Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Like I said about this topic before: the predominate takeaway from this administration is that just because a rule exists saying the President cannot X, that does not actually mean that he can't. The only true check on his power is Congress's ability to impeach.
The President has a lot of limitations and restrictions written into the Constitution. However, no actual penalties for violating those limitations were written in alongside them. The expectation was that Congress will, without fail, always impeach a President who breaks the rules.
The fundamental flaw there is that it means a Congress friendly to the President's shenanigans (even only half a Congress!) can render the President utterly devoid of his Constitutional restrictions. On paper, Trump cannot add the citizenship question to the census. But who's going to f*cking stop him if he does?
If the answer is "Nobody" then, in practice, Trump absolutely can add the citizenship question to the census. The checks on his power are not actually hard, unbreakable rules; they're bluffs, meant to be obeyed by people already inclined to follow rules.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2019 at 8:01:08 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.At which point, those Departments will be receiving two conflicting orders from equally legitimate branches of government.
As one of the dudes who refused to testify to the House under Trump's orders put it, "I'm going to follow the one who's paying my checks."
Edited by TobiasDrake on Jul 11th 2019 at 8:04:35 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.This brings up a Constitutional question: what power do the courts wield to compel obedience with their decisions? Can the executive branch simply ignore what the Supreme Court says?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Taking it to court is the most logical and effective solution. Whether Pelosi is the one to do it or she leaves it to some other party is the question.
A judge dismissed an earlier case brought by the House because they didn't have standing as only half of Congress. They might apply the same logic.
On the other hand since the House is the chamber directly affected by the census, Pelosi might have a stronger case should she bring it.
Trump has given blatantly unlawful orders before, the result? Nothing.
He lacks the lawful ability to do that so his orders will be meaningless, we know for a fact that when given illegal orders his aides have just never followed them and waited for Trump to forget about it.
There is no reason to believe his order will be efficacious.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jul 11th 2019 at 8:30:44 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang>The big takeaway from this administration is that the President has WAY more power than we thought they did, because they can effectively do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences as long as they have enough people protecting them.
...
We've known that for years, this isn't exactly a sudden thing that presidents have too much power.
One of my rules that I think people should remember is that you never give a good man power because an evil one will follow him.
That sounds uncomfortably both-sidery. If a Democratic President was putting children in concentration camps, I have little doubt Pelosi and Schumer would support impeachment.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.>If a Democratic President was putting children in concentration camps, I have little doubt Pelosi and Schumer would support impeachment.
I do. Trump isn't the one who started the camps or the problem that causes the Camps to exist. Consider for a moment if RBG died, the republican President nominanted the next Scalia, and the democrats in the Senate could put it off to the next election by refusing to vote. They would do it, even those they excoriated the Republicans for the same.
Trump isn't the one who started the policy of housing unaccompanied minors in government facilities. But he is the one who started the campaign of mass child-separation that has resulted in the hugely overcrowded concentration camps.
So. Yes. He did, in fact, start the camps.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
The difference being you claim a hypothetical to justify bothsidering about a thing one side did.
'They would do it too' is one of the chief arguments of those trying to explain away the frankly staggering level on obstruction and constitutional sabotage employed by the GOP.
I do not care about hypotheticals.
The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat
The GOP put a rapist on another.
They put children in Concentration Camps as a terror tactic.
Claiming 'both sides bad' is frankly nothing but moral cowardice at this point.
Edited by 3of4 on Jul 11th 2019 at 7:18:17 PM
"You can reply to this Message!"

... so fuck this administration for encouraging these situations.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.