LOL. really? Trump order the military to bomb Syria, Russia’s ally when they used chemical weapons. Putin said this would be an act of war. Trump also blasted Germany for making a pipeline deal with the Russians that pays them billions.
What we have here is Military action against, and publicly questioning a deal that is making the Russians Rich. Actions suggest he is the hardest-liner against Russia since Reagan.
I suggest you learn more about this Russian business. Obama ordered his cybersecurity chief to stand down during attacks. A WTF moment and carless Hillary servers were hacked giving away who knows how many classes and top secrets bits of information.
Not at all. Congress could change the law. But right now, the President is not “above the law;” the law allows him to declassify. So if he were to declassify information and hand it to the Russians, he’d be acting legally.
What you appear to be saying is that you want the law to be different, not that the President is “above the law.” You just don’t like the current law’s results. You don’t the fact that Congress doesn’t share your view.
But that’s why we choose the entire House every two years, along with a third of the Senate.
You say “craven” Congress – I say “Congress doesn’t share your view.”
OK. Although we choose Presidents by the Electoral College, but your formulation applies to “thinking he’s a traitor.”
We’ll chat in mid-December 2020. As you know, I’m pretty good about resurrecting threads. Can we dispense, now, with the line of attack that disregards the actual issue and castigates me for gloating or not having a life for daring to resurrect a thread to observe the results of a comment made about a future event?
Out of curiosity, should conservative disenfranchisement go into high gear, and prevent large swaths of the population from voting enough to squeak trump and conservatives into another term, while you could and would make the argument that what they did was legal (as they are the legislators and executive, and as such, they can make it legal), would you still be as complacent about the elections being a poll on whether or not trump is intentionally damaging our country for his personal gain?
How little of the population can you actually represent, and still claim to be a democracy?
The great thing about a democracy is that we have a coup every couple of years. It’s a bloodless coup, and it is one that is regulated and regularly scheduled, but it is indeed a revolution and a regime change. Washington was a genius, (and a coward), when he realized that being voted out of office is vastly preferable to the ways that nearly all other leaders had been removed from office in the past.
If shenanigans are played, and it is no longer possible to vote a regime out of office that does not represent those it governs, then those office holders may find the circumstances of their removal from office and retirement to be much less comfortable than had they allowed democracy to function.
With enough playing about, you can win the electoral college with 24% of the popular vote.
If there was such an extreme, would you still think that the majority of the country supports his actions?
Do you think that he will get over 50% of the popular vote? And if so, do you think that he will actually get that without any manipulation of the electorate?
I mean I am sure that he could get 100% of the vote, if they declare it to be illegal to vote for a democrat. They control the house, senate, executive, and judiciary. If they pass, enforce, and justify legislation that suppresses the ability for the people of this country to vote for opposing parties (as happens in many of trump’s favorite countries), and trump gets a 90%+ electoral support, just like putin, will you be back to resurrect this thread to taunt the remaining democrats who have not been jailed or executed yet?
Probably, given my experience that you, and other commentators from the left, assert that disenfranchisement already exists, notwithstanding the general fact that courts have validated the various Voter ID laws in place now.
In other words, you don’t get to define the presence of terms like “disenfranchisement,” and then ask me this question. I insist that we stick to objective measures that our society has in place to determine voting legality.
However, if your question is whether, if I perceive disenfranchisement on a large scale, would I be complacent? Answer: no.
For the record, I think we can reasonably argue that there needn’t be a declaration of war for there to be an enemy. For example, the AUMF to invade Iraq should be enough to define SH’s government as being “the enemy”. OTOH, I would argue that any country between which the citizens routinely travel for business and pleasure, like Russia, cannot reasonably be considered “the enemy”.
Whack-a-Mole: Does it bother you that, by your definition, everyone in Congress is “above the law in a number of areas” and has been since the earliest days of our Country?
Like I said, they control the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. They could pass it, enforce it, and ensure it is “legal”. As long as it goes through that process of validating the “purity of voting act”, you feel that it is legitimate. The “remedy” is voting, but it is a remedy that is denied to those who are wronged.
I did say “prevent large swaths of the population”, which was the definition that I was using. Though I will define that the large swaths are targeted towards those who would dare to vote against out current government.
I take it that you would only perceive disenfranchisement if you personally were disenfranchised. Other people losing their right to have a voice in the government that represents them is their problem, not yours.
Remember, in the dismantling of a democracy, the supporters of that destruction are the last to be turned on. It’s odd that they always seem surprised when that happens though…
Hypothetically, a lot less than that. Picture some number of states, X, that collectively have exactly 270 EC votes. In a particular election, turnout in these particular states is absurdly low; say 5% of the eligible electorate, though in each state, 2.51% of the votes go consistently to one candidate, hence that candidate wins the EC election. Meanwhile in non-X states, voter turnout has been at record highs, 95%+, almost all of which goes to the EC-losing candidate. It wouldn’t be hard to work out a model where someone wins the EC with less than 5% of the popular vote.
Can you tel me the difference between that rule and the one covering the president?
For instance, if a congressperson is not attending, going to, or returning from a session, they may be arrested for crime they have committed, correct? And even if they are, they still may be arrested for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, correct?
For instance, as you say, if trump hands putin the list of spies in russia, and putin thanks him publicly for that list, and then executes those spies publicly, then trump would be in no trouble at all, right?
Fair enough, I was looking at it as if all the states had about equitable voter turnout, but sure, if it were made more difficult to vote in the states that actually have people in them, and easier for the states that few wish to live in, then you could get some even more ridiculously lopsided results.
So had an American citizen actively assisted the Imperial Japanese Navy in planning and executing the Pearl Harbor attack, that would not have legally been treason?
He has been dismissive of the problems of others before, ones that I am sure that he would find very concerning should they concern him, but you are correct, he is welcome to defend himself in his own words. To be fair, he would probably also perceive it if it happened to anyone he cared about as well.
You were referring to an area that they specifically are not above the law on, so it does matter, quite a bit.
Pretty close. Any congressperson can read the names aloud on the floor of the House (or a Senator on the Senate floor) and he can’t be arrested, tried, or even sued.
You take it incorrectly. The mere fact that I reject your hyperbolic view of “disenfranchising” voting rules does not compel the conclusion that I would have such a myopic view of them myself.