• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Even for This President, It Was a Remarkable Week of Attacks on American Institutions

Your point being what exactly?

When democrats don't get the outcome they want, they want to change the system.

Krugman is another one who has collapsed under the pressure of not getting his way and now is crazier than a loon.
 
Trump fired Sessions, which is in his authority. He installed a lacky who headed a company that is currently under FBI investigation -- a criminal investigation of a Florida company accused of scamming millions from customers. Now, Whitaker heads the AG Office, who the FBI works for. That's part of the corruption portion of this outrage. The other part is that while Trump has the right to appoint a new AG, he can't do it for a corrupt purpose. The corrupt purpose is that the reason Whitaker was appointed is because he is viewed by Trump as someone who will run interference -- and maybe disband the Mueller investigation.

The unconstitutional portion is that any AG replacement must receive Senate confirmation. He can't appoint an acting AG that never had Senate confirmation.

Of course, Trump's zombie followers have no problem with either the unconstitutional or corrupt nature of this appointment. As I said, “Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Whitaker has one investigation to derail before he gets to Mueller;


https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-is...whitaker-was-advisory-board-member-1541799564
 
When democrats don't get the outcome they want, they want to change the system.

Krugman is another one who has collapsed under the pressure of not getting his way and now is crazier than a loon.
Chuckie, you are pegging my hypocrisy meter. Republicans didn't like that Obama got to pick Merrick Garland, a moderate, so they did what has never been done -- refuse to seat him ever -- until a Republican was elected president. They also were on record as admitting that if Clinton won, they wouldn't seat her SCOTUS nominees.

Regarding changing the rules to their advantage, McConnell changed the rules, allowing presidential picks to be confirmed with a simple majority. See also an article from my friend Jon Salant: 7 ways Republicans blew up the rules to confirm Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Krugman was pointing out that it's antagonistic to the concept of democracy for 1/3 of the voters (those in small over-represented small states) to get to confirm all the federal judges and have veto power over the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the kind of government that exists in Iraq, where the minority governs.
 
Exactly. Under what sense of normalcy does a president appoint a head of the Justice Dept someone whose company is under FBI investigation? You're right, it's not normal and we shouldn't accept it as normal.

Whomever gets the nomination for permanent AG may be worse, Whitaker seems to be seat warmer.

Reports includes Judge Jeanine, Ted Cruz, Chris Christy, Kris Kobach, PamBondi in the running.......just when you think it has reached bottom...


 
Whomever gets the nomination for permanent AG may be worse, Whitaker seems to be seat warmer.

Reports includes Judge Jeanine, Ted Cruz, Chris Christy, Kris Kobach, PamBondi in the running.......just when you think it has reached bottom...
You're right. Expecting a GOP Senator to do some actual advice and consent, instead of a rubber stamp, is like believing in the tooth fairy.
 
Chuckie, you are pegging my hypocrisy meter. Republicans didn't like that Obama got to pick Merrick Garland, a moderate, so they did what has never been done -- refuse to seat him ever -- until a Republican was elected president. They also were on record as admitting that if Clinton won, they wouldn't seat her SCOTUS nominees.

Regarding changing the rules to their advantage, McConnell changed the rules, allowing presidential picks to be confirmed with a simple majority. See also an article from my friend Jon Salant: 7 ways Republicans blew up the rules to confirm Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Krugman was pointing out that it's antagonistic to the concept of democracy for 1/3 of the voters (those in small over-represented small states) to get to confirm all the federal judges and have veto power over the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the kind of government that exists in Iraq, where the minority governs.

It was the Democrats who changed the rules with respect to confirmations to the Supreme Court.

Krugman launched an attack on the American political system (at a time when his employer is fretting about Trump).
 
Chuckie, you are pegging my hypocrisy meter. Republicans didn't like that Obama got to pick Merrick Garland, a moderate, so they did what has never been done -- refuse to seat him ever -- until a Republican was elected president. They also were on record as admitting that if Clinton won, they wouldn't seat her SCOTUS nominees.

Regarding changing the rules to their advantage, McConnell changed the rules, allowing presidential picks to be confirmed with a simple majority. See also an article from my friend Jon Salant: 7 ways Republicans blew up the rules to confirm Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Krugman was pointing out that it's antagonistic to the concept of democracy for 1/3 of the voters (those in small over-represented small states) to get to confirm all the federal judges and have veto power over the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the kind of government that exists in Iraq, where the minority governs.

That is not the same as a constitutional change that Krugman is crying about. Well, then you need to join Krugman and change the system to suit you.
 
When democrats don't get the outcome they want, they want to change the system.

Krugman is another one who has collapsed under the pressure of not getting his way and now is crazier than a loon.

What did Krugman say in this article that was wrong?
 
Maybe because Rosenstein spoke about invoking the 25th. Trump doesnt trust him.

Duh!!!!! Trump only wants a toady sycophant lackey in that job that can be his Roy Cohn. He has made that crystal clear for a long time now.
 
It was the Democrats who changed the rules with respect to confirmations to the Supreme Court.

Krugman launched an attack on the American political system (at a time when his employer is fretting about Trump).
Columnists for the NYT express their own opinions, not the opinion of the paper. In any case, Krugman is right. Instead, you speak of the current archaic political system that over-represents the people in small states, as if they were written on stone tablets carried down from Mount Sinai. The current representation is undemocratic as it gives way too much power to the fly-over states where few people live. Krugman was absolutely right and has the right to write about such unfairness.
 
That is not the same as a constitutional change that Krugman is crying about. Well, then you need to join Krugman and change the system to suit you.

At the risk of getting distracted from the thread, which isn't about Paul Krugman, here is the column you spoke of.

...
Not to put too fine a point on it: What Donald Trump and his party are selling increasingly boils down to white nationalism — hatred and fear of darker people, with a hefty dose of anti-intellectualism plus anti-Semitism, which is always part of that cocktail. This message repels a majority of Americans. That’s why Tuesday’s election in the House — which despite gerrymandering and other factors is far more representative of the country as a whole than the Senate — produced a major Democratic wave.


But the message does resonate with a minority of Americans. These Americans are, of course, white, and are more likely than not to reside outside big, racially diverse metropolitan areas — because racial animosity and fear of immigration always seem to be strongest in places where there are few nonwhites and hardly any immigrants. And these are precisely the places that have a disproportionate role in choosing senators.
...

This divergence will have profound implications, because the Senate has a lot of power, especially when the president — who, let us not forget, lost the popular vote — leads the party that controls it. In particular, Trump and his Senate friends will spend the next couple of years stuffing the courts with right-wing loyalists.


We may, then, be looking at a growing crisis of legitimacy for the U.S. political system — even if we get through the constitutional crisis that seems to be looming over the next few months.
 
Duh!!!!! Trump only wants a toady sycophant lackey in that job that can be his Roy Cohn. He has made that crystal clear for a long time now.

He wants somebody he can work with and be comfortable with. This is true for all presidents. You know this.
 
Columnists for the NYT express their own opinions, not the opinion of the paper. In any case, Krugman is right. Instead, you speak of the current archaic political system that over-represents the people in small states, as if they were written on stone tablets carried down from Mount Sinai. The current representation is undemocratic as it gives way too much power to the fly-over states where few people live. Krugman was absolutely right and has the right to write about such unfairness.

Of course Krugman has a right to express his opinion. This thread was comnenting upon the NY TIMES article of Trump attacking the american political system. I simply pointed out they have an employee who has done the same.
 
Trump fired Sessions, which is in his authority. He installed a lacky who headed a company that is currently under FBI investigation -- a criminal investigation of a Florida company accused of scamming millions from customers. Now, Whitaker heads the AG Office, who the FBI works for. That's part of the corruption portion of this outrage. The other part is that while Trump has the right to appoint a new AG, he can't do it for a corrupt purpose. The corrupt purpose is that the reason Whitaker was appointed is because he is viewed by Trump as someone who will run interference -- and maybe disband the Mueller investigation.

The unconstitutional portion is that any AG replacement must receive Senate confirmation. He can't appoint an acting AG that never had Senate confirmation.

Of course, Trump's zombie followers have no problem with either the unconstitutional or corrupt nature of this appointment. As I said, “Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

So, are you saying that this appointment violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act? By what standard?

I read a link posted by another poster that indicated that Whitaker's involvement with that firm was to write an email. For this service, he received an absurdly large amount of money. What lawyer doesn't?

I couldn't tell what the topic of the email might have been, why Whitaker in specific was hired to write it or what the recipient had done to need to receive the email.

Do you know the answers to these questions? They seem like critical points of understanding in condemning the action and/or the man.
 
So, are you saying that this appointment violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act? By what standard?
No. I said previously what the appointment violates -- the constitution. Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate. Whitaker never received such advice and consent. In addition, Congress passed a law governing Justice Department succession that also seems to prohibit Mr. Whitaker’s ascent.

I read a link posted by another poster that indicated that Whitaker's involvement with that firm was to write an email. For this service, he received an absurdly large amount of money. What lawyer doesn't?

I couldn't tell what the topic of the email might have been, why Whitaker in specific was hired to write it or what the recipient had done to need to receive the email.

Do you know the answers to these questions? They seem like critical points of understanding in condemning the action and/or the man.

The Washington Post outlines in detail why There is no way this man should be running the Justice Department. that suggesting he could not survive even a rudimentary vetting.
 
How quickly you forget the demorats reaction to the Sessions or Kavanaugh appointments.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/08/us/politics/jeff-sessions-confirmation-vote.html

They need to stop crying and start working for the people (doing their job) by solving the real problems in this country. The witch hunt needs some real evidence Trump is involved or it needs to end. It is way past put up or shut up. If they have no real evidence of Trumps involvement lets put it on the table and start charges. This unrelenting investigation in an attempt to maybe find something is criminal in itself.
 
No. I said previously what the appointment violates -- the constitution. Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate. Whitaker never received such advice and consent. In addition, Congress passed a law governing Justice Department succession that also seems to prohibit Mr. Whitaker’s ascent.



The Washington Post outlines in detail why There is no way this man should be running the Justice Department. that suggesting he could not survive even a rudimentary vetting.

I believe the Constitution is a part of our legal system. I further believe that our legal system allows that laws be written and passed by Congress. Also that precedent be used to refine and update.

By this standard, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act seems to be THE legal standard. Do you refute this?

Using WaPo as anything but a defining instrument of Democrat Party directives and propaganda is ridiculous.

Did you read the part of the fish wrap you linked to? Not a word in that article or from you regarding the questions I asked that could support your concerns if they were answered.

It's not up to me to prove your assertions. It's up to you.
 
They need to stop crying and start working for the people (doing their job) by solving the real problems in this country. The witch hunt needs some real evidence Trump is involved or it needs to end. It is way past put up or shut up. If they have no real evidence of Trumps involvement lets put it on the table and start charges. This unrelenting investigation in an attempt to maybe find something is criminal in itself.

Many (most?) demorats are convinced that republicants, and especially Trump, are evil and thus responsible for (any and all?) 'real problems' in the country - they will not relent in their attempts to eliminate, or at least frustrate, evil. Having a slim majority in the House is not enough for demorats to actually change federal policy but they can continue to resist, resist, resist and to launch many more 'investigations'.
 
I believe the Constitution is a part of our legal system. I further believe that our legal system allows that laws be written and passed by Congress. Also that precedent be used to refine and update.

By this standard, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act seems to be THE legal standard. Do you refute this?

Using WaPo as anything but a defining instrument of Democrat Party directives and propaganda is ridiculous.

Did you read the part of the fish wrap you linked to? Not a word in that article or from you regarding the questions I asked that could support your concerns if they were answered.

It's not up to me to prove your assertions. It's up to you.

So, if your contention is that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act is the governing law, then you are saying that Rod Rosenstein should be the legal acting AG -- as this is what the Federal Vacancies Reform Act states:

"§3345. Acting officer

"(a) If an officer of an Executive agency (including the Executive Office of the President, and other than the General Accounting Office) whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office-

"(1) the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346;
Whitaker is several levels below the assistant to the AG. Rosenstein is next in command.
 
NYT: Even for This President, It Was a Remarkable Week of Attacks on American Institutions





My comment:

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Democrats go mad every time Trump moves to stop corruption in the government. Sessions allowed the partisan Trump-haters to craft a fake investigation into non-existent Trump/Russian collusion and now it is left up to Trump to stop these partisan morons from continuing their abuse of offices of the US Government.
 
Many (most?) demorats are convinced that republicants, and especially Trump, are evil and thus responsible for (any and all?) 'real problems' in the country - they will not relent in their attempts to eliminate, or at least frustrate, evil. Having a slim majority in the House is not enough for demorats to actually change federal policy but they can continue to resist, resist, resist and to launch many more 'investigations'.

I have no problem with an investigation. Where is the evidence and charges. If there is none then we should hear nothing. This has been front page news for 2 years and not a single scrap of evidence has been presented against Trump. In the mean time we have a country that needs and has elected leaders.

Time to do your job already. I would fire every one of these worthless bought and paid for party puppets doing nothing but perpetuating hate and division. (BOTH PARTIES). What is wrong with the people in this country? Why are they not demanding results no matter party. I guess hateful pathetic people elect hateful pathetic leaders.
 
Back
Top Bottom