Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[PSadlon 88]

27 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

Actually, she's probably going to change the status quo in a lot of ways. Presidents can't unilaterally pass legislation, but they can sign executive orders and appoint federal officials, including, this term, at least one Supreme Court Justice. So she can effect some real changes.

The Congress promised to double down on blocking any appointments should Hillary win and Executive Orders only affect the President's departments. That said those orders can be countermanded by legislation. The President has the opportunity to block it either by not signing it within a certain time frame of receiving it while the Congress is not in session or actively vetoing it in which case the Congress has the opportunity to override (with a supermajority in both branches of Congress). Signing a bill is mostly acknowledgement of its legitimacy while any other action is a questioning of which.

[Troacctid 14]

There is no danger of Clinton's executive orders being overturned by Congress. She can veto any attempt to do so. The Republicans are nowhere near a veto-proof majority in the Senate, if they can even get a majority at all.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

We've had Republicans running Congress, and they've been deliberately trying to keep government from accomplishing anything.  They hate the government and want it to be as small as possible, so they try to make it fail wherever possible, and then point to those failures as reasons to hate the government.  It's the worst kind of self-fulfilling catch-22.

If you really want to see change, to shake up the system and see some progress, the solution isn't just in the White House.  The solution is to throw out the bums who have been sabotaging the system from within for decades, and get a majority in Congress who will actually work toward making the govenrment work.  End the gridlock.

[PSadlon 88]

23 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

There is no danger of Clinton's executive orders being overturned by Congress. She can veto any attempt to do so. The Republicans are nowhere near a veto-proof majority in the Senate, if they can even get a majority at all.

I really hope not they caused enough problems in the last 8 years and I know I'm not voting to reelect any of the Republicans in the Congress at the minimum on the merit they haven't been doing the job we elected them to do (in addition to political differences and whatever issues I have with individual members of the party).

That said what the President can accomplish with Executive order is really kinda limited by the fact they only affect his cabinets (State Dept, Dept of the Interior, etc)

10 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

We've had Republicans running Congress, and they've been deliberately trying to keep government from accomplishing anything.  They hate the government and want it to be as small as possible, so they try to make it fail wherever possible, and then point to those failures as reasons to hate the government.  It's the worst kind of self-fulfilling catch-22.

If you really want to see change, to shake up the system and see some progress, the solution isn't just in the White House.  The solution is to throw out the bums who have been sabotaging the system from within for decades, and get a majority in Congress who will actually work toward making the govenrment work.  End the gridlock.

Exactly, the sad thing is the average American really doesn't seem to get this. The President only has more political power than any individual American but has far, far less than the Legislative branch as a whole.

[Scotty 1,061]

7 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

We've had Republicans running Congress, and they've been deliberately trying to keep government from accomplishing anything.  They hate the government and want it to be as small as possible, so they try to make it fail wherever possible, and then point to those failures as reasons to hate the government.  It's the worst kind of self-fulfilling catch-22.

Seriously, that way I've been hearing about congress' refusal to do anything the President wants just because it's not the president they wanted, it's like a kindergarten sandbox and the President is that one kid that everyone's singled out as someone different.

[malloyd 23]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Seriously, that way I've been hearing about congress' refusal to do anything the President wants just because it's not the president they wanted, it's like a kindergarten sandbox and the President is that one kid that everyone's singled out as someone different.

That's normal.  Probably half of what politics is like will make sense to toddlers.  The more sophisticated stuff may require middle schoolers, or at least adult chimpanzees - there's some stuff that puberty influences.  Yeah OK, some of the *issues* can get pretty complicated, but once you peel away the technobabble (I guess for politics you call this rhetoric) the actual core mostly doesn't.

[ijuin 572]

fA great deal of politics has very little to do with the actual policies and legislation, and a lot more to do with "cui bono" (who benefits). The exact same bill will be more palatable if proposed by somebody whom they like than somebody whom they dislike. For example, a large portion of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was lifted nearly verbatim from a health care plan enacted under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts ("Romneycare"). However, supporters of Romney were more favorable toward Romneycare while disparaging the same aspects of Obamacare because of this basic political tendency toward judging the person over the content.

[Vorlonagent 442]

16 hours ago, malloyd said:

All presidents push up against their Constitutional limits about as hard as they can, but it slanders most of them to say they didn't stay within its limits.  You may disagree where those limits *should* be, but that's not the same thing at all.  They do have habit of changing their own opinions on where those are from their time in Congress.  Aside: have we had a President other than Taft who sat on the Supreme Court?  It'd be interesting to see if they switched back.  Obama is still fairly young and a former Constitutional Law professor....

And contributions affect policy?  Say it isn't so. 

Seriously with the bloody obvious influence exerted by donors to political campaigns, we're supposed to get worked up over contributions to a charity?  If donors to the Clinton campaign, or people paying them actual speaking fees, aren't getting more for their money than donors to the charity, the Clintons must be paragons of virtue as politicians go.  But nobody wants to call much attention to that sort of thing, might encourage campaign finance reform or something.

Obama took pushing the limits of executive power an important bit further. 

You may recall some aspects of the Affordable Care Act were due to kick in right before a difficult election and Obama just suspended them till it was more convenient.  Neat trick but  the law gave him no wiggle room with respect to when parts of it came online and he's not the Legislature.  Obama had no Constitutional authority to do that.

Obama has refused to enforce the law.  When he took office, gay marriage had a federal law prohibiting it and no supreme court decision overturning the law.  Constitutionally he was bound to uphold the law.  But not said "nope.  not gonna do it.  It's unconstitutional".  That may sound OK, especially when the law was later ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court, but Obama is not the Judiciary.   Obama had no Constitutional authority to do that.

These examples of themselves may seem benign or trivial, but they will be built on, pushing a little further each time.  The ability to suspend a law is the ability to suspend equality before the law.  The Separation of Powers are there to limit the power any Branch of government accrues to itself (checks and balances).  This is serious stuff that Obama is messing with.

One would think a someone who taught Constitutional Law would be familiar with US Government 101 concepts like Rule of Law or Separation of Powers, and their importance in maintaining a stable Republic/Democracy.  His actions do not always bear that out.

[Vorlonagent 442]

14 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

We've had Republicans running Congress, and they've been deliberately trying to keep government from accomplishing anything.  They hate the government and want it to be as small as possible, so they try to make it fail wherever possible, and then point to those failures as reasons to hate the government.  It's the worst kind of self-fulfilling catch-22.

If you really want to see change, to shake up the system and see some progress, the solution isn't just in the White House.  The solution is to throw out the bums who have been sabotaging the system from within for decades, and get a majority in Congress who will actually work toward making the govenrment work.  End the gridlock.

One can just as rightly say that it is Obama that is standing in the way of Congress' agenda.  Who you blame is much a function of partisanship as anything else

Gridlock can be a surprisingly good thing.  It means Congress is not making many new laws.  It creates a stable taxation, legal and regulatory environment.  Business likes that. 

The US budget deficit is down from its obscene 2009 and 2010 levels and gridlock is why.  Nobody can embark on new spending sprees which drive the deficit up, nobody dares change Sequester, which clips federal programs back toward a balanced budget and the stable business environment brings in more tax revenue.  20 years ago, gridlock combined with a boom/bubble economy to give us a budget surplus.

[Drachefly 30]

> You may recall some aspects of the Affordable Care Act were due to kick in right before a difficult election and Obama just suspended them till it was more convenient

That wasn't why - that happened in mid-2013 and again in early 2014. Federal elections happen late in even years. Like, you know, today.

The reason was, things were not technically ready, and the only remedy that Congress was willing to do was cancel the entire law. This, after Congress delayed in appropriating certain funds that the ACA required for implementation, until too late to make the deadlines he pushed back. If it's illegal for Obama to not punish people for failure to participate in a system that couldn't be built in time partially because of unforeseen complexity and partially because of Congressional failure to appropriate funds that were required for compliance with the law in a timely fashion, then it seems like it should be just as illegal for Congress not to appropriate those funds.

Also, if the action had actually caused harm to anyone at all, the suit would have not been thrown out and the Judiciary would have shown him just how not-above-them he is.

> Constitutionally he was bound to uphold the law. 

I have looked through my copy of the constitution and do not see any section regarding the president being obliged to defend the constitutionality of a law he believes unconstitutional in court, in the event it is challenged.

> The US budget deficit is down from its obscene 2009 and 2010 levels and gridlock is why

No, that's because the stimulus wound down. Those were some very exceptional years.

> One can just as rightly say that it is Obama that is standing in the way of Congress' agenda.  Who you blame is much a function of partisanship as anything else

Well, Mitch McConnell's primary goal was to make Obama fail as a president. I can't imagine why he wouldn't go along with that agenda item.

[Vorlonagent 442]

45 minutes ago, Drachefly said:

> You may recall some aspects of the Affordable Care Act were due to kick in right before a difficult election and Obama just suspended them till it was more convenient

That wasn't why - that happened in mid-2013 and again in early 2014. Federal elections happen late in even years. Like, you know, today.

The reason was, things were not technically ready, and the only remedy that Congress was willing to do was cancel the entire law. This, after Congress delayed in appropriating certain funds that the ACA required for implementation, until too late to make the deadlines he pushed back. If it's illegal for Obama to not punish people for failure to participate in a system that couldn't be built in time partially because of unforeseen complexity and partially because of Congressional failure to appropriate funds that were required for compliance with the law in a timely fashion, then it seems like it should be just as illegal for Congress not to appropriate those funds.

Also, if the action had actually caused harm to anyone at all, the suit would have not been thrown out and the Judiciary would have shown him just how not-above-them he is.

ACA became law in 2010.  The Obama administration had 3 years to prepare.  I see no reason to accept "we weren't ready" excuses in 2013 or 2014.  Either the Obama's Administration was hopelessly incompetent or Obama intentionally suspended the law till the midterm elections were over.  I'll accept either answer.

45 minutes ago, Drachefly said:

> Constitutionally he was bound to uphold the law. 

I have looked through my copy of the constitution and do not see any section regarding the president being obliged to defend the constitutionality of a law he believes unconstitutional in court, in the event it is challenged.

You won't find that in the constitution.  It's a part of the concept known as "Rule of Law" or if you will, "Equality under the Law". These are concepts that went into the writing of the Constitution.  The Chief Executive does not get to pick and choose what laws he enforces.

45 minutes ago, Drachefly said:

> The US budget deficit is down from its obscene 2009 and 2010 levels and gridlock is why

No, that's because the stimulus wound down. Those were some very exceptional years.

I'm pretty sure "Stimulus" was a one-time thing in 2009.  It was disbursed over several years because Obama was short on "shovel ready" projects.  I don't remember a repeat stimulus package passed in 2010.  2010, Congress and the President simply spent money like crazy.  At worst, it was the usual repaying political contributors with government dollars that both parties do.  At best, they told themselves the "spending = stimulus" bedtime story Keynes wrote for them.  Keynes was wrong.

In 2011, we got a Republican House and the return of gridlock, Obama and the congressional democrats suddenly couldn't spend as freely and the deficit starts dropping.

[Drachefly 30]

> AVA became law in 2010.  The Obama administration had 3 years to prepare.

It was designed to phase in over an extended period. Some things had to go first, others come in later. Hardly anything started right away.

> The Chief Executive does not get to pick and choose what laws he enforces.

This was not a matter of enforcement. The constitutionality of the law was at question in court.

[Vorlonagent 442]

Just now, Drachefly said:

> AVA became law in 2010.  The Obama administration had 3 years to prepare.

It was designed to phase in over an extended period. Some things had to go first, others come in later. Hardly anything started right away.

2010 - 2013.  With the exact schedule for what phases in when in front of them since 2010.  Incompetence or Executive Overreach.  I accept no "dog ate my homework" option.
 

2 minutes ago, Drachefly said:

> The Chief Executive does not get to pick and choose what laws he enforces.

This was not a matter of enforcement. The constitutionality of the law was at question in court.

This was 2009.  There was no Supreme Court ruling in hand and no case before the Court to be ruled on.

Arguably, until the Supreme Court actually rules on a law, it is still Law and to be treated as such.  There is no allowance for maybe not enforcing a law when it is under Judicial Review, just in case the Court rules against it. 

The Supreme Court would have issue a stay order to temporarily suspend a law while it is under Review.  I'm pretty sure that only occurs when the constitutionality of a newly passed law is questioned, which wasn't the case with DOMA or many such anti-gay marriage statues across the US. 

With no case before the Court in 2009, Obama simply refused to enforce a law that conflicted with his political convenience.

[mlooney 3,417]

I am not a happy camper right now.  Sirrah Trump has 128 elector college votes according to CNN.

[Vorlonagent 442]

16 minutes ago, mlooney said:

I am not a happy camper right now.  Sirrah Trump has 128 elector college votes according to CNN.

Don't worry.  He's going to pick up a minimum of 230 or so electoral votes.

Even though I prefer Trump over Clinton (which is like saying I prefer a sucking chest wound to brain cancer), I handicapped the odds at 65% Clinton, 35% Trump. The dice are still rolling.

[mlooney 3,417]

29 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Even though I prefer Trump over Clinton (which is like saying I prefer a sucking chest wound to brain cancer), I handicapped the odds at 65% Clinton, 35% Trump. The dice are still rolling.

That's about what I think.  Other than reversing the two candidates, still neither one is real good.

[PSadlon 88]

7 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

One can just as rightly say that it is Obama that is standing in the way of Congress' agenda.  Who you blame is much a function of partisanship as anything else

Gridlock can be a surprisingly good thing.  It means Congress is not making many new laws.  It creates a stable taxation, legal and regulatory environment.  Business likes that. 

The US budget deficit is down from its obscene 2009 and 2010 levels and gridlock is why.  Nobody can embark on new spending sprees which drive the deficit up, nobody dares change Sequester, which clips federal programs back toward a balanced budget and the stable business environment brings in more tax revenue.  20 years ago, gridlock combined with a boom/bubble economy to give us a budget surplus.

That aspect was there as well but even when Obama was bending over backwards to compromise which happened way more than the right will ever admit or the left will ever be happy with, they were were obstructing almost anything from happen in his 8 years as President he signed 60 bills and vetoed 12. (one of which was overridden). 

[Vorlonagent 442]

2 minutes ago, PSadlon said:

That aspect was there as well but even when Obama was bending over backwards to compromise which happened way more than the right will ever admit or the left will ever be happy with, they were were obstructing almost anything from happen in his 8 years as President he signed 60 bills and vetoed 12. (one of which was overridden). 

I never saw Obama as willing to compromise on substance, bending over backwards or being even polite about it.  I saw him as saying "let's compromise and do it my way", which might have happened more often if the Tea Party Republicans weren't so insubordinate (inflection meant to imply insubordination in this case as a positive trait).  I remember Obama as saying things like "get in their face", "bring a gun to a knife fight" and the perhaps ill-chosen "Don't call my bluff".  The latter spoken during a particularly nerve-wracking face-to-face negotiation session where Obama threatened to take his case to the American people.

The Republicans also remember 2007-2008 when it was a Democrat Congress blocking a Republican President.  Payback.  Then there's the constant drumbeat of demonization that Republicans get.  Obama saying "pretty please with sugar on top" won't cut any ice.

Same thing with the Senate and Obama's Judicial appointments.  Democrats in the Senate did the same thing to GW Bush.

If Trump wins tonight, Senate democrats will return to this practice without a moment's care for the Constitutional complaints they made when it was Republicans blocking them.  The "hold" strategy will once more be lauded as important and valuable.  Also complaints about gridlock will disappear and it will be the Democrats getting payback once more.

[PSadlon 88]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/
137 Examples of compromise over 7 plages. After a while of doing that and having you never compromise thrown in your face and you are gone just plain stop trying. Hell, even Buddha may be upset if his face is hit three times.

[Don Edwards 548]

On 11/8/2016 at 8:15 PM, CritterKeeper said:

Yeah, there's a long, long history of accusations being leveled against Senator Clinton, thorough investigations being conducted, often by her opposition, and them turning up nothing, yet the accusations get a hundred times the media coverage as the exonerations get.  If she were really as crooked as Trump claims, you'd think they'd have been able to prove at least one crime by now.

That's because there hasn't been an exoneration yet.

What Comey described in his speech a few months ago, announcing his decision not to recommend an indictment, laid out the basis for numerous consecutive 5-year terms in federal prison. Just on the mishandling of classified information. But he chose to describe her actions in the terms of one law, and then explain how a different law didn't apply, and on that basis not pursue prosecution.

Specifically, he said he wasn't recommending prosecution because of a lack of criminal intent. But he could have recommended prosecution on the basis of gross negligence - and (contrary to his assertion during the speech) there are in fact people currently in federal prison because of gross negligence, without criminal intent, in handling classified information.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

Really less than happy right now.  Going to bed.  I expect to be extremely unhappy in the morning.
This is weird.  I'm nominally a Republican and a lower case l libertarian.  And I'm unhappy about the Republican candidate winning the election.  The fact that the GOP seems to be also holding on to both houses of congress isn't helping.  I generally want split government, prevents some of the more off the wall things from being passed into law.  Bleh.

[Don Edwards 548]

Count me as another who really doesn't like Trump but thinks Clinton is much worse.

[Xenophon Hendrix 47]

Notice how badly the pre-election polls were off. This is telling us that a lot of Americans fear reprisals for their beliefs.

[Troacctid 14]

Pre-election polls are actually pretty close to the popular vote projections.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

My wife returns from a Colorado trip with her brothers & sister on Wednesday. I'm tempted to tell her not to unpack and to program her GPS for a drive to Canada.

And from there, a trip to Denmark. One way.