BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 575
  • 576
  • 577
  • 578
  • 579
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?

#11521 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2018-November-07, 15:26

Fox News legal analyst says Trump violated the law by appointing Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general

Quote

Trump announced that in replacement of Sessions, Matt Whitaker would become the new acting attorney general.

However, Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano explained to Fox News host Dana Perino how Trump could be breaking the law with his new appointee.

Napolitano explained that Whitaker was not confirmed by the Senate and therefore violates the law.

“Under the law, the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United States Senate for some previous position. Even on an interim post,” Napolitano said.

Napolitano continued saying that next in line for the position is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“[Whitaker] was not confirmed by the United States Senate for a leadership position at the Justice Department. The White House will have to work this out. Who has been confirmed and who’s next in line? Deputy attorney general Rosenstein,” he said.

Fake news?
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#11522 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-07, 16:05

View PostPassedOut, on 2018-November-07, 15:26, said:



Interesting as CNN and MSNBC are talking about the new interim AG.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11523 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-November-07, 16:25

Did anyone find a source of election night coverage that they liked? I watched PBS. I had a hard time getting a feel for how Dems were doing compared to expectations as the results were coming in. Presumably it's not too hard to aggregate precinct results as they come in and compare to corresponding aggregate precinct projections to give a sense of how many races are playing out as expected. Maybe they did that and I missed it as I was not paying full attention. I enjoyed some of the commentary but most of it was pretty blah.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#11524 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-07, 17:51

Finally someone has the integrity to be honest:

Quote

America's Problem Isn't Tribalism—It's Racism
Only one of America’s major political parties relies on stoking hatred and fear against those outside its coalition.

Adam Serwer
Staff writer at The Atlantic

In the Trump era, America finds itself with two political parties: one that’s growing more reliant on the nation’s diversity, and one that sees its path to power in stoking fear and rage toward those who are different. America doesn’t have a “tribalism” problem. It has a racism problem. And the parties are not equally responsible.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11525 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-07, 18:41

View Postandrei, on 2018-November-06, 23:21, said:

Are you talking about Michigan senate race?


No, this:

Quote

But this acceptable midterm outcome disguised disturbing trends — like a patient who is entirely healthy except for a touch of leukemia. Trump’s final political appeal — literally warning that brown people were invading the country and promising they could be shot — was both Trumpism and racism unadulterated. His base of support — millions of people, skewing white and male — found this message compelling.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11526 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-07, 19:57

View Posty66, on 2018-November-07, 16:25, said:

Did anyone find a source of election night coverage that they liked? I watched PBS. I had a hard time getting a feel for how Dems were doing compared to expectations as the results were coming in. Presumably it's not too hard to aggregate precinct results as they come in and compare to corresponding aggregate precinct projections to give a sense of how many races are playing out as expected. Maybe they did that and I missed it as I was not paying full attention. I enjoyed some of the commentary but most of it was pretty blah.


I turn to 538 for anything election-related. It's a blog livestream rather than a bunch of talking heads, so you sometimes have to refresh for text updates. But it's by far my favorite for quantitative analysis as well as interpretation of results in real time. Some really insightful commentary imo.
OK
bed
1

#11527 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-07, 20:03

Well. Let's see if this protest coordination thing has any teeth. I predict not.
OK
bed
0

#11528 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,585
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-08, 09:36

View PostWinstonm, on 2018-November-07, 10:02, said:

Irrelevant. By proposing solutions to real problems, the Democrats force Dennison and the GOP to take a stand, either with or against. Either way, the Democrats win.

The reality is that nothing much will get accomplished after 1-3-2019 other than oversight.

It is just as important - maybe more so - for the Democrats to keep their own base motivated. Seeing good governance repeatedly shot down by selfish GOP action would go a long way toward that goal.

Like the dozens of votes that the House took under Obama to repeal Obamacare, knowing that they were just symbolic gestures because the Senate would never pass it?

Is this going to be the country's fate whenever there's a divided Congress?

#11529 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-08, 10:55

View Postbarmar, on 2018-November-08, 09:36, said:

Like the dozens of votes that the House took under Obama to repeal Obamacare, knowing that they were just symbolic gestures because the Senate would never pass it?

Is this going to be the country's fate whenever there's a divided Congress?


This country's fate is more likely Rome's. As Ben Franklin is said to have responded to the question of what type government had been formed, a republic, if you can keep it.

A massive challenge, one that perhaps cannot be overcome, is that the constitutional imperative of the Senate was to act as a check on majority rule; what it has become is a majority of the minority. The only way to change this is to change the constitution, and that will never be done as long as it is held in religious-like rapture as infallible.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11530 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-November-08, 11:41

From A Two-Party Texas and Other Takeaways From the Cruz-O’Rourke Race by Manny Fernandez at NYT:

Quote

EL PASO — Texas didn’t turn blue Tuesday night. It didn’t turn purple. But it is pinker now — largely because of Beto O’Rourke.

...The midterm election in Texas was unlike any the state has seen in decades. Here are five takeaways as Republicans and Democrats try to understand what happened.

Mr. O’Rourke lost on Tuesday by the narrowest margin in years for a Democrat running for statewide office. His Republican opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, won by a little more than two percentage points — a difference of about 200,000 votes, according to state elections data. So even Mr. O’Rourke’s defeat had tinges of victory for Democrats, helping to rekindle a notion that many had believed was years away from reviving in Texas: the two-party state.

Republican rule of Texas remains intact but weakened, as Mr. O’Rourke’s high-profile, high-energy campaign helped deliver victories for a number of Democrats in down-ballot races.

His coattails helped Democrats flip 12 State House seats, two State Senate seats and two congressional seats, and Democrats managed to win the largest county in the state — Houston’s Harris County. Not a single Republican county-level elected official was left standing there, including the county’s top elected official, County Judge Ed Emmett, who had helped lead the region through Hurricane Harvey. Mr. O’Rourke carried much of urban Texas and scored surprising victories in battleground suburbs like Fort Bend and Williamson Counties — though that success was ultimately undermined by losses in rural West Texas, East Texas and the Panhandle.

“This was the first statewide election since 2002 when the outcome of the statewide contests was not a completely foregone conclusion before the polls closed on Election Day,” said Mark P. Jones, a political-science professor at Rice University in Houston. “Beto’s success should serve as a wake-up call for scores of Texas Republicans that they can no longer count on winning simply by having an ‘R’ next to their name on the ballot.”

Before the election, Mr. Cruz called Fort Worth’s Tarrant County “the biggest, reddest county in the biggest, reddest state.” Tarrant County is tied to the mythic Texas cattle country, so friendly to conservatives that Republicans have regularly hosted their state conventions in Fort Worth. For years, Tarrant County was the red exception to the blue rule: The biggest urban counties in Texas are all blue — around Austin, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas — but Tarrant is red. Tarrant, over the years, went for Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, Donald Trump — and also Mr. Cruz, who crushed his Democratic opponent in 2012 in the county by 16 percentage points.

But Mr. O’Rourke did what Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats could not — he won Tarrant County, by a statistical hair: 49.89 percent of the vote compared with Mr. Cruz’s 49.27 percent. And Mr. O’Rourke’s supporters had a hand in defeating a Republican state senator and longtime Cruz ally in the county, State Senator Konni Burton, who lost to the Democrat, Beverly Powell. (It was the State Senate seat that previously had been held by another Democrat, Wendy Davis.)

Post-election on Wednesday, there wasn’t much celebrating going on at the headquarters of the Tarrant County Republican Party, in a nondescript industrial office complex in Fort Worth. The chairman, Darl Easton, a retired Air Force officer, sat at a large desk, empty except for a laptop and a red MAGA hat.

He was on the phone with one of his precinct chairmen. “Did you go to the watch party last night?” Mr. Easton asked, telling the chairman moments later, “Oh my gosh, pretty sad down there. Wasn’t good, that’s for sure.”

Afterward, he seemed determined to put a good face on things. “I think we’ll bounce back,” he said. “It’s a warning bell to us to re-energize our base.”

...Republicans have long claimed the pop culture of Texas as their own — the barbecue joints and country music stars and pickup trucks. Mr. O’Rourke embraced those Texas symbols and reclaimed them for Democrats, jamming with Willie Nelson, steering his San Antonio-built Toyota pickup truck through rural Texas and air-drumming post-debate in the drive-through lane at Whataburger. It used to be an awkward counterculture stretch to be a Texas Democrat. He made it cool.

...Mr. O’Rourke failed to turn a well-funded, well-publicized and well-run campaign for Senate into a win. Now, strategists are asking a question: If he couldn’t do it, then who can? And if not now, then when? One of the other Texas Democratic stars — Julian Castro, the Obama-era secretary of housing and urban development — may be booked up in 2020, as he is seriously considering a run for president.

Could even bigger things also be in store for Mr. O’Rourke? He is that rare Texas Democrat whom even Republicans generally have nice things to say about. In the wake of Tuesday’s election, an unlikely voice seemed to be urging Mr. O’Rourke to consider running for president in 2020, even though he has said he’s not interested. That voice belonged to Mr. Roe, Mr. Cruz’s chief strategist.

“I don’t predict Democratic politics, but the fervent following that he has nationally, no one else compares to him on their side,” Mr. Roe told reporters at the Houston hotel ballroom where Mr. Cruz held his victory party. “No one does. He is in a league of his own in the Democratic Party, and if he doesn’t use that to run for president, I don’t know what he’d do with it.”

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
3

#11531 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-08, 13:18

View PostPassedOut, on 2018-November-07, 15:26, said:



Interesting that now a new voice has been added to this claim - Kellyanne Conway's husband George.

Quote

But Professor Calabresi and the president were right about the core principle. A principal officer must be confirmed by the Senate. And that has a very, very significant consequence today.

It means that President Trump’s installation of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general of the United States after forcing the resignation of Jeff Sessions is unconstitutional. It’s illegal. And it means that anything Mr. Whitaker does, or tries to do, in that position is invalid.

If you don’t believe us, then take it from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom President Trump once called his “favorite” sitting justice. Last year, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board had been lawfully appointed to his job without Senate confirmation. The Supreme Court held the appointment invalid on a statutory ground.

Justice Thomas agreed with the judgment, but wrote separately to emphasize that even if the statute had allowed the appointment, the Constitution’s Appointments Clause would not have. The officer in question was a principal officer, he concluded. And the public interest protected by the Appointments Clause was a critical one: The Constitution’s drafters, Justice Thomas argued, “recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the government.” Which is why, he pointed out, the framers provided for advice and consent of the Senate.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
1

#11532 User is online   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,375
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2018-November-08, 16:26

View Posty66, on 2018-November-08, 11:41, said:



We had a relatively strong year for Democrats (with voters energized by resistance to Trump), a very unlikeable Republican incumbent (even many in his own party can't stand Ted Cruz, and Trump himself was on record saying all manner of negative things about him from the 2016 Republican primary), a Democratic donor base giving crazy amounts of money, and a dynamic Democratic candidate. And he still couldn't win in Texas. The time might come when demographic change makes Texas winnable for Dems, but it's gotta be pretty far away on this evidence. And I don't really see how losing a Senate run (in a year where a lot of fundamentals are favorable to your party and against an opponent like Cruz) makes for a good presidential run.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
2

#11533 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-08, 16:27

I hope that is true. I don't know constitutional law unfortunately, but it would be pretty consistent with this administration if Whitaker tried to shut the whole thing down and Mueller kept trucking along, simply adding Whitaker to the list of suspects.

edit: sniped
OK
bed
0

#11534 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-08, 16:28

View Postawm, on 2018-November-08, 16:26, said:

We had a relatively strong year for Democrats (with voters energized by resistance to Trump), a very unlikeable Republican incumbent (even many in his own party can't stand Ted Cruz, and Trump himself was on record saying all manner of negative things about him from the 2016 Republican primary), a Democratic donor base giving crazy amounts of money, and a dynamic Democratic candidate. And he still couldn't win in Texas. The time might come when demographic change makes Texas winnable for Dems, but it's gotta be pretty far away on this evidence. And I don't really see how losing a Senate run (in a year where a lot of fundamentals are favorable to your party and against an opponent like Cruz) makes for a good presidential run.


This is a bad post.
OK
bed
0

#11535 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-08, 16:50

View Postjjbrr, on 2018-November-08, 16:27, said:

I hope that is true. I don't know constitutional law unfortunately, but it would be pretty consistent with this administration if Whitaker tried to shut the whole thing down and Mueller kept trucking along, simply adding Whitaker to the list of suspects.

edit: sniped


From what I have read and heard, the issue is whether or not Sessions resigned or was fired. On that point, Sessions really stuck it to Dennison with his letter start of On your request...

Also, I just read that Sessions asked to stay until the end of the week but Kelly told him he had to be out that same day.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11536 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-08, 18:07

Wasn't Sessions a bogey-man (corrupt, colluding etc) prior to his support of and nomination by Trump? Has the leopard changed his spots or has his usefulness been altered by his circumstance?
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#11537 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-November-08, 18:28

View PostWinstonm, on 2018-November-08, 16:50, said:

From what I have read and heard, the issue is whether or not Sessions resigned or was fired. On that point, Sessions really stuck it to Dennison with his letter start of On your request...

Also, I just read that Sessions asked to stay until the end of the week but Kelly told him he had to be out that same day.


Who is in charge of interpreting and enforcing the issue?
OK
bed
0

#11538 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-08, 19:19

View Postjjbrr, on 2018-November-08, 18:28, said:

Who is in charge of interpreting and enforcing the issue?


I don't know. I suppose if it came to it Mueller could file a lawsuit challenging the Whitaker's authority. I suppose any Democratic legislator could challenge the appointment on legal grounds but I don't know for sure.

Here's useful article from Slate that also has a link to Lawfare in the article: https://slate.com/ne...nt-illegal.html
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#11539 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2018-November-08, 19:38

From Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg:

Quote

Even with everything going on, I still can’t let Donald Trump’s Wednesday news conference go. It was … something.

I will give credit to Trump for holding a post-election news conference. He’s now doing these events regularly, and that’s a good thing. The downside is that he used the occasion to demonstrate once again that he’s simply not fit for the office

The president showed he is fully committed to calling the Republican defeat in the midterms a glorious victory. Spin is one thing; saying that a party that lost its House majority, six or seven governorships and more than 300 state legislative seats had actually won something “very close to complete victory” is either insulting to his audience or delusional or both.

He also mocked, individually and by name, some of the Republicans who lost on Tuesday.

Then, when asked about his rhetoric and white nationalists, he snapped repeatedly that it was a “racist question.”

When asked about the increase in anti-Semitic incidents over the last two years, Trump insisted that he was a great friend of Israel, and when asked a second time, he talked about jobs and trade relations with China. For whatever reason, he chose not to say anything comforting to Jews who are still mourning the attacks in Pittsburgh (and as far as I know, he never has mentioned the killing of two black people in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, on Oct. 24).

He repeatedly insulted reporters and media organizations, once again calling CNN an “enemy of the people.” Later, CNN’s Jim Acosta was barred from the White House.

He repeated a series of fabrications about why he won’t release his tax returns, as every other president has done for years.

And those were the coherent parts.

Trump talked about cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi and the new House Democratic majority, at one point sounding as if he was willing to give them whatever they wanted as long as they didn’t conduct normal oversight of his administration. He also threatened, in the news conference and in an earlier tweet, to investigate the Democrats if they investigated him. It didn’t seem to occur to him that if he is aware of any wrongdoing by the Democrats that he should be reporting it, not bargaining with it; nor does it occur to him that threatening to damage the nation in order to protect himself and his administration from oversight is inexcusable.

Indeed, he seems to feel that any routine congressional oversight would be inherently offensive, just as he apparently thinks any tough questions or accurate but damaging reporting is inherently offensive.

At least, that’s what I think he was saying. In fact, the president was difficult to follow because he simply doesn’t make any sense half the time. Part of that is his commitment to both never backing down on anything and to declaring everything a win. So when pressed about whether some of his campaign rhetoric about the Democrats was too harsh, he strongly denied it and confirmed he believes they are out to ruin the nation, but (because the elections were a win!) somehow he could also maintain that it’s great for him that the Democrats have a House majority because now they’ll be able to work together to get things done.

When it comes to actual policy, the less said, the better. Trump was asked one specific question about health care, and good luck to anyone who tries to figure out what his answer meant. He pretty clearly has just as little idea what he’s talking about on most major policy issues as he did when he first started running for president. On Jamal Khashoggi, waivers on Iranian sanctions, North Korea and Russia, he either ducked the questions with non sequiturs or just babbled.

Most presidents really do grow in office, or they get better at the job over time. Bill Clinton was awful at presidenting in his first year but eventually got to be pretty good at it. George W. Bush never really mastered the job, but he did improve over time; he certainly put in serious effort to be up to speed on policy details despite entering office with an unusually weak grasp of major policy areas. I’d like to find some sign that Trump is finally getting the hang of this, but I’m just not seeing it. It’s enough to make you think he may just not be capable of the job.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
2

#11540 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,279
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2018-November-08, 19:49

The legal case against the Whitaker appointment grows: Axios reports:

Quote

The bottom line: Even John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley who helped the George W. Bush administration draft its expansive claims to executive power, says the Whitaker appointment may be out of line.

"The Constitution says that principal officers must go through appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate. In Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court made clear that the Attorney General is a principal officer. Therefore, Whittaker cannot serve as acting Attorney General despite the Vacancies Act (which does provide for him to be acting AG) — the statute is unconstitutional when applied in this way."
— John Yoo in an email

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

  • 1106 Pages +
  • « First
  • 575
  • 576
  • 577
  • 578
  • 579
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

237 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 237 guests, 0 anonymous users