Print

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

[Naturegirl1999]

I think ranked choice is a good idea

[Teneb]

It's fascinating that the Washington Post chose to run this right before the Iowa caucus, during a legal argument - one likely to succeed - that the President has literally unlimited power.

The only way I can see such a thing as fascinating is as if it's fascinating in the same way flat earth arguments are fascinating.  Unless people now really do just flat out ignore the Constitution, the President (and the executive) has clearly defined limits on authority.

Is that article fear mongering, or another example of post-modern "words only mean what you want them to mean, not what the author intended", or something else?

More like how the current impeachment trials are about Trump is overstepping his authority and how he'll almost certainly not be impeached and how that means that the president can, thus, do whatever the fuck they want.

[Loud Whispers]

USA: Fuck monarchies, the King is too powerful
Also USA: What if we make a President more powerful than a King, then it will be double plus good

[JoshuaFH]

I'm holding onto hope that this withholding-witnesses-shit blows up in their face so hard it forces a reform and abolishes party politics forever.

Unrealistically high expectations, I know.

[McTraveller]

More like how the current impeachment trials are about Trump is overstepping his authority and how he'll almost certainly not be impeached and how that means that the president can, thus, do whatever the fuck they want.

But this doesn't mean that a different Congress couldn't impeach a president. The current Congress just isn't willing to do it.  I guess I don't understand the extrapolation that this means any President can do "whatever they want".

[Iduno]

It's fascinating that the Washington Post chose to run this right before the Iowa caucus, during a legal argument - one likely to succeed - that the President has literally unlimited power.

The executive branch can apparently refuse to acknowledge our mortal courts, it can certainly refuse to imprison people for student loan debts.  How strange that the Washington Post would run such a story anyway.

(they hate Bernie Sanders because they like their financial backers)

By "financial backers" do you mean "Jeff Bezos literally bought Washington Post to push his political ideology"?

I'm holding onto hope that this withholding-witnesses-shit blows up in their face so hard it forces a reform and abolishes party politics forever.

Unrealistically high expectations, I know.

Congress, made up of partisain politicians, would be the ones having to create those reforms.

[TamerVirus]

What the hell’s going on with the Iowa caucus? Vote rigging shenanigans?

[Frumple]

As near as I've been able to tell, it's literally just a caucus being a caucus. I've come to the impression the word looks similar to circus for a reason

[da_nang]

What the hell’s going on with the Iowa caucus? Vote rigging shenanigans?

Iowa mou shindeiru.

[scriver]

What's the deal with the Iowa cactus?

[Kagus]

They had a bit of a caucup.

[Rolan7]

More like how the current impeachment trials are about Trump is overstepping his authority and how he'll almost certainly not be impeached and how that means that the president can, thus, do whatever the fuck they want.

But this doesn't mean that a different Congress couldn't impeach a president. The current Congress just isn't willing to do it.  I guess I don't understand the extrapolation that this means any President can do "whatever they want".

The President's legal team is "making the case", or at least claiming and being supported by McConnel and the Senate, that a sitting President cannot be indicted *or even investigated* while in office.  Rather famously they were asked directly about Trump's joke that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and their legal opinion was that he should be immune.  Until leaving office- but that no investigation could even be started in the meantime.

[MrRoboto75]

More like how the current impeachment trials are about Trump is overstepping his authority and how he'll almost certainly not be impeached and how that means that the president can, thus, do whatever the fuck they want.

But this doesn't mean that a different Congress couldn't impeach a president. The current Congress just isn't willing to do it.  I guess I don't understand the extrapolation that this means any President can do "whatever they want".

The President's legal team is "making the case", or at least claiming and being supported by McConnel and the Senate, that a sitting President cannot be indicted *or even investigated* while in office.  Rather famously they were asked directly about Trump's joke that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and their legal opinion was that he should be immune.  Until leaving office- but that no investigation could even be started in the meantime.

It gets better.  They claim if a politician is running for re-election, then that politician believes their continued work is within the public interest.  Any act helping re-election is then in the public interest.  There is nothing wrong about a politician doing what's in the public interest.

[Folly]

Iowa now blaming it's fuckup on a 'major coding error'.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm holding onto hope that this withholding-witnesses-shit blows up in their face so hard it forces a reform and abolishes party politics forever.

Unrealistically high expectations, I know.

Congress, made up of partisain politicians, would be the ones having to create those reforms.

This is just pessimistic though. Things that are utilitarian and altruistic have gotten passed before, it's just a matter of making the relevant constituencies large and diverse enough in order to compel the lawmakers. That is, atleast according to "The Dictator's Handbook".