Is Trump, plain and simple, a traitor to his country?

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

That’s an exceedingly inapt summary of what I said. While it’s true that I invoked phony psychics (as opposed to the real ones??) I did so only to rebut the claim that failed predictions didn’t matter.

Yeah, failed predictions by people who have enough notoriety that they can capitalize on their few correct predictions, and failed predictions in an online bull session, matter the same. :rolleyes:

I do it to impose a cost on the makers of false predictions. They are otherwise free to gain a rhetorical advantage during discussion, and then escape any scorn when their failures materialize.

IOW, in a thread of predictions, the makers of predictions will gain a rhetorical advantage over the makers of other predictions by making predictions.

Yeah.

There is an analogy to bad psychics, true, but that analogy ends with their failure: I never said they were claiming to be psychic. They are just claiming insight and confidence,

In a thread that was all about making predictions, all the participants were claiming insight and confidence by participating?

Okey-dokey.

and that confidence should be tested with reference to their success rate.

Well, I could understand the logic of this if, like your psychics, posters on the Dope who had occasionally gotten lucky with some predictions were touting their success at making predictions.

The next time you see an example of that, by all means examine their track record in as much detail as you have the energy for.

I certainly understand your reluctance to adopt that approach.

No, I just think that we don’t normally go around re-examining everything everybody’s said about anything in the past, to see whether it was perceptive or stupid. Shall we, for instance, dig up what everybody here said about the Iraq War in the run-up and at various phases? Regardless of the extent to which people made or didn’t make predictions, people still active here said numerous things about how the war was playing out that can be tested against how things actually happened, and we can see who was right and who was wrong.

But what’s the point? Unless there’s a particular reason to resurrect an old thread for purposes of evaluating the wisdom or accuracy of the posts, you’re just doing it to say, “LOOK, EVERYBODY, I WAS RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH ME WAS WRONG!!!1!!1!”

Well, whoopee for you. And I was right about the Iraq war. Big whoop for me; I wish I had been wrong. What are we going to do with this, create some sort of master scorecard?

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Literacy tests were established by laws. They were signed by governors. And they were upheld by courts. According to the argument you’ve presented in this thread, that means the final word had been said on them and everyone should have just accepted them.

Fortunately, most people don’t accept your narrow legalistic definition of what’s right and wrong.

Again, you mistake my argument.

I don’t argue that any word is “final,” because any statute may be repealed and any rule of constitutional significance may be addressed by amendment. Continuing to to advocate for a change in the law is a perfectly cromulent part of representative democracy.

What I reject is your team’s effort to use courts to change substantive law you don’t like.

So I say a law is LEGITIMATE when passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and approved by the courts. I don’t say it’s presumptively wise, good, or carved in granite.

[RTFirefly]

@bricker

what i reject is your team’s effort to use courts to change substantive law you don’t like.

buahahahahahahaha!!!

[Czarcasm]

@RTFirefly

buahahahahahahaha!!!

This is a problem with the left??

[RTFirefly]

@Czarcasm

This is a problem with the left??

He wears his “Impeach Earl Warren” button loudly and proudly.

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

Yes. Which was not violative any rules. I focus on the rules.

You forgot to mention the process this time.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John_Mace

Because then we would need a different term to describe someone to whom the actual law does not apply. Your definition, for example, makes cops “above the law” because they can disregard the speed limit or for the simple matter that they can arrest someone. It’s not a workable definition.

Speaking of bad analogies this is one.

Police may be able to engage in high speed pursuit but they are not able to do so on a whim with no oversight or possible consequences. Police departments can and regularly do restrict high speed chases. The officer can get in trouble for engaging in a high speed chase and police departments can be sued for the consequences of a high speed chase.

That is far from being free of consequences like the president.

And there is a further distinction from your bad analogy about insider trading. No one has to be able to trade on insider information. But someone (or some group) has to make the determination of what is classified.

It is trivial to concoct a means of classifying/declassifying information in the government that does not vest one person with the sole authority to say what is and is not classified.

For instance if the president asks for some highly sensitive information that agency could plead to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who would make a determination and be bound to do so within three days of the request.

Just one example and it would be trivial to implement. Especially since the president rarely is actually involved in classifying documents.

In a government system based on checks and balances I see no reason why there should be areas without a check or balance.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Whack-a-Mole

…does not vest one person with the sole authority to say what is and is not classified.

Missed edit.

Rather than “sole” authority I think it is better to say “final” authority.

[Slash1972]

@Whack-a-Mole

For instance if the president asks for some highly sensitive information that agency could plead to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who would make a determination and be bound to do so within three days of the request.

Just one example and it would be trivial to implement. Especially since the president rarely is actually involved in classifying documents.

In a government system based on checks and balances I see no reason why there should be areas without a check or balance.

You want the President to be hampered by his own subordinates needing Congressional approval to see information created in the Executive Branch?

That seems ripe for abuse.

[Ravenman]

@Whack-a-Mole

It is trivial to concoct a means of classifying/declassifying information in the government that does not vest one person with the sole authority to say what is and is not classified.

For instance if the president asks for some highly sensitive information that agency could plead to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who would make a determination and be bound to do so within three days of the request.

Just one example and it would be trivial to implement. Especially since the president rarely is actually involved in classifying documents.

In a government system based on checks and balances I see no reason why there should be areas without a check or balance.

Well, that method is trivial to concoct because it need not comply with the Constitution, per INS v. Chadha. Components of the legislature (members, committees, one house) cannot exercise a veto over actions of the executive branch. We can all think of easy solutions to problems if we are free to throw out the law as we find it inconvenient.

[DavidwithanR]

@Ravenman

Well, that method is trivial to concoct because it need not comply with the Constitution, per INS v. Chadha. Components of the legislature (members, committees, one house) cannot exercise a veto over actions of the executive branch. We can all think of easy solutions to problems if we are free to throw out the law as we find it inconvenient.

Such a law can be inconvenient because it’s an important safeguard, or inconvenient because it’s flawed or wrong. I can’t say which category this one falls into, but it’s a major mistake to assume (or to disingenuously claim) that all existing laws must be right just because they exist.

[Bricker]

@The_Tooth

You forgot to mention the process this time.

“Not violative of the process,” makes little sense.

[Bricker]

@DavidwithanR

Such a law can be inconvenient because it’s an important safeguard, or inconvenient because it’s flawed or wrong. I can’t say which category this one falls into, but it’s a major mistake to assume (or to disingenuously claim) that all existing laws must be right just because they exist.

Let me know if anyone makes that claim.

[Ravenman]

@DavidwithanR

Such a law can be inconvenient because it’s an important safeguard, or inconvenient because it’s flawed or wrong. I can’t say which category this one falls into, but it’s a major mistake to assume (or to disingenuously claim) that all existing laws must be right just because they exist.

I didn’t weigh in on the justness of the law. Someone proposed an easy answer to a tough question, and the easy answer is not legal under the Constitution.

Unless someone suggests that the Constitution be amended to give special powers to the Senate Intelligence Committee, there’s really no more to be gained by discussing this silly proposal any further. It cannot happen.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Ravenman

Unless someone suggests that the Constitution be amended to give special powers to the Senate Intelligence Committee, there’s really no more to be gained by discussing this silly proposal any further. It cannot happen.

Sure it could.

The decision you cited was 7-2 so two justices saw it differently as a matter of law.

I think White’s dissent made a lot of sense.

If nothing else there is the amendment process.

Now, either SCOTUS changing its mind or an amendment may be very unlikely to happen but you cannot say it cannot happen.

Regardless waving your hand saying it is an insoluble problem is silly. We are pointing out a flaw in the system. Crowing that the flawed system is the LAW, end of story, misses the point.

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

“Not violative of the process,” makes little sense.

I don’t think that’s why you neglected to mention it.

If you expect me to believe you give two shits about the rules and processes after your cheerleading of McConnell’s ignoring of same on the grounds that there was “no substantial difference” between following the process and not doing so, you’re about to be disappointed.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

It is trivial to concoct a means of classifying/declassifying information in the government that does not vest one person with the sole authority to say what is and is not classified.

For instance if the president asks for some highly sensitive information that agency could plead to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence who would make a determination and be bound to do so within three days of the request.

Just one example and it would be trivial to implement. Especially since the president rarely is actually involved in classifying documents.

In a government system based on checks and balances I see no reason why there should be areas without a check or balance.

Besides what was already noted, your trivial solution was addressed by me, earlier. All you did was put a group of people “above the law”, per your definition, instead of one person. And “checks and balances” doesn’t mean that the president can never act without approval from Congress. There are all sorts of things the president can do without approval from Congress. The check and balance you are seeking is already there-- the impeachment process and trial in the Senate. If the president casually hands out state secrets to hostile governments contrary to the interests of the country, Congress can impeach him and remove him from office.

[Bricker]

@The_Tooth

I don’t think that’s why you neglected to mention it.

If you expect me to believe you give two shits about the rules and processes after your cheerleading of McConnell’s ignoring of same on the grounds that there was “no substantial difference” between following the process and not doing so, you’re about to be disappointed.

The rules and the process are not intended (at least when I use the phrase) to be considered as mutually exclusive. McConnell followed a process that was permitted by the rules. I’m okay with that, although, as I’ve said before, my view is that it’s not the best practice to have no hearing.

[The_Tooth]

About the only indication I can find that McConnell’s entitled to decide which years are appropriate for seating Supreme Court Justice’s is that McConnell says so, so you’ll understand if I remain unconvinced. In fact, I found his arguments to be total bullshit. However, what’s important is that it’s understood you’re okay with that sort of thing. How you justify it to yourself is your business.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

The rules and the process are not intended (at least when I use the phrase) to be considered as mutually exclusive. McConnell followed a process that was permitted by the rules. I’m okay with that, although, as I’ve said before, my view is that it’s not the best practice to have no hearing.

The “rules” permit a democratic congress to seat either zero justices or 20 justices. Would you be okay with that?