Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, TripItUp said:

what exactly is worse?  Our relationship with Ukraine?  

The state of the Republic.  We are closest to an authoritarian presidency—a monarchy, a king—than perhaps ever before in our history.  When a president can be allowed so blatantly serve his interests in furtherance of his own political power, weaponize the judicial branch to shield him, while the Senate stands aside, complicit in the audacity of it all, this is an erosion of the republic.

Edited by cobalt_27
  • Like 6
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

JU: I trust what's in the constitution.  The President has the duty to investigate corruption of the Biden's and Burisma. 

DW: Show me where the Constitution says that.

JU: Here's a quote from Ted Cruz (or "Lyin' Ted Cruz" as Donald Trump refers to him) saying the President has the authority to investigate corruption.  

This seems to be the path of every discussion I try to have with a Trump supporter. "The Constitution says he can do it." "Where?" "Well, [fill in the blank with Fox News, Cruz, Trump, etc.] says it's OK."

  • Like 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, apalmer said:

JU: I trust what's in the constitution.  The President has the duty to investigate corruption of the Biden's and Burisma. 

DW: Show me where the Constitution says that.

JU: Here's a quote from Ted Cruz (or "Lyin' Ted Cruz" as Donald Trump refers to him) saying the President has the authority to investigate corruption.  

This seems to be the path of every discussion I try to have with a Trump supporter. "The Constitution says he can do it." "Where?" "Well, [fill in the blank with Fox News, Cruz, Trump, etc.] says it's OK."

I do think it would have benefitted many here to have read the link I provided.  It benefitted me.  I needed a bit more background.  I needed to clarify my thoughts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just reread the Constitution.  Can't read it often enough.   I had forgotten, for instance, the clause pertaining to subdividing states into new or additional states, or combining existing states into one.  That, of course, has relevance for those who wish to increase Senate representation of existing states by subdividing them.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I just reread the Constitution.  Can't read it often enough.   I had forgotten, for instance, the clause pertaining to subdividing states into new or additional states, or combining existing states into one.  That, of course, has relevance for those who wish to increase Senate representation of existing states by subdividing them.   

Down with the Dakotas!! There can be only one!

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New GOP talking point today - Trump cared about investigating corruption, he just went about it the wrong way. What a joke. 
 

I guess that’s why he only wanted the investigation announced - not actually completed. 

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BigSteelThrill said:

Montana has much population as Fresno County. Yet it gets 2 senators. :wall:

But for that power Montana might have decided to throw their lot in with Alberta forming Albertana.  They may even have gotten Idaho to go along forming the powerful Country  Albertanaho.  The potato and wheat monopoly they may have engineered could have made them a superpower.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

But for that power Montana might have decided to throw their lot in with Alberta forming Albertana.  They may even have gotten Idaho to go along forming the powerful Country  Albertanaho.  The potato and wheat monopoly they may have engineered could have made them a superpower.  

I’ll try one more time to give a real answer, this time no -snarky:  do we get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution were so important that they must not ever be reconsidered because the states “relied” on those parts and never would have joined the Union without them, and which parts were “oopsies”?
 

Because your same argument could be applied to the 3/5th compromise. Surely the slaveholding states may not have agreed to join without it?

So are we going to argue on the merits the pros and cons of the potential changes, or just fall back on “We agreed to this 250 years ago; no take-backs.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

But for that power Montana might have decided to throw their lot in with Alberta forming Albertana.  They may even have gotten Idaho to go along forming the powerful Country  Albertanaho.  The potato and wheat monopoly they may have engineered could have made them a superpower.  

So?  Let em go. Montana is worthless.  15% less GDP then Fresno County, yet using x25 the space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate on the structure of the legislature is just mental masturbation. The states that wield outsized power vs their population and economic product will never willfully give up their power, so the debate is pretty worthless.

It is quite possible that we haven't yet seen the worst that a minority party can do while controlling the Senate.  Just wait until they confirm no seats on the SC and no cabinet positions or presidential appointees. Just wait until they without appropriations or other "normal" autorizations that the vast majority (70%) of the population would like.  Just wait until the Senate is a wretched hive of lies and propagandists.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

I’ll try one more time to give a real answer, this time no -snarky:  do we get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution were so important that they must not ever be reconsidered because the states “relied” on those parts and never would have joined the Union without them, and which parts were “oopsies”?
 

Because your same argument could be applied to the 3/5th compromise. Surely the slaveholding states may not have agreed to join without it?

So are we going to argue on the merits the pros and cons of the potential changes, or just fall back on “We agreed to this 250 years ago; no take-backs.”

I was not arguing for a position, merely raising the possibility for some who were clearly wholly unaware of it.  I realize that in this day and age where the toxic, "I was just asking the question" ruse is frequently played so as to not have responsibility for the implications of having done so is so prevalent that a position might be presumed from my having raised the point.  Still that was not my intent.  It is quite clear to me that many do not understand or appreciate our set up or the reasons therefor.  Rather they believe the entirety of our system is and should be one person, one vote, and they think any departure is nearly criminal. I was merely pointing out that there were reasons for this set up.  As for changing the Constitution so that it does not impede growth or progress, I am a big fan of doing so, but I am a fan of doing so through the amendment process, not through judicial interpretation engaging social engineering and current political wims dressed as legal analysis and precedent.  Others believe differently.  Some of those others I respect immensely,  some, not so much.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

This debate on the structure of the legislature is just mental masturbation. The states that wield outsized power vs their population and economic product will never willfully give up their power, so the debate is pretty worthless.

It is quite possible that we haven't yet seen the worst that a minority party can do while controlling the Senate.  Just wait until they confirm no seats on the SC and no cabinet positions or presidential appointees. Just wait until they without appropriations or other "normal" autorizations that the vast majority (70%) of the population would like.  Just wait until the Senate is a wretched hive of lies and propagandists.

I am not sure that we have to wait.  That eventuality arrived some time ago, in my estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, That one guy said:

The conversation seems to be about unfairly allocated congressional power by way of senate seat distribution.  The only way to address that would be amendment process.  

Not really.  I think it will be a natural progression.  I lived thought it in Colorado.  People are moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be the purpose of even having a senate if it had the same qualifications as the house?  At that point why not do away with it?  It seems to me that is what some are arguing, wanting population representation only.  That is an argument to be had, but I don't know that they, themselves, now precisely what they are arguing.  Maybe someone can help me.  Someone upset that senate seats are not distributed on a percentage basis of population.  Are you arguing for exactly that, and if so shy then not simply eliminate the Senate altogether or reconstitute both the house and the senate into one hybrid chamber representing a more direct democracy.  Also, why not just absolutely direct democracy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

What would be the purpose of even having a senate if it had the same qualifications as the house?  At that point why not do away with it?  It seems to me that is what some are arguing, wanting population representation only.  That is an argument to be had, but I don't know that they, themselves, now precisely what they are arguing.  Maybe someone can help me.  Someone upset that senate seats are not distributed on a percentage basis of population.  Are you arguing for exactly that, and if so shy then not simply eliminate the Senate altogether or reconstitute both the house and the senate into one hybrid chamber representing a more direct democracy.  Also, why not just absolutely direct democracy?

It made far more sense at the time it was implemented.  Now, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whoknew said:

The talk of changing Senate distribution is foolhardy, in my opinion.

The talk belongs in the House - which needs to be like doubled in size.

This I agree with and, without looking, I believe there is ample arguments in favor of such by way of constitutional mandate/requirement over the law that was passed a long time ago setting up current distribution 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, That one guy said:

Not sure what you mean here?  2 senators per state until constitutional amendment, regardless of any state’s population flux 

A population flux can change the political leanings of states faster then any constitutional amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

New GOP talking point today - Trump cared about investigating corruption, he just went about it the wrong way. What a joke. 
 

I guess that’s why he only wanted the investigation announced - not actually completed. 

The Republicans are passionate about investigating corruption related to the white house.  

Not the current president, obviously.  A past vice president. 

It's important that this investigation be televised. Not the investigation of trump, but the investigation of Biden.  Coincidentally, immediately after Biden started polling well. 

What's really important is that someone close to the former vice president might have received money from a foreign government.  Not that the current president actually received foreign election interference, asked for it on national television and received it that day, while foreign governments routinely stay at trump properties and directly pay the president's businesses while he dramatically changes long standing US foreign policy. 

What's important is that a white house official's child is in an office that they aren't qualified to hold, earning money that may compromise their father's decision making. Not Ivanka or Kushner or Eric, specifically Hunter Biden. 

Because if corrupt rich people from a foreign government indirectly provided money to someone in the white house they could get away with murder. Not literal murder with a bone saw of an American, but figuratively.  

It was just really important to him to make sure there was no corruption involving the former vice president.  But not to us, because it's not corruption when the president does it. 

Because the American people need to know things. Not trump voters obviously, because they don't want to know anything that isn't blatantly self serving, and refuse to believe that they elected one of the most corrupt,  banana republic regimes in the world because they are owning the libs. 

  • Like 3
  • Love 6
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mile High said:

Is it? If more states were blue would many here still be calling to change the Senate ?

What does the constitution have to say about what would have to happen to do that? Is it like the Electoral College where it would be almost impossible to pass changes to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

What does the constitution have to say about what would have to happen to do that? Is it like the Electoral College where it would be almost impossible to pass changes to?

It would be almost impossible since to change the constitution you have to have the state's vote on it. What state is going to vote to give up power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Is it? If more states were blue would many here still be calling to change the Senate ?

I think we’re just talking past each other now.  Technically yes, it is a different topic.  I’m only talking about how senators are distributed among the states and changing that equation.  You seem to be talking about major enough shifts in population to change current political makeup of states, thus altering power structure within senate to the political parties 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a constitutional amendment to change senate representation will never happen.  If you want structural changes, figure out a way for the Congreff to reclaim oversight.  It could be related to how the judicial branches settles executive/legislative disputes - i.e. fast track subpoena questions straight to the SC.  It could be a dramatic limitation of the war powers.  If could be finding a way to punish a president without removing him - there's got to be something between exoneration and removal - I have no idea what that means but it seems like we need something.

I don't know what the answer is, but part of the problem is that the Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

The talk of changing Senate distribution is foolhardy, in my opinion.

The talk belongs in the House - which needs to be like doubled in size. And I believe can be done with a simple change in law.

 

1 hour ago, That one guy said:

This I agree with and, without looking, I believe there is ample arguments in favor of such by way of constitutional mandate/requirement over the law that was passed a long time ago setting up current distribution 

This might be a fun thread topic on it’s own, but do you think an increase in House of Reps size (I’m thinking on the order of 50%) would provide a better route to a national 3rd party than any current initiatives?  Would such diversity of congressional distribution also encourage a reclamation of powers since delegated to the executive?  Or would the pessimistic view of nothing more than further consolidation of power to the two parties occur?

Edited by That one guy
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no constitution lawyer but wouldn't ratifying a change to the two states per senator require unanimous approval from all states?  

WSJ opinion: two senators per state is the right number  

"With a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate, Congress could propose to amend this provision just as any other. But ratifying the amendment—as was the case under the Articles of Confederation—would require unanimous approval by the states, as opposed to the three-fourths needed for all other amendments."

Seems like a pipe dream if you expect Wyoming or the Dakotas or whomever else to approve this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnnyU said:
1 hour ago, Mile High said:

Is it? If more states were blue would many here still be calling to change the Senate ?

What does the constitution have to say about what would have to happen to do that? Is it like the Electoral College where it would be almost impossible to pass changes to?

We can’t change equal representation in the Senate.

See the last clause of Article V:

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, moleculo said:

Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.

Agreed. We the people have allowed the creation of an imperial presidency. We can take it back, but it will take exercising the will of the people at the ballot box.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.

Citizens United put the Real people in a hammer lock. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, moleculo said:

a constitutional amendment to change senate representation will never happen.  If you want structural changes, figure out a way for the Congreff to reclaim oversight.  It could be related to how the judicial branches settles executive/legislative disputes - i.e. fast track subpoena questions straight to the SC.  It could be a dramatic limitation of the war powers.  If could be finding a way to punish a president without removing him - there's got to be something between exoneration and removal - I have no idea what that means but it seems like we need something.

I don't know what the answer is, but part of the problem is that the Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.

Side note: it's not "Congreff", it's "Congrefs". And it's not "Congrefs", it's "Congreſs".

The weird letter that looks like a lowercase "f" is called a "long s", and it was used in the 1700s when a word started with "s" or as a replacement for the first "s" (and only the first "s") in "ss".

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Side note: it's not "Congreff", it's "Congrefs". And it's not "Congrefs", it's "Congreſs".

The weird letter that looks like a lowercase "f" is called a "long s", and it was used in the 1700s when a word started with "s" or as a replacement for the first "s" (and only the first "s") in "ss".

thank you.  Now I have to figure out how to type "ſ".  Where is the test forum when you need it?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.

would senators be more or less beholden to dark money if they were appointed by state legislatures instead of elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...