President Trump

grunge said:
Fake as in the store was closed and it was staged customers. Then yeah looks that way.
Click to expand...
"I made this myself!"

He's the world's biggest bullshit artist. Sky and BBC both showing him doing it but neglected to mention the faking it.

The franchise owner will be fucked when he realises he won't get paid for losses incurred whilst he did his stunt.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Yes, it’s such a weak system, there have been so many bad actors, and they’ve all done what Trump has each and every year for nearly 250 of them.

Still waiting for the specific weaknesses to be described. No, the fact that a President is packing the court isn’t a hole — Presidents have been doing it forever, as anyone who had read a single book on the USC would know — and somehow society didn’t collapse.

More than that, I’m still waiting for the many PhD-in-political-science geniuses who post here to give us detailed, specific solutions for fixing these problems, and especially tell us all how easy it would be to legislate said fixes.

It’s like the moaning on the match day thread for all the better-than-Peps there.
Click to expand...
I’ve not been in a position to respond substantively since our exchange on Sunday morning, as I had a full on day today that I needed to prep for extensively yesterday but I’ll (briefly) try to here.

We can get caught up in semantics around the exact meanings of words and the distinction between the constitution and the institutions that are meant to support it, but whatever the rights and wrongs about that, it seems clear to me that your system of government, legislation and justice are simply not working as they once were.

I think part of this problem is the slavish adherence to a document of a quarter of a millennium’s antiquity, and the fact it was consciously structured in a way that is resistant to change. The number of substantive amendments in the last century strongly supports that assertion.

For lots of reasons I disagree with your assertion that the Executive’s influence over the Supreme Court isn’t a worthwhile point to advance. It may have been abused in the past, but never has it shown as much bias towards a particular politician, and not since the 1860s has American society been as divided, so the circumstances have manifestly changed. And that’s the rub with a system of power that is inimical to change - eventually circumstances will evolve to render it to be less effective, and ultimately, ineffective.

So whilst I’ll agree with your analysis that the bad faith actors are the clear and present danger right now, the system under which they operate has acted as an enabler to them imo.

As to what to do, I don’t have any specific answers and I don’t believe I ever claimed to. Judicial appointments being principally overseen by the judiciary (as in the UK) isn’t going to fly, so I certainly don’t have a magic wand, but I would suggest a wider and sensible look at the holy cow that is the constitution with a view to making fundamental changes to the way it is structured and operates would be a start, but I fear that debate will always be avoided because it’s so taboo.

What I do know is that there is a real prospect that a man who tried to overturn an election, who is plainly mentally and morally unfit for office, could be elected President again (with a minority vote) in a couple of weeks, following which he will undoubtedly use the Judges he appointed to subvert justice, and the nation will descend even further into rancour and division. Surely the Constitution was framed to avoid scenarios like this, and on that basis it’s plainly no longer working.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve not been in a position to respond substantively since our exchange on Sunday morning, as I had a full on day today that I needed to prep for extensively yesterday but I’ll (briefly) try to here.

We can get caught up in semantics around the exact meanings of words and the distinction between the constitution and the institutions that are meant to support it, but whatever the rights and wrongs about that, it seems clear to me that your system of government, legislation and justice are simply not working as they once were.

I think part of this problem is the slavish adherence to a document of a quarter of a millennium’s antiquity, and the fact it was consciously structured in a way that is resistant to change. The number of substantive amendments in the last century strongly supports that assertion.

For lots of reasons I disagree with your assertion that the Executive’s influence over the Supreme Court isn’t a worthwhile point to advance. It may have been abused in the past, but never has it shown as much bias towards a particular politician, and not since the 1860s has American society been as divided, so the circumstances have manifestly changed. And that’s the rub with a system of power that is inimical to change - eventually circumstances will evolve to render it to be less effective, and ultimately, ineffective.

So whilst I’ll agree with your analysis that the bad faith actors are the clear and present danger right now, the system under which they operate has acted as an enabler to them imo.

As to what to do, I don’t have any specific answers and I don’t believe I ever claimed to. Judicial appointments being principally overseen by the judiciary (as in the UK) isn’t going to fly, so I certainly don’t have a magic wand, but I would suggest a wider and sensible look at the holy cow that is the constitution with a view to making fundamental changes to the way it is structured and operates would be a start, but I fear that debate will always be avoided because it’s so taboo.

What I do know is that there is a real prospect that a man who tried to overturn an election, who is plainly mentally and morally unfit for office, could be elected President again (with a minority vote) in a couple of weeks, following which he will undoubtedly use the Judges he appointed to subvert justice, and the nation will descend even further into rancour and division. Surely the Constitution was framed to avoid scenarios like this, and on that basis it’s plainly no longer working.
Click to expand...
A few points.

1) I appreciate the response.
2) I agree that they're not working as they were, though in some respects maybe they work better. But I agree that division and inability to achieve bipartisanship has probably hurt the amendment process -- we couldn't even get the ERA to work, e.g. Hence Trump's attempt to use "executive orders" which is a very dangerous tool IMO and in that regard I can't disagree that some of the foundational aspects of the Constitution are being shaken. I did not expect the USC to become as devoted to him and rhetoric far beyond even Scalia -- strict interpretationists have come full circle to being judicial activists for the right, and that is a problem.
3) Personally, I'd suggest the late 60s was a period where division among the populace was greater than now, among age groups and racially, especially.
4) The Constitution tried to work adequately via the impeachment process, and were it not for the slavish, cultish devotion to party and absolute cowardice as demonstrated by the GOP, we'd be to hell and gone with Trump. In and of itself, part of the problem is the waning power of the GOP generally in urban areas and the de-ruralification of the nation, which has caused them to overreach in desperation and without a thought of their duty to the nation.
5) As I am sure is apparent, part of my adamancy is to make sure the blame lies squarely where it should: on Trump, and his grifter/enabler/coattail-riding cadre of amoral anti-patriots.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
A few points.

1) I appreciate the response.
2) I agree that they're not working as they were, though in some respects maybe they work better. But I agree that division and inability to achieve bipartisanship has probably hurt the amendment process -- we couldn't even get the ERA to work, e.g. Hence Trump's attempt to use "executive orders" which is a very dangerous tool IMO and in that regard I can't disagree that some of the foundational aspects of the Constitution are being shaken. I did not expect the USC to become as devoted to him and rhetoric far beyond even Scalia -- strict interpretationists have come full circle to being judicial activists for the right, and that is a problem.
3) Personally, I'd suggest the late 60s was a period where division among the populace was greater than now, among age groups and racially, especially.
4) The Constitution tried to work adequately via the impeachment process, and were it not for the slavish, cultish devotion to party and absolute cowardice as demonstrated by the GOP, we'd be to hell and gone with Trump. In and of itself, part of the problem is the waning power of the GOP generally in urban areas and the de-ruralification of the nation, which has caused them to overreach in desperation and without a thought of their duty to the nation.
5) As I am sure is apparent, part of my adamancy is to make sure the blame lies squarely where it should: on Trump, and his grifter/enabler/coattail-riding cadre of amoral anti-patriots.
Click to expand...
I would say the Speech or Debate clause is a double-edged sword that allowed the likes of Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes and other to basically lie and bluster their way through Trump's impeachment trials which ultimately resulted in zero punishment. It allowed a number of Senators wiggle room to claim doubt (including Susan Collins' famous "he'll learn from his mistakes" bollocks).

That aside, if Mitch McConnel had had the backbone to whip republicans Senators into line, then Trump could quite fairly have been barred from ever serving in public office again, but for whatever reason, he didn't.

So, the whole system of impeachment essentially failed because Senators, led by McConnel refused to judge on the evidence and instead voted in line with party allegiances.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
All accurate -- but also speaks to my point. No system can fully protect itself from bad actors. At the end of the day we rely on the voters to do that, and for those in power themselves to self-police. That some in the GOP have hit on the "election fraud" thematic so directly pretty much tells you how strong the overall Federal institutions are -- that's where they see the weak point, because the process is largely controlled by the individual states.
Click to expand...
The US seems to believe that a vote legitimises all, rendering decisions more democratic. I think that is why so many of these processes are poor. Little effort goes into the process in the belief that in the end a vote will suffice. Voting actually just politicises things. Hence where a DA is elected, he/she will find themselves attacked for the content of their campaign in an attempt to derail a prosecution.
“Her campaign was ‘I will get Trump’. This is the weaponisation of government.” If you just rely on the voter, you are open to demagoguery.
One area where the processes are strong is in the administrative state where a body of experts give life to congress’s laws on items such as water and air purity by making regulations. SCOTUS now says this is unconstitutional and has eviscerated those bodies. Then on to the next ‘democratic’ step and SCOTUS is likely to suspend all environmental regulations when the case comes before them shortly. Of course this is nothing to do with constitutional rectitude but is merely a way of helping Trump’s funders amongst oil companies and others.
Ultimately the SCOTUS justices went though a democratic process which just relied on a congressional majority and had nothing to do with their fitness for office. I look forward to the day when an elephant becomes a justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top