Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

18687899192168

Comments

  • Ohher wrote: »
    Goalposts. Move much?

    Not at all. That HRC got a few million more votes in places that reliably vote Democrat does not vindicate her piss-poor campaign.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Furthermore, memes and twitter bots can do a lot of damage at a time when the public sphere is largely located online, there’s no effective regulation of online content thereby allowing for lies to sprout and take root, and most people get their news from online sources. I’m not sure what’s to be gained from downplaying the power of the Almighty Internet.

    The lies sprout readily from native seeds in native soil- Fox "News", Breitbart, etc. And indeed Trump got invaluable free campaign advertising from all the major "serious" news purveyors who couldn't help but magnify his every ridiculous statement in hopes of drawing viewers, readers, or clicks. The rise of Trump is easily and obviously explicable without any supposition of foreign interference.
  • We are seriously arguing about whether the US election was swayed by Russian facebook memes. This is the level that American political thinking has attained to.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Goalposts. Move much?

    Not at all. That HRC got a few million more votes in places that reliably vote Democrat does not vindicate her piss-poor campaign.

    Sure, her "piss-poor campaign" is no doubt why she carried swing states like Nevada, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    We are seriously arguing about whether the US election was swayed by Russian facebook memes. This is the level that American political thinking has attained to.

    Counterpoint from today's New York Times:
    The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Thursday that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by Russia in 2016, an effort more far-reaching than previously acknowledged and one largely undetected by the states and federal officials at the time.

    But while the bipartisan report’s warning that the United States remains vulnerable in the next election is clear, its findings were so heavily redacted at the insistence of American intelligence agencies that even some key recommendations for 2020 were blacked out.

    It should be noted that the Senate (and thus the Senate Intelligence Committee) are currently controlled by Republicans. Who knew Tom Cotton and John Cornyn were in the bag for Hillary?
    While details of many of the hackings directed by Russian intelligence, particularly in Illinois and Arizona, are well known, the committee described “an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure” intended largely to search for vulnerabilities in the security of the election systems.

    It concluded that while there was no evidence that any votes were changed in actual voting machines, “Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data” in the Illinois voter database. The committee found no evidence that they did so.

    Let's note that "no evidence" is not the same as "it didn't happen" and that (the unredacted part of) this report [PDF] seems to want to imply that despite the fact that Russian hackers made the effort to successfully penetrate election systems in all fifty states and "were in a position to delete or change voter data" that they did nothing.

    But sure, you can pretend it's all about "Facebook memes" if you want to.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    If there is actual evidence in that report, it has been redacted. What we are left with are assertions and statements qualified by words like "likely", "possibly," etc. Essentially you have to take US intelligence's word for it... and that would require being quite the sucker/ amnesiac. That the committee is bipartisan is hardly meaningful- anti-Russia (and China) fever is a bipartisan obsession that will continue long after Trump is gone.

    Why would they hack into the voting systems but not change anything? The report speculates that these alleged Russian hackers maybe wanted to be merely detected so they could undermine confidence in US elections! Those dastardly commie bastards! But that means, in releasing this report, the senate intelligence committee doing Putin's work for him; ditto the New York Times in reporting on it. We are surrounded by damn reds!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Didn’t the CIA actually write a manual or something for sowing political instability? They got quite adept at that. A bit of cosmic irony there.

    And if some people in foreign countries used that manual to help the USA undermine their own governments, than those countries were well within their rights to investigate, prosecute, and punish the individuals in question.

    I think it's completely consistent to say that a) Americans shouldn't get too outraged at Russia for possibly interfering in a US election, because the USA does the same in other countries, and b) Americans can get VERY outraged at their fellow citizens who assisted Russia in doing that.

    Because the Russian government has a primary obligation to do what's best for Russia, and if fucking over the American electoral process is good for Russia, then Putin is guilty of nothing than being an effective guardian of his country's interests. By the same token, American citizens have a primary obligation to obey American law, and if they don't do that, they are guilty of commiting crimes, and fairly serious ones at that, in cases where they help foreign powers illegally undermine the election process.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    If there is actual evidence in that report, it has been redacted. What we are left with are assertions and statements qualified by words like "likely", "possibly," etc. Essentially you have to take US intelligence's word for it... and that would require being quite the sucker/ amnesiac.

    No more so than your implication that US intelligence have some kind of pro-Hillary Clinton bias and/or agenda. I'm not quite seeing their motivation in "shielding Dems", as you put it, especially given the way their current boss erupts at the slightest implication that his electoral victory was in any way not the greatest ever.
  • stetson wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Didn’t the CIA actually write a manual or something for sowing political instability? They got quite adept at that. A bit of cosmic irony there.

    And if some people in foreign countries used that manual to help the USA undermine their own governments, than those countries were well within their rights to investigate, prosecute, and punish the individuals in question.

    I think it's completely consistent to say that a) Americans shouldn't get too outraged at Russia for possibly interfering in a US election, because the USA does the same in other countries, and b) Americans can get VERY outraged at their fellow citizens who assisted Russia in doing that.

    Because the Russian government has a primary obligation to do what's best for Russia, and if fucking over the American electoral process is good for Russia, then Putin is guilty of nothing than being an effective guardian of his country's interests. By the same token, American citizens have a primary obligation to obey American law, and if they don't do that, they are guilty of commiting crimes, and fairly serious ones at that, in cases where they help foreign powers illegally undermine the election process.

    But that's the thing... the Mueller investigation resulted in some people getting charged with fraud and things like that. The Holy Grail of someone in the Trump campaign contacting the Russian government in a proven conspiracy to influence the election remains elusive.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Ohher wrote: »
    Here is why Trump won the election:

    2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.

    Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.

    Sure, just keep telling yourself that. The candidate and the campaign were both so horrible that 3 million more people voted for her than for Trump.

    The distortion of the electoral college is that bad?! Wow. All the more reason to embrace the Neanderthals. The trouble is, who is the swing? Or was it low turnout by the young?
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    ECraigR wrote: »
    We are seriously arguing about whether the US election was swayed by Russian facebook memes. This is the level that American political thinking has attained to.

    I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here. Political scientists, sociologists, and others have documented this. It’s a real phenomenon. People who uncritically consume online content are easily swayed. Facebook memes are the 21st century version of dropping flyers from the air targeting the government. Which, we know our government did repeatedly and often in its various wars. Psychological warfare, it’s a real thing. Memes, twitter bots, fake news, etc. are the updated versions of this.

    Again, the preponderance of media being uncritically consumed in 2016 was not from Russia. The few examples that have been produced of actual Russia-originated memes and ads (e.g. Jesus and Satan arm-wrestling for America) are crude even by American standards and are a drop in the bucket of the media inundation at the time. In terms of agitprop Trump's native supporters (Breitbart, Fox, etc.) and unwitting advertisers (CNN, NYT) were infinitely more pervasive and effective. As far as foreign influencers go, Putin can't hold a candle to Rupert Murdoch. But whipping up a frenzy about an Australian media mogul doesn't get the same clicks (or generate the same arms sales) as Russophobia.

    Of course psychological warfare is a real thing. Critical thinking and media literacy are the only real defense; what the self-appointed guardians of democracy offer instead is more noise and hysteria.
  • Also if Putin really thought putting Trump in office would help him out, he should call up all those twitter trolls and demand his money back.

    So far, Trump has strengthened sanctions on Russia, expanded NATO, sent arms to Ukraine (something Obama stopped short of), and protected the jihadists in Idlib.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Many Americans are aware that the US has messed around with the elections of other countries, and don't like it. Doesn't mean we should let people mess around with *our* elections.

    A lot of Americans are aware of things like the School of the Americas. (Search on it.)

    But it’s completely incommensurate. Look at, for instance, how the US basically ransacked Russia, economically and politically, throughout the 90’s.

    Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.

    Here speaks someone who hasn't read the Mueller report. Learn the facts.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Didn’t the CIA actually write a manual or something for sowing political instability?

    And is the U.S. particularly beloved in countries where it used those tactics? No. So why would you expect Americans to react any differently?
    Once you look past the hype, the very few proven examples of Russian “interference” in 2016 were utterly amateurish and with no discernible effect on the outcome.

    This seems like the equivalent of Trump's claim that the DNC might have been hacked by "somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds". Despite your protestations of Russian innocence that seems like the modern equivalent of the Watergate burglary, with the difference that this time the burglars actually stole a bunch of documents.

    I suppose if Trump were to declare the sky to be blue you would react with an impassioned treatise on why it is a subtle shade of indigo.

    I would definitely go outside and check, rather than taking his word for it.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Have you actually read the Mueller Report? The evidence disproves any assertion of "utterly amateurish".

    Discernible influence on outcome? I guess that's harder to prove. I'd be surprised if it was zero and it didn't need to be all that much to swing the election to Trump. One or two people in a hundred changing their minds in key states. How do you know that didn't happen?

    Indeed, as B62 says, it's impossible to know for sure. And if Russian interference was a factor, it's clearly not the only factor. The USA was/is fertile ground. As I've said before, Trump is the logical end point of the scam the GOP's being running for the past 30 years. It is also true that HRC is not the most liked of public figures. (FWIW, I'm yet to hear a coherent justification for this, it all comes down to either she's a Democrat or she's a woman...YMMV)

    However, there is a ton of evidence of how easy it is for certain false beliefs to take hold and influence voting decisions. This was true before social media made it possible to target people on the basis of their interests and concerns.

    In an election this close, it would take very little to have an effect.

    And that's before we even consider actual vote-counting potential hacks...

    AFZ
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Here is why Trump won the election:

    2. The Democrats ran a horrible campaign with a horrible candidate.

    Much of the McCarthyist slapstick Russia hysteria is aimed at shielding Dems from the horror of 1 and the shame of 2.

    Sure, just keep telling yourself that. The candidate and the campaign were both so horrible that 3 million more people voted for her than for Trump.

    The distortion of the electoral college is that bad?! Wow. All the more reason to embrace the Neanderthals. The trouble is, who is the swing? Or was it low turnout by the young?

    In some places low turnout was really the difference. In Wisconsin, Trump got about the same votes as Romney in 2012. Again, piss-poor Dem campaign.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The electoral college is that bad. The New York Times did an analysis recently and found that Trump could lose the next election’s popular vote by as much as 5 million, and still win the electoral vote with a commanding enough amount. It favors the less populated, interior states over the coastal, more populated states.

    If you want to ignore political realities and do a purely mathematical analysis a candidate could theoretically lose by over 70 million votes and still win the electoral college. Let's posit a candidate who wins enough small states to constitute a majority of the electoral college by razor-thin margin (i.e. a one or two ballot margin). This theoretical candidate also gets zero votes in the remaining ten most populous states. Using the 2016 state-by-state ballot totals this would give our theoretical winner 32,761,507 votes in his favor and 103,907,730 votes for someone else.

    This is, of course, a purely mathematical extreme case that requires a candidate narrowly winning both Wyoming and DC, something unlikely in current politics, hence my proviso that the example ignores current political realities.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @stetson I wasn’t suggesting that America having written a manual is any kind of excuse, just saying that I think they did. This in response to a question I read as incredulous wondering how one would go about influencing an election.

    Okay, thanks for the clarification.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    alien wrote:

    It is also true that HRC is not the most liked of public figures. (FWIW, I'm yet to hear a coherent justification for this, it all comes down to either she's a Democrat or she's a woman...YMMV)

    Plus, her husband beat a Republican in a year when almost all Republicans were assuming that their man would be a shoe-in for re-election. Rather a painful experience for any political types.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Also if Putin really thought putting Trump in office would help him out, he should call up all those twitter trolls and demand his money back.

    So far, Trump has strengthened sanctions on Russia, expanded NATO, sent arms to Ukraine (something Obama stopped short of), and protected the jihadists in Idlib.

    Putin has already stated that he wanted Trump to win, so that aspect of his erstwhile political preferences is no longer debatable.

    My best guess: Despite his reputation as some sort of political genius, Putin actually has a limited understanding of how the US system works, and thought to himself: "Hey, this guy insults his country's own, talks about pulling out of NATO and wants to move US troops from Korea. He's Russia's dream candidate for the American presidency!" And then ordered his spooks to undertake whatever efforts they made to help Trump naively thinking that capturing the presidency means that you automatically set the agenda.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Also if Putin really thought putting Trump in office would help him out, he should call up all those twitter trolls and demand his money back.

    So far, Trump has strengthened sanctions on Russia, . . .

    Don't worry about Putin getting paid, Trump's already lifted a lot of those sanctions. This allows Rusal to build a new plant in Kentucky, which just happens to be the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. What a coincidence!
    . . . expanded NATO, . . .

    That TARDIS you mentioned earlier must have been getting quite the workout.
    The accession of Montenegro to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) (NATO) took place on 5 June 2017. In December 2009, Montenegro was granted a Membership Action Plan, the final step in an application for membership in the organization. A formal invitation was issued by the alliance on 2 December 2015, with accession negotiations concluded with the signature by the Foreign Ministers of an Accession Protocol on 19 May 2016. Montenegro officially joined NATO on 5 June 2017.

    So it's not so much that Trump, by himself and on his own initiative, expanded NATO but rather an already signed and scheduled expansion of NATO happened a few months after he was inaugurated. Remember that Trump has taken the trouble to question whether the U.S. would actually honor it's NATO obligations in Montenegro's case.
    . . . sent arms to Ukraine (something Obama stopped short of), . . .

    Really? Because approving $95 million of defense sales to Ukraine in 2015 and 2016 seems like something that happened in the Obama administration, but maybe it's that TARDIS again.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited July 2019
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    FWIW, I'm yet to hear a coherent justification for this, it all comes down to either she's a Democrat or she's a woman...YMMV
    I think the left also thinks she's too economically centrist and too hawkish in foreign policy. Some parts of the left won't ever forgive those who didn't oppose the 2003 Iraq War.

  • Nor should they.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Also if Putin really thought putting Trump in office would help him out, he should call up all those twitter trolls and demand his money back.

    So far, Trump has strengthened sanctions on Russia, . . .

    Don't worry about Putin getting paid, Trump's already lifted a lot of those sanctions. This allows Rusal to build a new plant in Kentucky, which just happens to be the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. What a coincidence!

    Hardly "a lot of those sanctions". A pretty limited lift with pretty limited, domestic, self-serving interests. If the purpose of sanctions is actually to effect a change of course in Russian foreign policy (Ukraine or elsewhere) or regime change then none of the sanctions are sufficient- that would require something unthinkable like blocking Russia's oil exports. But in terms of inhibiting economic growth they do plenty of damage.
    So it's not so much that Trump, by himself and on his own initiative, expanded NATO but rather an already signed and scheduled expansion of NATO happened a few months after he was inaugurated.

    If Trump were actually Putin's puppet the US could have withdrawn its endorsement or withheld ratification.

    And..? Raise your hand if you want to get nuked for Montenegro.
    Really? Because approving $95 million of defense sales to Ukraine in 2015 and 2016 seems like something that happened in the Obama administration, but maybe it's that TARDIS again.

    Private sales. Try reading your own sources some time.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Really? Because approving $95 million of defense sales to Ukraine in 2015 and 2016 seems like something that happened in the Obama administration, but maybe it's that TARDIS again.

    Private sales. Try reading your own sources some time.

    Private sales that need approval from the State Department. If you're going to claim this is contrary to Obama administration policy you have to come up with an explanation for how that approval happened repeatedly.
  • I said nothing about being "contrary". Approving private arms sales is one thing, directly sending arms is a step further, one that, again, Obama stopped short of. If you want to argue that allowing arms, in any way, to fall into the hands of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion is a bad idea, then you'll get no argument from me.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »

    For those who want to see a higher resolution version of the mock seal in question, John Scalzi has it on his Twitter feed.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    FWIW, I'm yet to hear a coherent justification for this, it all comes down to either she's a Democrat or she's a woman...YMMV
    I think the left also thinks she's too economically centrist and too hawkish in foreign policy. Some parts of the left won't ever forgive those who didn't oppose the 2003 Iraq War.
    The quote was from AFZ in a post in which he quoted me saying something else.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Glorious. I feel like printing posters of it.

    May I ask a question about the electoral college / popular vote comments above? I can understand the frustration of a candidate with millions more votes getting in. Is there any benefit to an electoral college you see, or a similar system that may give smaller states a say above their population? Or would you prefer a move to a direct popular vote? And, apart from frustrated voters, do any politicians share your view?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    The quote was from AFZ in a post in which he quoted me saying something else.
    My apologies to you both.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    It's OK. I actually agree with both of you!

    (And I'm not OCD either. You should see my study ...)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    Glorious. I feel like printing posters of it.

    May I ask a question about the electoral college / popular vote comments above? I can understand the frustration of a candidate with millions more votes getting in. Is there any benefit to an electoral college you see, or a similar system that may give smaller states a say above their population?

    There's no real practical benefit to the system, as attested by the fact that no other election (either in the U.S. or elsewhere) is decided in a similar manner. If there were actual pragmatic benefits there would be at least a few imitators. For those interested a discussion of the ins and outs of the electoral college took place on the Old Ship in the context of the 2012 presidential election.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I’m not familiar with any politician currently against the electoral college, with the possible exception of Ocasio-Cortez and her friends, although I’m not sure.

    Eight of the current Democratic candidates for president favor replacing the electoral college with the national popular vote.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Several of the Democratic presidential candidates, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, advocate abolishing it. The electoral college doesn't make any sense now, if it ever did- all the rationales for its original creation are either obsolete or were questionable to begin with. But I'm having a hard time imagining an amendment passing any time soon. I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten but that's not going to happen, unless there is some catastrophic event ending the first American republic.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thank you all. And thanks Crœsos for the link to the old discussion which I'm off to read.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten but that's not going to happen, unless there is some catastrophic event ending the first American republic.

    It's possible we're smack in the midst of that event as we speak write. It's called the Donald (though Sen. Turtle is Aider-and-Abbeter-in-Chief).

  • If you don't accept the Mueller Report at face value on the claims of Russian election interference, then you don't have the interests of the USA at heart. You are either undermining it because your own political interests are getting in the way of your loyalty to your country, or you don't want your country to have free and fair elections.

    The integrity of Robert Mueller can't be faulted. The right has put the guy under the microscope, and the best they could come up with is a minor dispute over membership fees at a golf club. They bleat about the Steele Dossier, a document commissioned by Republicans during their primary battle. The fact is that it wasn't that which kicked off the whole thing, but George Papadopolis spilling his guts to Alexander Downer. We know all this, yet Republicans and others continue to attack, trying to undermine things which are certainties, following the tactics of their leader. It is sad that the weak-minded are swayed.

    As for the electoral college, the complaints are piffle. The USA is a federation of states. The Presidency and the Senate are elected in ways that preserve the integrity of the federation by protecting smaller states from being swamped. That's the system. Deal with it and if you really don't like it change it in office. But right now its a distraction from the main game.

    As for electoral reform generally, I love Stacy Abrams. I hope she has another shot at Governor of Georgia. It strikes me that if you want to change electoral processes, state politics is where it happens. The electoral college is way down my list of reforms. Indeed, if state and local abuses were fixed, you might find that reforming the electoral college is no longer an issue.
  • Skepticism about US intelligence claims equates to disloyalty? Are you seriously arguing that? Or is it just these particular intelligence claims, because...?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Skepticism about US intelligence claims equates to disloyalty? Are you seriously arguing that? Or is it just these particular intelligence claims, because...?

    "Skepticism" does not mean "automatically rejecting out of hand" as you claim to do. Nor does "skepticism" include buying in to Trump's claims that there is a Deep State conspiracy of Hillary loyalists manufacturing "fake news" as part of a massive hoax to destabilize his administration*.
  • That’s nice.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten but that's not going to happen, unless there is some catastrophic event ending the first American republic.

    It's possible we're smack in the midst of that event as we speak write. It's called the Donald (though Sen. Turtle is Aider-and-Abbeter-in-Chief).

    How?

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten but that's not going to happen, unless there is some catastrophic event ending the first American republic.

    You said, "I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten . . ." As written, the three branches are supposed to be co-equal, with legislative oversight of executive authority. How much oversight or checking-and-balancing do you see going on here, as Trump blithely ignores subpoenas, turns the US Attorney General into his own personal lawyer, issues executive orders in direct contravention of congressional will & authority to spend money on projects they don't back, etc. etc. Doesn't that indicate that the Constitution is currently -- in practice if not in enacted legislation -- getting "ripped up and rewritten?"
  • So just to be clear, when a president acts illegally or unconstitutionally, the constitution is being ripped up and rewritten?
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    If people know generally that's what they are doing, they are allowed to do it, and no one stops them? Basically, yeah. Isn't that common sense? The constitution is supposed to protect us from that shit.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    In practical terms, yes.
  • Skepticism about US intelligence claims equates to disloyalty? Are you seriously arguing that? Or is it just these particular intelligence claims, because...?

    Wot Croesos said. The Mueller Report is solid. In the interests of full disclosure, I stayed at Hotel Mueller in Bavaria earlier this year.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Skepticism about US intelligence claims equates to disloyalty? Are you seriously arguing that? Or is it just these particular intelligence claims, because...?

    Wot Croesos said. The Mueller Report is solid. In the interests of full disclosure, I stayed at Hotel Mueller in Bavaria earlier this year.

    Well, 1. I wasn’t talking about the Mueller report but of the senate report regarding Russia hacking into voting systems; 2. You have no way of knowing if the Mueller Report is “solid” or not; 3. the actual instances of “Russian interference” in the Mueller report are decidedly underwhelming and make the “Trump is a Russian puppet” shrieking look very silly.

    And Mueller gleefully participated in the Iraq war deception so those who take him at face value are suckers indeed.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    In practical terms, yes.

    So you believe that the US constitution, as ratified in 1788 and subsequently amended through 1992, is not merely being violated or badly enforced but has been actually abolished as a binding document and replaced with some other political system?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    That's not what I said.
  • My apologies! So when you stated that the constitution is being ripped up and rewritten, what did you mean?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Perhaps you're confusing me with another poster. I believe the phrase's first use on this thread can be attributed to ECraigR:
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The constitution is the Holiest Word in America, so wanting to modify any part of it is currently political anathema. I think the whole thing should be ripped up and rewritten, but what do I know.

    This was followed up by both you and me:
    Ohher wrote: »
    I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten but that's not going to happen, unless there is some catastrophic event ending the first American republic.

    You said, "I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten . . ." As written, the three branches are supposed to be co-equal, with legislative oversight of executive authority. How much oversight or checking-and-balancing do you see going on here, as Trump blithely ignores subpoenas, turns the US Attorney General into his own personal lawyer, issues executive orders in direct contravention of congressional will & authority to spend money on projects they don't back, etc. etc. Doesn't that indicate that the Constitution is currently -- in practice if not in enacted legislation -- getting "ripped up and rewritten?"

    I think I’ve explained what I meant. Perhaps you’d like to explain what you mean. Or perhaps – since you seem to enjoy putting your words in others’ posts – you’d like to explain what ECraigR meant.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Nixon said that "if the president does it, it isn't illegal".
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    You said, "I too would be in favor of the constitution getting ripped up and rewritten . . ." As written, the three branches are supposed to be co-equal, with legislative oversight of executive authority.

    I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The men who wrote the U.S. Constitution would likely be surprised to hear the different branches of the government as "co-equal". They viewed Congress as preeminent among the branches, though its power was supposed to be checked in various ways. Regarding the branches of the U.S. federal government as co-equal is a modern interpretation.
Sign In or Register to comment.