Ya, it's been a while since an American has done that.
Only instead of a tweet, a friend was sent to Moscow.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
Ya, it's been a while since an American has done that.
Only instead of a tweet, a friend was sent to Moscow.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/te...eagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
So lets make a deal then... I'll renounce and agree not to vote for Ted Kennedy, and you can renounce and agree not to vote for Donald Trump... Deal?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
A lot of rumors about Reagan. I couldn't get to the Ted Kennedy link. Was that more recent than 1980?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Trump apparently wants to recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea. He's completely in lockstep with Putin now and backs him in every issue.
Which prompted this:
Link to video.
Which prompted this:
Link to video.
Response moved to non RD thread
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Only if there were overwhelming numbers of Mexican soldiers living in Texas, California, etc.
WTF? We paid cash for Alaska.
J
I don't quite understand why he would say that. Even if he intends to recognize Crimea (which is unlikely), it's not a good time to announce it.
Is that your only standard for deciding which country gets to claim another country's land?
Which is why we need "The Wall" right? To keep out all those legions of Mexican "soldiers" cause once you have "overwhelming numbers of Mexican soldiers" living there then Mexico has a sovereign right to invade and take it... right? Same goes for Muslims, right? Let too many of those in and Islam has the right to claim NYC as their territory... so we need a Muslim ban... Is that the reasoning? Ausländer nicht willkommen? Sounds like the reasoning to me...
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Trump is not exactly a rational person who carefully considers his words and actions.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
More on topic, I said a little while ago, and others have contended, that Trump doesn't present a threat because Congress will check his power.
I don't believe that any more. Paul Ryan has shown he has no spine. He's accepted Trump as the leader of his party despite them disagreeing on just about every policy, and Trump's continued insistence on saying things that belie deeply troubling positions in the arena of our sovereignty and national security. Apart from a few Republicans in the Senate, nobody in that party on Capitol Hill is willing to even speak out against him, let alone denounce him as the piece of garbage that he is.
They know how ignorant he is. They know how dangerous it is to have an ignorant and incurious person with authority over all of the armed forces and over all executive agencies. Yet, they sit silent, most not even willing to offer comment on the crazy crap he spouts, seemingly on a daily basis. Maybe something will change in the next few months and they will display some kind of backbone, but as it stands now, it is hard for me to see how this Congress won't simply let Donald Trump run things how he wants.
Think about it. Separation of powers requires all actors to buy into the concept, where Trump likely doesn't know what it means. The check the judiciary provides exists solely in the willingness of the other 2 branches to accept it; an executive with no appreciation for our constitutional government is not likely to understand that, nor can we realistically expect they will respect and abide by a check that has no mechanism for enforcement. Presidents that did have that appreciation have in the past threatened to ignore the judiciary's check on their power, and FDR went so far as to strongarm the Supreme Court into issuing favorable rulings on the New Deal. The check the legislative branch provides is more concrete, in that the president needs them to give him funding, but when the legislative branch is spineless, and can be cowed into writing a blank check, that gives the executive carte blanche.
I don't believe that any more. Paul Ryan has shown he has no spine. He's accepted Trump as the leader of his party despite them disagreeing on just about every policy, and Trump's continued insistence on saying things that belie deeply troubling positions in the arena of our sovereignty and national security. Apart from a few Republicans in the Senate, nobody in that party on Capitol Hill is willing to even speak out against him, let alone denounce him as the piece of garbage that he is.
They know how ignorant he is. They know how dangerous it is to have an ignorant and incurious person with authority over all of the armed forces and over all executive agencies. Yet, they sit silent, most not even willing to offer comment on the crazy crap he spouts, seemingly on a daily basis. Maybe something will change in the next few months and they will display some kind of backbone, but as it stands now, it is hard for me to see how this Congress won't simply let Donald Trump run things how he wants.
Think about it. Separation of powers requires all actors to buy into the concept, where Trump likely doesn't know what it means. The check the judiciary provides exists solely in the willingness of the other 2 branches to accept it; an executive with no appreciation for our constitutional government is not likely to understand that, nor can we realistically expect they will respect and abide by a check that has no mechanism for enforcement. Presidents that did have that appreciation have in the past threatened to ignore the judiciary's check on their power, and FDR went so far as to strongarm the Supreme Court into issuing favorable rulings on the New Deal. The check the legislative branch provides is more concrete, in that the president needs them to give him funding, but when the legislative branch is spineless, and can be cowed into writing a blank check, that gives the executive carte blanche.
Lexicus
Deity
metalhead said:
There was a paper (I've been trying without success to find it) not that long ago about how Presidential Republics have a poor track record (that is, they tend to succumb to coups and constitutional crises much more readily than Parliamentary systems).
The rules depend to a disturbing degree on people's willingness to follow them.
That's why Trump frightens me so much. It's why I call him a Nazi and a fascist and why I think it would be such a disaster if he won.
metalhead said:
None of this is the least bit surprising. The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to increase profits for their cronies. They don't care about anything else.
What have the Democrats done that has alienated the white vote in favour of maintaining their supermajorities in the minority blocs?
Having soldiers on a territory does normally give states cause to control said territory. Whether they should get away with it is another question.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Refused to support the position of favor that some whites believe is their "just due" because they have become accustomed to having it. That's why J's statement is partly true and partly false. Younger whites are not so invested in having a position of advantage and are more susceptible to the idea of justice.
The fact is that "forced equality," while difficult to implement and not terribly effective, has produced a generational change. My dad railed against his kids being "unfairly" denied the advantages he had. I have to forcefully reject the resentment I was raised to hold. My kids were raised with the understanding they weren't going to have any particular advantage. They still DO have advantages, but they don't have the resentment and are generally willing to look when the unfairness is pointed out.
Where was this concern about checks and balances on Presidential Power the last 8 years I wonder.
_random_
Jewel Runner
There was a paper (I've been trying without success to find it) not that long ago about how Presidential Republics have a poor track record (that is, they tend to succumb to coups and constitutional crises much more readily than Parliamentary systems).
Let me know if you find it. Sounds interesting.
Lexicus
Deity
It was more or less absent because Obama isn't a quasi-fascist dingbat.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
There was a paper (I've been trying without success to find it) not that long ago about how Presidential Republics have a poor track record (that is, they tend to succumb to coups and constitutional crises much more readily than Parliamentary systems).
I think you're looking for "The Perils of Presidentialism" by Juan Linz.
There's a critique of Linz available as well.
- Status
Similar threads
