Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I mean, precedent (clinton) is that a sitting president can be charged with shit they did outside the purview of the position, at the absolute least for civil issues.

It's just that the ones who would do that is basically the DoJ, who haven't exactly covered themselves in glory these last few years.

[Iduno]

I assume that is a fake video?

I can't imagine Biden being that much of a racist / sexist.

He's a serial rapist who tried to keep segregation legal so his children didn't have to grow up "in a racial jungle." He's at least as bad as that.

[Quarque]

Maybe don't treat the US President as just an Elected Monarch?

The system of "checks and balances" depends on the willingness of members of congress to put country before party. As the past four years have shown, that's a deep weakness of American democracy. Not easy to repair, either.

One particularly outdated power (and much easier to fix) is the Pardon. That one should be abolished as soon as possible. It undermines the separation of powers and it is dangerously exploitable.

Even more urgent: the POTUS has complete and unchecked power to start a nuclear war. And yes, that's insane. We are bloody lucky that Trump did not exterminate humanity out of spite. (Fingers crossed for the coming two weeks..)

[MorleyDev]

It goes beyond that. Look at the way Americans and American media have historically talked about the President and the position of President. It's scarily similar to how countries with Royal Families talk about their King/Queen. The position of President in America is flat-out revered in a way that Prime Ministers and even Presidents in other western countries aren't. A "You have to respect him because he's the President" point of view, rather than 'As the President it is his duty to earn your respect'.

This is a deep problem with the way the position is treated by a not-insignificant portion of the American populace and that mentality helps birth and fuel the problems in congress.

[LordBaal]

Well, I was talking about business, school quota might be different but I do get the point. Obviously if there's a school district were student aged population is 70/30, but school has a 90/10, incentives should be carried to bring all of them to school. But it should be done on district by district basis because certainly most districts won't have the exact same population makeout, and blank laws on this kind of issues are ineffective and idiotic, and in the end you don't really need forced quotas beyond 100% student population, no matter the color of their skin because in the end, segregating (on any reason) people for it, it's a stupid thing to do.

On the business thing is, in your speech there should be unity, whole unity for everyone. After that, you let the program of incentives, in all fairness asses and help the business that indeed need help, which then it should be a higher percentage on certain groups, depending on the area and all that.

Of course all this are just my personal caveman rants.

[Cthulhu]

If there's some kind of earmark or fund to specifically help women-owned businesses, small businesses will just adjust their organization so a woman is the on-paper owner.  They already do this in defense contracting to get at x-Owned Small Business set-asides, it's not even a new idea. 

[LordBaal]

Weren't you asleep on R'lyeh... or Ritalin, or whatever is named? Would vote for you as president however, at least is honestly evil.

[Bumber]

If he fired the cabinet, wouldn't that just give Pence the sole vote?

He could keep the ones that support him, if needed.

Though more realistically, everybody would just ignore the notice that they were fired and vote to remove as normal, under the premise that the President's orders constitute mental incapacity.

They'd have to rule him incapacitated first, which they can't do if they're fired.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Though more realistically, everybody would just ignore the notice that they were fired and vote to remove as normal, under the premise that the President's orders constitute mental incapacity.

They'd have to rule him incapacitated first, which they can't do if they're fired.

No one will care if the President is obviously incapable, such as through firing his entire cabinet, or supporting insurrection.

[Bumber]

No one will care if the President is obviously incapable, such as through firing his entire cabinet, or supporting insurrection.

That's a slippery-slope. President X is obviously incapable because he refused to deploy troops to take out Iraq's WMDs. President Y is supporting insurrection by supporting BLM after they've attacked government buildings.

Doubt SCOTUS would allow that. Impeachment is granted to Congress for a reason. The VP and cabinet aren't granted the power to perform a coup at will.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There was actually some interesting commentary last summer that Congressthralls were being kept from endorsing BLM too closely on the basis that Trump might declare BLM terrorists and use it to have them arrested.

Anyway, slippery slope or not, that's what would happen. You live in a country where hundreds of administrative and judicial posts can be kept empty for multiple administrations so that they can be filled by partisans later. Trump even bragged about it during the debates, so that's the level we're at now. You won't get any argument from me that the US government isn't falling to pieces under the Great Partisanship War.

[da_nang]

No one will care if the President is obviously incapable, such as through firing his entire cabinet, or supporting insurrection.

That's a slippery-slope. President X is obviously incapable because he refused to deploy troops to take out Iraq's WMDs. President Y is supporting insurrection by supporting BLM after they've attacked government buildings.

Doubt SCOTUS would allow that. Impeachment is granted to Congress for a reason. The VP and cabinet aren't granted the power to perform a coup at will.

The president's incapacity will almost surely be ruled as a political question. The reason for this is that the 25th amendment already has safeguards specifically to prevent a coup to the point where it's easier to impeach and remove.

The 25th needs written approval from the VP and either a majority of the cabinet or a majority of a body established by law of Congress. The president can reassert in writing his capacity at any time. If, within four days, the VP et al. further reassert in writing the president is incapacitated, they will require a two-third majority vote in both Houses within 21-23 days to finally settle the decision.

So at most you'll have an Acting President for the duration of February.

It's much easier to get a majority House vote to impeach and a two-third majority vote in the Senate to remove.

Furthermore, if the VP or other oathbound officers or members of congress try to incapacitate the President by force, then they will be removed by the courts under the 14th amendment.

[anewaname]

The president should have the power they have; power is required to force action in a given direction and most importantly; power is required when time is of the essence.

The problem was never the power of the president, but ways in which the candidate selections and election system were allowed to be messed with. This has lead to fewer options for voters, and less voter participation (due to both duress and disinterest).

We had Trump because many people voted for him (they wanted something different) and because many people did not vote (they were indifferent).

[Urist McSpike]

The problem was never the power of the president, but ways in which the candidate selections and election system were allowed to be messed with. This has lead to fewer options for voters, and less voter participation (due to both duress and disinterest).

We had Trump because many people voted for him (they wanted something different) and because many people did not vote (they were indifferent).

A couple of friends tend to get into some deep discussions at times.  One such time, they said that if you read the writings of the founding fathers that they emphasize two things:  education and infrastructure.

Education so that a well-educated populace will make decisions in the country's best interest, and infrastructure to tie the country together.

Education is a big problem.  People are not taught how to educate themselves, just made to learn what is needed to pass the tests so that the schools will get their funding.  Seeing some of the video's of the DC insurrection...  Elizabeth from Knoxville who says "We're storming the capitol, it's a revolution!" in the same tone a child would whine about wanting cookies...  the old Southern guy ranting about how we'd get socialism overnight, and that Biden would immediately step aside for Harris, and somehow we'd end up with Hillary in charge?  Too many people who think they're "patriots" for literally breaking inside the Capitol building to interrupt the democratic process, because their candidate lost.

[Folly]

Word is that a large group is planning to repeat the insurrection event on inauguration day January 16-20, but this time in every state capitol, and with guns.