‘The truth is… there was no one to vote for’

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah and... don't expect to be inspired.

Ok, don't expect to win much of anything ever again then.

When was the last time liberals won anything in the White House?

 

[Treedbear]

The greatest improvement we can make to effect change in Washington and to promote elections that are determined by the will of the people is to have ranked choice voting (http://www.fairvote.org/). With the advent of electronic voting systems this is a no-brainer.

The assumption that 'determined by the will of the people' would be an improvement is deeply flawed, and I for one do not accept it as a starting premise when discussing the selection of a president.

I read your essay on the other thread and I'm not suggesting we get rid of the Electoral College. Perhaps I should have said "to promote elections that correctly determine the will of the people." The current system trapped us into voting for what almost everyone agrees were two terribly unsatisfactory candidates. Ranked choice voting would provide the option of choosing the third party without the fear of throwing the election to the least desirable one. I think if that were the case Sanders could have easily won if he ran as an Independent.

(Oh, by the way in the 4th paragraph from the bottom you said "to valuable" instead of "too valuable".)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does beg the question, if the EC doesn't step in here to replace a man who is unqualified for the office on several fronts, who are they supposed to actually block? Charles Manson?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bilby]

The assumption that 'determined by the will of the people' would be an improvement is deeply flawed, and I for one do not accept it as a starting premise when discussing the selection of a president.

I read your essay on the other thread and I'm not suggesting we get rid of the Electoral College. Perhaps I should have said "to promote elections that correctly determine the will of the people." The current system trapped us into voting for what almost everyone agrees were two terribly unsatisfactory candidates. Ranked choice voting would provide the option of choosing the third party without the fear of throwing the election to the least desirable one. I think if that were the case Sanders could have easily won if he ran as an Independent.

(Oh, by the way in the 4th paragraph from the bottom you said "to valuable" instead of "too valuable".)

Maybe; But I still think that democracy is an unsuitable way to select a person for a single position of authority. Save democracy for the legislature, where it belongs; there are 535 elected representatives of the people (that is, representatives with a small 'r'; 435 Representatives and 100 Senators), which is plenty of room to reflect the actual diversity of opinion amongst the public. One person cannot possibly represent all facets of public opinion, so IMO you shouldn't even try.

Give more power to the legislature and reduce the power of the executive to act unilaterally if you like - but let's not pretend that just because democracy is an essential element of the system, it must always be used everywhere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The president certainly can start wars without the consent of Congress. Simply order our forces to attack, we will be at war whether Congress wants it or not.

Hard to attack unless Congress appropriates the funds needed to move the forces into place. And then there is the little matter of being impeached for abuse of power to worry about.

Yeah, he might be impeached--but the war would be started.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hard to attack unless Congress appropriates the funds needed to move the forces into place. And then there is the little matter of being impeached for abuse of power to worry about.

Yeah, he might be impeached--but the war would be started.

Only if he organized a massive conspiracy with the Generals so that they would violate their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution first then obey the President. The generals understand that attacking without Congressional approval would be a violation of that Constitution that they have sworn to protect. The opening of their oath is, ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic......". If the President ordered an attack without Congressional approval then he would be seen as one of the "domestic enemies" they have sworn to oppose.

The ranking military officers are generally quite patriotic (loyalty to the Constitution) and intelligent. They well understand what is and is not a legal order. They also understand that to obey an illegal order will put them in a world of shit - in this case, possibly charges of treason. The Nuremberg trials are an example of "only following orders" does not absolve anyone from following illegal orders.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't know much about him, but since there are no scandals and he speaks in terms of unity between all parties that would make him boring but at the same time you could be right.

He is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill New Deal Democrat. A rare breed these days since almost all other Democrats have sold their souls to corporate interests and sing the corporate tune.

He probably was our last chance to do anything serious about climate change.

The election of Trump probably dooms the species, if it has not already been doomed.

Who knows; Al Gore offered to work with Trump on this issue so see what happens.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, he might be impeached--but the war would be started.

Only if he organized a massive conspiracy with the Generals so that they would violate their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution first then obey the President. The generals understand that attacking without Congressional approval would be a violation of that Constitution that they have sworn to protect. The opening of their oath is, ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic......". If the President ordered an attack without Congressional approval then he would be seen as one of the "domestic enemies" they have sworn to oppose.

No conspiracy required - Or if one is required, then all the evidence indicates that it is openly in place, and is not seriously opposed by Congress.

From Wikipedia:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

Seems to me that the Generals are bound to obey an order to attack, unless they have:
1) Extraordinarily strong grounds to believe that the President has no intention of informing Congress; or
2) They have been attacking for 48 hours without such notification having occurred; or
3) They have been attacking for more than 60 days without Congressional approval and/or declaration of war

It would require a massive conspiracy of Generals to defy an executive order to attack a foreign power, in the absence of at least one of these conditions.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.

So it appears that Generals have acted on Presidential orders to attack in the past, without waiting for Congress. Why would you imagine that they might refuse to act in the same way in a future scenario?

 

[skepticalbip]

Only if he organized a massive conspiracy with the Generals so that they would violate their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution first then obey the President. The generals understand that attacking without Congressional approval would be a violation of that Constitution that they have sworn to protect. The opening of their oath is, ""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic......". If the President ordered an attack without Congressional approval then he would be seen as one of the "domestic enemies" they have sworn to oppose.

No conspiracy required - Or if one is required, then all the evidence indicates that it is openly in place, and is not seriously opposed by Congress.

From Wikipedia:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

Seems to me that the Generals are bound to obey an order to attack, unless they have:
1) Extraordinarily strong grounds to believe that the President has no intention of informing Congress; or
2) They have been attacking for 48 hours without such notification having occurred; or
3) They have been attacking for more than 60 days without Congressional approval and/or declaration of war

It would require a massive conspiracy of Generals to defy an executive order to attack a foreign power, in the absence of at least one of these conditions.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.

So it appears that Generals have acted on Presidential orders to attack in the past, without waiting for Congress. Why would you imagine that they might refuse to act in the same way in a future scenario?

You omitted the first paragraph:

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

 

[bilby]

No conspiracy required - Or if one is required, then all the evidence indicates that it is openly in place, and is not seriously opposed by Congress.

From Wikipedia:

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

Seems to me that the Generals are bound to obey an order to attack, unless they have:
1) Extraordinarily strong grounds to believe that the President has no intention of informing Congress; or
2) They have been attacking for 48 hours without such notification having occurred; or
3) They have been attacking for more than 60 days without Congressional approval and/or declaration of war

It would require a massive conspiracy of Generals to defy an executive order to attack a foreign power, in the absence of at least one of these conditions.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.

So it appears that Generals have acted on Presidential orders to attack in the past, without waiting for Congress. Why would you imagine that they might refuse to act in the same way in a future scenario?

You omitted the first paragraph:

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Indeed I did, as it is irrelevant to my point.

The fact is that the President can order, and has in the past ordered, military strikes without prior Congressional approval.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It does beg the question, if the EC doesn't step in here to replace a man who is unqualified for the office on several fronts, who are they supposed to actually block? Charles Manson?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They've never really done their jobs. Remember Ronnie Raygun?

 

[zorq]

It does beg the question, if the EC doesn't step in here to replace a man who is unqualified for the office on several fronts, who are they supposed to actually block? Charles Manson?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have to remember that the US was the first attempt at a Democratic Republic the world had seen in more than a millennium. The founding fathers had forseen a lot of what could go wrong with this type of government but they didn't really anticipate political parties. Even though the first political parties started to form during Washington's first term in office.

The delegates sent to the Electoral College were meant to be wise, respected, reasoning people of their state, not political partisans pledged to vote for one particular candidate. It was the political parties that took over the states and the way they send delegates to the Electoral College. The Electoral College has probably only worked they way it was originally intended to work TWICE in the entire history of the United States. We're just lucky that even though it doesn't work the way the founders intended, it still has mostly worked for one of it's primary goals, which is helping to balance power.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

Yes, he was. Then Hillary and her DNC cronies conspired against him and then they expected his supporters to vote for Hillary....

Look, Sanders is a great guy. But he got beat pretty soundly by a little "conspiring". However, this conspiring was child's play compared to what the republicans performed (Comey, Russian hackers, Russian mob, bribing the press, and etc.).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It does beg the question, if the EC doesn't step in here to replace a man who is unqualified for the office on several fronts, who are they supposed to actually block? Charles Manson?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They've never really done their jobs. Remember Ronnie Raygun?

Reagan -> Hw Bush -> W Bush -> Trump

Since 1980, just one guy that was an actual statesman. And excluding him, each progression in the White House for the Republicans just gets worse and worse.

 

[Terrell]

Yes, he was. Then Hillary and her DNC cronies conspired against him and then they expected his supporters to vote for Hillary....

And they should have.

Take the evangelicals, for instance. They hate almost everything about Trump but were willing to ignore all the stuff that they hated because they knew that a Trump presidency would do a lot more for advancing their agenda and the issues they care about than a Clinton presidency, which would actively work against most of that. It's the same for the Sandernistas. Trump is going to actively work against the agendas which are important to them and Clinton would have done some of the stuff they wanted to have done.

The evangelicals were mature adults who made the best of a bad situation and the Sandernistas were whiny babies who stayed at home and cried because they weren't going to get a pony. The result of that is that the evangelicals are getting a lot of what they want and the Sandernistas are not only getting nothing, but probably losing a lot. All because they felt it was important to make a point that the people who actually oppose them don't give a shit about.

Exactly. Why are some people on the left so dead set against accepting reality on this? Do they live in some type of bubble? Until such a time as they do, they shouldn't expect to get policies they want.

Those on the left who didn't turn out and vote HRC, can only blame themselves that they missed a chance to replace Scalia with a justice more to their liking. If RBG or Breyer retires or dies before the next time a Democratic president is elected along with a Democratic senate with the ruthlessness to nuke all procedural delays, expect long term setbacks to the policies you favor. Do Breyer & Ginsberg have 8 years of life left in them? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

Don't expect inspiration, self motivation & pragmatism are what's called for if you want liberal policies.

 

[blastula]

There was Bernie.

He was worth voting for.

Yes, he was. Then Hillary and her DNC cronies conspired against him and then they expected his supporters to vote for Hillary....

No, that's a liberal urban legend and conspiracy theory.