorite movies of all time; 13 Days, a docu-drama about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Kennedy and his cabinet are trying to find a way out of the crisis caused by the Soviet Union's staging of missiles in Cuba. Early in negotiations a plan was suggested to do a backdoor deal; trading the missile in Cuba for the American missiles in Turkey. The offer was rejected because of political and diplomatic fallout of such a deal being made public. Later in the film after negotiations on other possibilities have broken down and the United States government is looking of a shooting war occuring any day, Kennedy revisits this idea.



I'm not stupid. I understand long term planning and consequence. But we can't, to paraphrase Val from Tremors, find ourselves "Planning ahead, that way we don't do anything right now."
Things are being done right now.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 Today, 12:12 AM   #1980
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,569
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
They only climbed up Hillary's ass on Ben Ghazzi for 3 years.
And what did she do? She cooperated.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 Today, 12:54 AM   #1981
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 27,114
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And what did she do? She cooperated.
No, she gave the appearance of cooperation while her deep-state agents hid all the real evidence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the absence of evidence against Democratic Party representatives in the various investigations is proof of their guilt. If they weren't guilty, then why would they have destroyed all the evidence ?

OTOH the reams of evidence against President Trump, his administration and his representatives is a clear indication of his underlying innocence and good character. This evidence only exists because it hasn't been destroyed in the kind of cleansing operation which has become routine for the Democrats.
The Don 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 Today, 02:41 AM   #1982
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,037
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Listen to yourself Joe. You're essentially saying no laws matter because Trump ignores the law.
He's not saying anything of the sort at all.

What he's saying is that pointing to the rules and saying you have to obey them is pointless when talking to people who ignore the rules. You have to use your actual powers to compel them.

Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Nobody gives a **** about Hillary any more with regards to the election. Why do you guys keep bringing it up?
Dude, is this your first time on this forum? Cain's doing parody here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 Today, 05:22 AM   #1983
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,286
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not so. Requests for information are not a priori proper and deserving of cooperation. The executive can redact. It can refuse.
Telling everyone to piss off doesn't amount to a legitimate legal challenge. You're relying on superficiality and ignoring what's actually taking place.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 Today, 05:41 AM   #1984
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,435
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Listen to yourself Joe. You're essentially saying no laws matter because Trump ignores the law.

Isn't that what he's being impeached over?
I don't know how to phrase this any better.

Asking "Okay but what happens when Trump doesn't listen?" isn't some middling little detail I'm unreasonable for bringing up and expecting an answer beyond "But he has to listen! The rule book says so!"

He's already established, hell full on flouted with pride, his desire to just be contrarian, obstructionist idiot toward anything the Democrats do and enough of the rest of the government and his base support him enough that he can usually get away with it.

If they subpoena him he won't report for testimony. If they impeach him he won't step down. If he doesn't get re-elected in 2020 I think there's a fair chance he won't step down.

Lamb bleating "But he has too!" over and over isn't an answer. Trump doesn't have to do anything.

What is the plan to make Trump actually do anything? He has the Senate, he has the Federal Law enforcement, and (mostly) the Supreme Court on his side if not in his pocket.

Political force? Only the Senate has that in any real force to bear against the Presidency. Mitch McConnell couldn't make the fact that he's not going to do anything against Trump clearer without getting a "Trump Life" tattoo across his stomach.

Judicial force? 5-4 Conservative Majority, with two of those five being Trump appointees. Slim bit of hope on Roberts have one of his moments of Humanity.

Law enforcement? There's a reason Trump hand picked an Attorney General solely based on their "The President can do anything" stance.

What's left? A Trump/Pelosi Ladder Match at Wrestlemania? First person to grab the impeachment documents at the suspended above the ring wins?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; Today at 05:59 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 Today, 05:57 AM   #1985
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,897
"There's nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is, I don't know."
Matthew Best 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 Today, 05:57 AM   #1986
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,286
This is the cruel lesson. US democracy and rule of law depends on the honor system. Given that the POTUS is deemed to be immune from criminal prosecution, all it takes is a senate that's in the pocket of the POTUS for things to go completely south. The checks and balances we were taught about in school are flimsy. US democracy is flimsy.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 Today, 06:08 AM   #1987
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,364
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
This is the cruel lesson. US democracy and rule of law depends on the honor system. Given that the POTUS is deemed to be immune from criminal prosecution, all it takes is a senate that's in the pocket of the POTUS for things to go completely south. The checks and balances we were taught about in school are flimsy. US democracy is flimsy.
According to some academics, it's second rate.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 Today, 06:31 AM   #1988
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,926
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't know how to phrase this any better.

Asking "Okay but what happens when Trump doesn't listen?" isn't some middling little detail I'm unreasonable for bringing up and expecting an answer beyond "But he has to listen! The rule book says so!"

He's already established, hell full on flouted with pride, his desire to just be contrarian, obstructionist idiot toward anything the Democrats do and enough of the rest of the government and his base support him enough that he can usually get away with it.

If they subpoena him he won't report for testimony. If the impeach him he won't step down. If he doesn't get re-elected in 2020 I think there's a fair chance he won't step down.

Lamb bleating "But he has too!" over and over isn't an answer. Trump doesn't have to do anything.

What is the plan to make Trump actually do anything? He has the Senate, he has the Federal Law enforcement, and (mostly) the Supreme Court on his side if not in his pocket.

Political force? Only the Senate has that in any real force to bear against the Presidency. Mitch McConnell couldn't make the fact that he's not going to do anything against Trump clearer without getting a "Trump Life" tattoo across his stomach.

Judicial force? 5-4 Conservative Majority, with two of those five being Trump appointees. Slim bit of hope on Roberts have one of his moments of Humanity.

Law enforcement? There's a reason Trump hand picked an Attorney General solely based on their "The President can do anything" stance.

What's left? A Trump/Pelosi Ladder Match at Wrestlemania? First person to grab the impeachment documents at the suspended above the ring wins?
Look, you seem to be arguing that Democrats are not doing everything they should be doing. The obvious way to establish this claim is to state explicitly something that they should be doing but are not.

Is it using contempt proceedings more? Or what?

Seems to me that this is something like a ship heading towards a shoal. The cap'n has ordered engines in reverse and for the ship to turn, but at present the ship is still headed towards the shoal. Things look bad, but they are slowly changing. Is the cap'n dicking around or has he done what is necessary? Is there anything more he should be doing?

You can't say that because the shoal is still dead ahead, the only choices are that the situation is lost or that the cap'n is incompetent. Either of those could be true, but in order to show that there is nothing to be done you have to actually argue that a collision is inevitable and to show that the cap'n is incompetent, you have to indicate what he should have done.

I don't know if the Dems are being too timid. The tide is turning (damn, mixed metaphor) on impeachment and that's good, but the Senate won't remove unless significant portions of the public are in favor. A more aggressive approach might work better, but what do you have in mind? Be explicit and stop insisting that we all admit either the Dems are pussies or all is lost already.
phiwum 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
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 06:35 AM.
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.