At the same time, people who had had a proper education, or grown up in a country which didn't take itself deadly fucking seriously, wouldn't buy that. If you launched Fox News in Britain or Australia it would be laughed out of town except by a few UKIP idiots and the equivalent.
Jesus wept the wording of his statement sacking the Attorney General is utterly preposterous. He's going to get impeached rapidly and if not, the CIA will have no option but to do him in.
I bet if Kablama did all this stuff people wouldn't moan.
Mike Pence must be loving all his fuckups, knowing that he's going to be POTUS quite soon.
Mike Pence = Francis Underwood.
He'd be better - he might also be daft as a brush, but you'd lose the gravitas and cult of personality that sustains Trump.Originally Posted by Henry
With firing Obama's AG with his own unconfirmed. Now is when we see if the Democrats have any balls whatsoever.
edit: Mike Pence would in no way shape or form be better for the country than Donald Trump. At least Trump thinks he's helping people.
Pence would be dangerous in different ways. He's likely to be more diplomatic about fucking people over.
Yeah but Trump is a one man fireball of unstoppable destruction. Pence... nah.
Yeah he'd just round up the gays, blacks and Mexicans. As long as he's not hurting us normies.
That's rather disingenuous, isn't it. It was the acting AG and she can't exactly stay in office if she refuses to implement an executive order from the head of the executive branch.
The courts will decide legality / constitutionality, and that's your check.
None of this is a great advert for concentrating the executive branch in one person.
God, you're like my shadow. At any rate, I was more commenting on the fact that Trump's not going to like being struck down by the courts if and when that happens. It'll be interesting to see how that all goes down.
That said, the AG is supposed to be an independent legal voice that doesn't serve the President's interest. So it's still a worrying development.
I know, right? If he didn't write it himself, he certainly had a lot to do with it. That's just not how fully-functioning grownups write things.
The problem here is a Congress/Senate that is more desperate to cut a few points of the riches taxes than do anything to even inconvenience him so his EO's are coming through and passing off as actual law.
Obama had one to close Guantanamo, how'd that go?
Hopefully the Democrats have learned from the overwhelming political message of the last eight years. Obstruction costs you no political capital whatsoever.
I bet they're all glad they lined up behind Mrs Clinton.
It's entirely valid. He had a 'manifesto', for lack of a better phrase, and was elected on that platform. In effect, you're suggesting that if somebody doesn't win the popular vote they should be prevented from fully implementing their agenda. Bill Clinton won 43% of the vote in 1992. By your reckoning, he should have sat there doing fuck all because there was a popular landslide in favour of "Not Clinton".
Ultimately the Democrats wouldn't have been interested in compromise if they'd had the votes to implement their agenda when Obama was in office. He governed through executive orders of questionable legality to circumvent checks in the system. Liberals were comfortable with that because they agreed with what he was doing. They can't now complain when the pendulum swings.
The Americans have elected a Republican president, Republican congress, 33 governors are Republican, only 12 state legislatures are controlled by Democrats. Ultimately the federal government represents the states - not the people directly - and there is a clear mandate across America for Republican ideas and Republican policies.
My issue here is one of respecting democracy. There are checks and balances in the system. You have elections and term limits. The Democrats lost. Trump has a mandate and a perfectly legitimate right to implement it. Appealing to anything beyond that is fanciful. If he does anything overtly daft, it'll be struck down by the judiciary, he'll be impeached by the legislature, or the electorate will reject him next time out. Until then, I'm afraid he won and it's the Democrats fault for offering a shit candidate with a shit campaign.
You know the (non sex-related) thing Bill Clinton is most famous for is how effectively he worked with the Republican opposition to pass legislation that kept both sides satisfied, right? Passing a budget in 1994 was a watershed moment. Like, if the Lewinsky thing blew up, that would have been the defining component of his legacy.
Obama's elections weren't even close. The second one was a damn near landslide. That's the kind of mandate I was talking about. And even then, ACA was modified dramatically to make it more palatable.
I don't see anything in what I said about not respecting democracy. I've not claimed the election to be illegitimate, and have no issues whatsoever with the use of executive orders (assuming they hold up to the judicial branch). But the popular margin is not a meaningless number; this was as razor-edged a win as you could get, and a good leader would bear that in mind. He won the election, but a smart leader would try and find some common ground to win a few more hearts and minds. Whereas, 60% of the vote and 40 states would mean he could steamroll ahead safe in the knowledge that America in general is behind him.
Perhaps you could avoid the discussion by appealing to your expertise again.
Obama likes to blame the legislative branch, which the Americans elect, and which exists as a check on the executive anyway. So even if they did prevent it, that's what the Americans voted for.
Of course it isn't. It's a terrible structure for government.
Depressingly they still are. They may as well start referring to her as 'mother'. The Democrats have spent the last 3 months punching left not right.
We're at the point now where Bernie Sanders is an anti-semitic racist and 'Women of Color' should be the natural base of the party (all 3% of the population)
What the fuck are you talking about you gombine?
I promise you that if you ever write a treatise on the finer points of chartered accountancy, I will defer to your expertise on the topic.
You know that the checks and balances exist in the system therefore Clinton having to work with the Republicans, given the Americans elected them, was entirely in keeping with the constitution, right? You know how that works, right?
You're also having a laugh if you think Obama's second win was a landslide. Romney took 24 states and 47.2% of the vote. Obama had 26 states and 51.1%. It was comfortable enough, no more. FDR 1936, LBJ 1964, Nixon 1972 and Reagan 1984 are genuine landslides.
The contemporary political landscape and increasing polarisation among voters makes those numbers largely impossible now. States won back then would be unthinkable now, and the electoral maps make for fascinating reads.
But yeah, Obama still had to negotiate - that's not a bad thing. You have to rule for all, not just those who elected you; that's just good leadership. You use whatever tools are at your disposal, but you don't forget about the half(+) of the country that preferred the other guy. Only a bad leader or an idiot delights in the unhappiness of their own constituents.
Now the Democrats should follow the lessons the Republicans taught them for the last eight years. Force Trump to earn his leadership.
You asked about Gitmo. Presidents can't just do what they want because of the checks in the system. It's why Obama couldn't do everything he wanted to do.
What is your understanding, exactly?
You're so desperate to disagree with 'THOSE DAMN LIBERALS' you're not even reading. I was specifically referencing that there isn't that much power in the Executive if you have Congress acting as a check but they're more interested in passing their tax cuts to do so. So I once again ask, what the fuck are you talking about you gombine?
GS has been Mert tier for a while. Fun stuff to watch.
It's unusual for you to speak coherently, or to demonstrate any sense of understanding of an issue, so you can understand why some of us may be blindsided should it happen.
No, you're just a twat who thinks he's superior to literally everyone.
We should all aspire to be more like GS.
Alas, I simply find the constant whining from people who disagree with election outcomes to be utterly tiresome. A bit less self pity and sneering, and a bit more thought and coherent argument, may mean they win next time. It would have the welcome side effect of sparing us all the after-eventing anger.
If people lose, they get pissed. So what? Let them be pissed and let them be vocal about it. It's good that people care, right? The more vocal they are, the more democracy should (in theory at least) benefit. That goes either way of the political spectrum.
I wonder how many of the outraged voted?
The whole "Trump gets to enact his campaign platform because he won" thing is bullshit anyway. Half of his platform is damned illegal.
It's like the whole Tea Party thing never happened.
Wake me when the left are claiming Trump was born in Kenya.
I feel like that's Paul Ryan actually. He seems like a weasel who navigates between backing Trump and always having an out rather well.
Pence is just staying quiet.
That's how the Republicans won this time around isn't it?
Couldn't we also impeach Pence? Who's next in line? Bernie?
Mitch McConnell?
The hunters are seriously mobilising now, Joe Rogan is on board.
Paul Ryan.
Damn I was hoping it would be the secretary of agriculture or something incredibly outdated.
Give it to Ben Carson.
He's going to be President by the time this term ends, isn't he?
I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
Stuff like this literally every day
'Save us Hilary'
It's not her fault she's a shitty candidate, it's everyone elses.
The international wing of the Clinton Foundation closing down the other week went under the radar. Why would foreign governments suddenly stop donating to worthy initiatives?
The amount of self-awareness in Mrs Clinton's camp must be right down there at minus 70 degrees Miliband - or 'absolute zero' as it's more commonly known.
I just love Shillary as a name. It's superb. Also had a dream Trump was impeached and Bill took over just to laud it over her.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/world...ale-connection | Russian Oil Deal Was Predicted By Trump Dossier
Iantresting.
No joke, their head-strategist is now on a hihgly paid speaking tour 'debating' former Trump campaign enforcer Corey Lewandowski. They really don't get why everyone thinks they're arseholes. The whole bunch of them somehow manage to fail up every time.
Reply With Quote
