|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fucking Hell
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From David Goode's link: "I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress," [Paul Ryan] said.
"The foxes guarding the henhouse will hold each other to the highest ethical standards." Why should anybody expect they would do that? We've seen how well that works for police departments without external oversight.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Dare we hope that Paul Ryan's got religion at last? He bears watching.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Recall that Congress votes itself its own salary, pension, benefits and vacation schedule. Possibly you imagine these are wildly generous; this just shows you have a small imagination, because they are somewhat beyond that. They have also taken care to exempt themselves from labor and discrimination laws. They have no shame but it's nothing new.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
The BBC is reporting that Trump opposes this, and has openly criticised those who voted for it.
If you read what Trump tweeted on the matter, he opposes the House doing this now. He doesn't seem to oppose it in principle.
quote:
With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it
quote:
........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS
In other words Trump objects to the timing, not the act itself.
[ 03. January 2017, 17:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Recall that Congress votes itself its own salary, pension, benefits and vacation schedule.
Technically speaking, under the terms of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment Congress can only vote for the salary of the next Congress, not "itself". Of course since most of Congress is going to be staying on more than two years (especially the two-thirds of the Senate who sit out every electoral cycle) this is a very narrow distinction.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
Congress has now pulled back on this. That's not to say that there are members who don't want independent scrutiny, but I don't think they want to get into an adversarial position with Trump right off the bat.
House Republicans back off gutting ethics watchdog after backlash from Trump
Not sure if there is a paywall. So here is a quote:
quote:
In a complete reversal, the House GOP moved to withdraw proposed changes they approved the day before to official rules that would rein in the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE). Instead, the House will study changes to the office with an August deadline.
The about-face came hours after Trump took to Twitter to slam House Republicans for voting behind closed doors Monday night in favor of immediately weakening the independent ethics office. The vote defied House GOP leaders and complicated Trump’s “drain the swamp” campaign mantra.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
A dangerous nitwit who governs by tweet?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A dangerous nitwit who governs by tweet?
We are going to have to get used to it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Frankly, that's his attraction for me. He's a RINO (Republican in Name Only): the party elites hate him, he doesn't get along with the GOP's corporate donors, and he has at least as many problems relating to his own party as he does with the Democrats.
Persuant to Trump Vs. The GOP...
GOP drops weakening of ethics office after Trump tweet
Of course, Trump didn't come right out and say that he supports the ethics office, in fact he implies that he doesn't, but used the excuse of there being other issues to tackle. But if he was big supporter of gutting the office, he likely wouldn't have been that worried about priorities.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Oh, cross-posted with the posters above.
Not sure if I'd call Trump a "dangerous nitwit" on this one, as you can probably guess from my post. I'm not sure what the protocol is for the POTUS disagreeing publically with the Congress. I suspect if it the prez and the congress are from different parties, nobody would see much amiss in it.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Alternet is doing something odd to this computer, so I could only read the headline.
But if I've got the gist of it, the criticism of congress started with Warren, and then Trump jumped on the bandwagon, at which point congress backed off.
This seems to support my overall view of things, ie. contrary to the standard view that Trump is the Antichrist, out of the three branches of legislative government right now, the House, the Senate, and the Administration, it's the latter that might be most amenable to working with the Democrats.
Had it simply been Elizabeth Warren barking away against congress on this issue, they probably wouldn't have much cared what she thought. But things changed once Trump picked up the tune.
Of course, I also wouldn't rule out the gutting the ethics-commitee was just really unpopular with the voters, and that the Republicans knew it.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Oh, cross-posted with the posters above.
Not sure if I'd call Trump a "dangerous nitwit" on this one, as you can probably guess from my post. I'm not sure what the protocol is for the POTUS disagreeing publically with the Congress. I suspect if it the prez and the congress are from different parties, nobody would see much amiss in it.
I suspect that this kind of thing goes on back channel all the time. Trump, by governing via Twitter, has made it more transparent. Of course deal-making by Twitter doesn't seem like a good idea. But this kind of blustery non-threat works a treat.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Mouethief wrote:
quote:
I suspect that this kind of thing goes on back channel all the time. Trump, by governing via Twitter, has made it more transparent. Of course deal-making by Twitter doesn't seem like a good idea. But this kind of blustery non-threat works a treat.
And I'd wager that if it had just been Warren's tweet, minus Trump's me-tooism, that pushed Congress away from the gutting, Democrats would be hailing it as "brilliant politics", "the kind of tough talk we need right now" etc.
I think politics by twitter is probably just gonna be something we have to get used to, with or without Trump. The panicked reaction in some quarters is possibly akin to people in 1933 saying "Are you kidding me?! The president?! On the freaking RADIO?"
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mouethief wrote:
quote:
I suspect that this kind of thing goes on back channel all the time. Trump, by governing via Twitter, has made it more transparent. Of course deal-making by Twitter doesn't seem like a good idea. But this kind of blustery non-threat works a treat.
And I'd wager that if it had just been Warren's tweet, minus Trump's me-tooism, that pushed Congress away from the gutting, Democrats would be hailing it as "brilliant politics", "the kind of tough talk we need right now" etc.
I think politics by twitter is probably just gonna be something we have to get used to, with or without Trump. The panicked reaction in some quarters is possibly akin to people in 1933 saying "Are you kidding me?! The president?! On the freaking RADIO?"
Of course the problem with Trump on Twitter is that he has heretofore primarily used it to be nasty in a churlish and childish manner to people who have criticized him.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Mouethief wrote:
quote:
Of course the problem with Trump on Twitter is that he has heretofore primarily used it to be nasty in a churlish and childish manner to people who have criticized him.
Indeed. Though I wonder, in the absensce of twitter, would he be more restrained? I suspect that he'd still find a way to bad-mouth people he doesn't like, though possibly with less frequency.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Salon has a piece up arguing that the media is overplaying Trump's support for the ungutted ethics committe.
Their argument is based mostly on Trump's citing low-priority as his reason for opposing the gutting, rather than defending the committee outright. But I think this fails to take into consideration how politics is done. A president is not likely to come right out and say "You know that thing that my party hates and is desperate to get rid of? Well, I LOVE it!!" Instead, he's gonna make it seem as if he's not backtracking, when in fact he really is.
Not that I think Trump is a big fan of the ethics-committee, in fact, I'm sure he'd happily scrap it if he thought it would serve his interests somehow. My guess is he calculated that doing so was bad politics for the GOP.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Remember we don't know for sure who actually composed and sent that tweet. Maybe Ivanka? At the very least, she seems to be saner than her dad. She's also said to be interested in doing something good--don't remember if it was daycare, or what.
Whoever wrote it basically kicked the can down the road a piece...and it *worked*.
I'm more worried over his tweet about N. Korea. Not sure how recent it is. But a show on my NPR station mentioned today that when the current Dear Leader threatened to use nuclear missiles, Trump tweeted "That won't happen". The program, IIRC, took the view that he was warning N. Korea. I think it might be more of his dismissive smart-mouthing, and it could backfire. Whatever else the Dear Leaders have wanted, they seem to want attention for their country--negative attention, if that's all they can get...
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
This is an incredibly clever move by singer Rebecca.
"Rebecca Ferguson will "graciously accept" her invitation to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony on one condition - that she is allowed to sing black protest song "Strange Fruit"."
If he agrees his ultra right wing friends will be outraged, if he declines his reasons will be obvious to the world.
Clever!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Cool re the singer, Boogie. T also plans to have the high-kicking Rockettes dance at the inauguration, but some of them are trying to find a way to not participate.
(Rockettes at the inauguration? Ick. Wrong place, wrong time.)
ETA: I wonder if he's ever actually watched an inauguration?
[ 04. January 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
They've performed at earlier inaugurals; the Rockettes are Americana now and not considered showgirls.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Rockettes are Americana now and not considered showgirls.
Wikipedia calls them "a precision dance company."
The same Wikipedia entry, discussing the Rockettes' upcoming appearance at the Trump inauguration, quotes one Rockette as saying that she "wouldn't feel comfortable standing near a man like that in our costumes."
Actually I might consider paying to see Donald Trump in a Rockette costume.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Actually I might consider paying to see Donald Trump in a Rockette costume.
I think I'd ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Rockettes are Americana now and not considered showgirls.
Wikipedia calls them "a precision dance company."
.
iow, showgirls.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They've performed at earlier inaugurals; the Rockettes are Americana now and not considered showgirls.
Hmmm...a quick search indicates they evidently performed for both of Bush-43's inaugurations. Don't think I knew that at the time.
So there's precedent, but I still don't think it's appropriate. FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The managers have cleverly positioned the troupe as Americana and not as the 'tits and ass' we usually associate with showgirls. Their show at Rockefeller Center is perennially popular.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The managers have cleverly positioned the troupe as Americana and not as the 'tits and ass' we usually associate with showgirls. Their show at Rockefeller Center is perennially popular.
Well, in fairness, "Americana" and "tits and ass" are not a priori mutually exclusive. The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, for instance, certainly exemplify both categories.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, in fairness, "Americana" and "tits and ass" are not a priori mutually exclusive. The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, for instance, certainly exemplify both categories.
I'm surprised Drumpf hasn't recruited them for his show, I mean inauguration.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
"Rebecca Ferguson will "graciously accept" her invitation to perform at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony on one condition - that she is allowed to sing black protest song "Strange Fruit"."
In a similar vein, perhaps Weird Al Yankovic could be persuaded to sing "Tacky"?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Meanwhile, from the "Was he legally elected?" files:
"At least 50 Donald Trump electors were illegally seated as Electoral College members: report. More evidence surfaces as calls mount to challenge congressional ratification of Electoral College vote." (Salon)
Evidently, Congress votes *tomorrow* about certifying the vote.
If American citizens want to let their Congress beings know their opinions about the situation, this would be a really good time to do it...
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
From the article: quote:
Their research and report grew out of the legal activities surrounding the December 19 Electoral College meeting, where Clayton and others urged Republican electors to reject Trump saying they had a constitutional responsibility to pick a more qualified president.
I am not reassured by the agenda set for this "research".
In back-to-front sort of way, this reminds me of clearly guilty defendants attempting every trick in the book to have the case against them dismissed over a technicality.
The guy won. I think it sucks. But mounting last-minute technical challenges like this is not the way forward.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eutychus--
--If there really were all those illegal electors (predominately, IIRC, for not living in the area they were representing), then not certifying the election *at this point* is legit.
--Given that Trump is already a disaster for this country, thinks sexual assault that he's committed is ok, and is only likely to get much worse, it's wise to try to stop him by any legitimate means.
--Given the discussion, here and in the wider world, by non-Americans who think that Trump is a grave threat to the entire world, I'm a little surprised that you think this is a bad idea. You're entitled to your opinion. But if we don't do everything we legitimately, legally, non-violently can, are you going to criticize us for Trump's presidency, in the future?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
They've performed at earlier inaugurals; the Rockettes are Americana now and not considered showgirls.
Hmmm...a quick search indicates they evidently performed for both of Bush-43's inaugurations. Don't think I knew that at the time.
So there's precedent, but I still don't think it's appropriate. FWIW.
For this particular presidency, it's hard to think of anything more appropriate, unless it was a coronation of a ginormous wad of cash.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For this particular presidency, it's hard to think of anything more appropriate.
Oh, I can think of something.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Good Heavens, Miss Amanda! However do you come up with such connections?
How unlike the home life of our own dear Queen.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Miss Amanda reads widely.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--Given that Trump is already a disaster for this country, thinks sexual assault that he's committed is ok, and is only likely to get much worse, it's wise to try to stop him by any legitimate means.
On that basis it would be more honest to declare that intention up front rather than try and disguise the effort as a fortuitous piece of research.
The problem with your suggestion that people suddenly start contacting their Congressman now on a technical pretext with the above partisan aim in mind is that it tends to undermine the entire democratic process.
I can't imagine you'd be supporting such a move on the part of the Republicans had Hillary been elected.
If there's something wrong with electoral college members' mandate, the time to sort that out is mid-cycle, not on the eve of an inauguration.
quote:
--Given the discussion, here and in the wider world, by non-Americans who think that Trump is a grave threat to the entire world, I'm a little surprised that you think this is a bad idea.
I would much rather Hillary in the White House than Trump, and I am concerned about the far-reaching damage that Trump could do, as much in terms of the behaviour he is likely to legitimise as in terms of the actions he may implement.
However, I think that henceforth, the focus for serious-minded opponents should be on a critical appraisal of his exercise of his mandate, and proper challenges to anything illegal or unconstitutional, and not on desperately trying to void it before it's started.
quote:
But if we don't do everything we legitimately, legally, non-violently can, are you going to criticize us for Trump's presidency, in the future?
Seeing as how blaming any shipmate for the actions of the country they happen to be a citizen of solely on the grounds of that citizenship is usually treated as a Commandment 1 violation, I doubt it.
If I blame anyone who has not declared a vote for Trump for his actions, feel free to call me to Hell.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Golden Key, I am also concerned about the damage Trump could do. However, the system you have in place for electing your President is functioning as designed; didn't the Founding Fathers set it up that way to make it almost impossible for anyone who wasn't rich, white, male and Protestant to be elected?
Maybe you should be campaigning for the presidential election to be decided by the popular vote alone (which Hillary Clinton won). But unless you want to have another revolution you're stuck with the Mango Mussolini for now.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jane--
Well, the Founding Guys set up several stages of the election and deciding/interpreting its results. Today, Friday, is the day Congress votes on certifying the election. It's not done yet. And, if that article is correct, there were many electors who weren't qualified--and that's against the rules.
So AFAICS there are people working within the *existing* rules to address something that happened that *wasn't* within the existing rules.
While people are trying all sorts of things to prevent, remove, or defang Trump (including members of Congress), the people in the article are coloring inside the lines.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
the people in the article are coloring inside the lines.
The crucial question in terms of democracy is whether "the people in the article" would be doing so if Hillary Clinton was in Trump's position now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess the ONLY way in which the Trump Presidency can be stopped in its tracks is if the FBI find evidence of positive collusion between Trump and the Russians over the use of hacking to interfere with the election process. That would probably constitute a "high crime and misdemeanour" sufficient to impeach.
Given the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a move to impeach wouldn't change the GOP grip over policy and legislation, so if Trump's popularity collapsed in the face of revelations, they might jump at the chance to dump him early, to avoid electoral backlash.
In a nutshell, I'm not sure what the FBI have up their sleeve. There were unconfirmed reports, prior to the election, of a possible link between a server under Trump control and one in Russia, and some communications traffic. And my guess is that the FBI have also got evidence of links to Assange. Whether any of that points towards a possible impeachment case remains to be seen. I guess there would have to be at least one whistleblower in the Trump camp as well.
At this stage, it looks more like a fairy tale than Watergate Mark 2, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. The alternative is that the threat itself might be sufficient to control Trump's more extreme behaviour. A bit like Hoover using his "secret files" to control previous US Presidents.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Rick Salutin: Justin Trudeau may be the last neoliberal standing
Trump-related. Interesting info on the demographics of the Rust Belt factory Trump claims to have saved.
I go back and forth on "trade-liberalization" and "globalization" issues, but one thing I'll say is that any Trump supporter who expects him to work magic every time a company wants to move jobs offshore is in for some pretty bitter disappointment.
Even if the relevant trade-agreements DO allow you to offer tax cuts to any company threatening to leave, how long can you keep on doing that for? What's to stop the companies from demanding higher and higher payouts every time?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
the people in the article are coloring inside the lines.
The crucial question in terms of democracy is whether "the people in the article" would be doing so if Hillary Clinton was in Trump's position now.
No, it's not. The question is whether or not they are trying to change the rules midstream or whether they are, in fact, simply demanding that the rules be adhered to. Calls to go with the popular vote are calls to change the rules midstream-- that's not going to happen. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about demanding that the pre-existing rules be adhered to. The fact that they/ we are motivated to do so at this particular point in time because of the extreme danger of the current president-elect (one evidence of that extreme danger is this very propensity to "color outside the lines") is irrelevant.
Yes, the system works both ways. If we insist on the rules being adhered to this time, we should expect the rules to be adhered to next time, even if the Democrats are the beneficiary of any "coloring outside the lines". I'm OK with that.
[ 06. January 2017, 17:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
cliffdweller ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And re what other people asked about whether I'd support delaying certification of the Electoral College vote if it affected Hillary rather than Trump:
Actually, I thought through that before I posted the article link, and have continued to do so. I would be really, really torn; but, ultimately, I think I'd lean towards getting it all straightened out. I've had that reaction to other things, like Bush v. Gore. At the time, I felt the most important thing was to count all the votes--because if the voting process is messed up, we can lose everything.
When I e-mailed my three Congress folk last night, I said as much, and acknowledged that it might possibly pertain to Hillary's electors, too, and that we need to sort it out *anyway*.
IIRC, the article said the huge report (1000 pages??) would be presented to members of Congress. So I did what I could, within the rules, as did the people who prepared the report.
We'll see what happens.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
It's hardly surprising, given that the EC system is itself arcane, that some of its detailed rules of representation are "more honoured in the breach than the observance". And if the EC delegate result were not so clear cut, I guess there might be something in these processes of challenge.
But not this time. I think that is Eutychus' point, really. Apart from the most exceptional of circumstances (eg a tie), the delegates' role is ceremonial. They vote the way the election determined the EC count. There's room for a couple of rebellions, I think that's happened, but the process can't circumvent the modern constitutional intention, without bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
[ 06. January 2017, 18:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's hardly surprising, given that the EC system is itself arcane, that some of its detailed rules of representation are "more honoured in the breach than the observance". And if the EC delegate result were not so clear cut, I guess there might be something in these processes of challenge.
But not this time. I think that is Eutychus' point, really. Apart from the most exceptional of circumstances (eg a tie), the delegates' role is ceremonial. They vote the way the election determined the EC count. There's room for a couple of rebellions, I think that's happened, but the process can't circumvent the modern constitutional intention, without bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
Actually, the constitutional intention is precisely the reverse of what you suggest. The constitutional purpose in giving us the (yes, arcane) EC was not to simply rubber stamp the EC count vote. The intent was to provide a hedge against an unsuitable candidate who was able to bamboozle the electorate-- which, arguably, is precisely what we have here. So it would have been entirely appropriate & constitutional-- albeit unprecedented-- for the EC to have jettisoned Trump for a more suitable candidate of their choosing. The possibility of the EC actually doing so was always a longshot, but the fact that the EC was apparently stacked to prevent even that slim possibility outside the rules is, in fact, grounds for exploration. It's the hail-Mary play of all hail-Mary plays but there's nothing inappropriate, unseemly, unconstitutional, or unethical about it. I would fully expect the GOP to do precisely the same were the situation reversed (indeed, the very need for this exploration is evidence of their willingness to pursue whatever means possible).
I'm not holding my breath for an investigation, and if there were one, certainly wouldn't hold my breath for anything to change. The only likely possibility at this point is impeachment-- a very real probability but one that, sadly, will only move the needle very slightly.
But these are challenging times when we must do all that we can, even though the odds are against us and the advances are apt to be quite small, if any. Hard times/hard measures.
[ 06. January 2017, 19:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
