The Impeachment Thread

[NorthDallas40]

Just go with Pas$word2 and increment the number every time you have to change ... nobody would ever think of that and it checks all the boxes. Notch your monitor so you can keep up with the changes.

Ummmmmm....

 

[volfanhill]

No, it wasn't. Trump would make the same deal in an instant, as long as he got full credit for it. It's not the deal that bothered Trump... it's who made the deal - just like with NAFTA.

I don’t GAF about a Trump deal. The deal Obama made was horse ****. And he made it for the exact same reasons Trump would. And the Iranians made it bc it had zero teeth.

 

[AM64]

At various times in their administration, I have been pissed at each of the presidents in my living memory (4). For the first two of them, that was based on disagreements over policy (patriot act, drone strikes, ACA, NBC Nightly News ran the fleecing of America series during Clinton admin, as I recall, and I remember being livid over some of that.)

Fast & Furious and basically the entire Trump Administration are the only times I’ve worried about the process of enacting that policy. The breakdown of checks and balances. The idea that we’re all frogs in the same big pot.

Granted, I was too ignorant through most of the Obama admin to understand the difference and realize that he was building on Bush’s use of executive power, which was built on Clinton’s use, etc., but I sincerely worry that when “conservatives” are supporting a president like Trump, we are in deep **** and headed for deeper ****. Maybe that’s just inexperience but I seriously wonder if Kamala Harris and Beto has some gun owners incarcerated would the Trump era cause progressives to say “but Trump!” Just as hard as you’re saying “but Obama.”

Federalism is what we need to be pushing for. We don’t need some hardass executive that breaks the checks and balances and makes it easier for the federal government to regulate the entire country. Especially unilaterally.

JMO.

Federalism is what we should be pushing against. A lot of this stuff wouldn't be happening if states had more control. Brexit is a good example. Britain (at least the lucid part) woke up one fine morning and realized they'd been sold down the road to federalism of the EU kind, and they're still having trouble dumping that tar baby.

I do agree with you on some of the things you don't like.

 

[VolnJC]

 

[AM64]

Let's just say it's a good thing Rudy's mind (what's left of it) is inside his head, so he wouldn't confuse it with what gets flushed.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Federalism is what we should be pushing against. A lot of this stuff wouldn't be happening if states had more control. Brexit is a good example. Britain (at least the lucid part) woke up one fine morning and realized they'd been sold down the road to federalism of the EU kind, and they're still having trouble dumping that tar baby.

I do agree with you on some of the things you don't like.

I gave you a like because I like your opinion on the implementation of federalism. However we are already a federalist government architecture and what I believe we would both prefer is seeing a majority of state self rule with a minimalist central government (confederation in the link below). We both fear a movement towards a unitary state.

Federalism - Wikipedia

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[RockyTop85]

Federalism is what we should be pushing against. A lot of this stuff wouldn't be happening if states had more control. Brexit is a good example. Britain (at least the lucid part) woke up one fine morning and realized they'd been sold down the road to federalism of the EU kind, and they're still having trouble dumping that tar baby.

I do agree with you on some of the things you don't like.

Google federalism.

[USER=63974]@NorthDallas40[/USER] too since he liked the post. nm

 

[AM64]

I'm trying to figure out the rules for when it's good for family members of powerful politicians to make lots of money, and when it's corruption.

Clue number one. How long has the politician been a politician. If it's a lifetime and the kids are trading on it; that's a problem. If someone actually did something before politics, the kids are running the business, it's maybe not a problem ... it is new ground, though, because we haven't had a non-politician president in a very very long time. And most of those guys were military leaders the country liked ... so probably no business dealings for the kids to dabble in.

 

[VolnJC]

If for nothing else Trump deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore for keeping two of the most corrupt politicians from becoming POTUS

 

[NorthDallas40]

Google federalism.

Look two posts up from yours. Also when you click the link realize the term “federalism” is slanted geographically today

 

[RockyTop85]

Look two posts up from yours. Also when you click the link realize the term “federalism” is slanted geographically today

Maybe I’m the one misusing the term but my understanding of federalism is that it favors a more decentralized distribution of power.

 

[Orangeburst]

I could drop another one to contradict the second post even more but he’s just narc again and get it deleted.

Oh and he’ll narc on you now too. Welcome to the club nurse!

Must be a Warren supporter. Partial to misrepresentation of Indian lineage.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Maybe I’m the one misusing the term but my understanding of federalism is that it favors a more decentralized distribution of power.

So I would submit in the original most basic sense the term supported parity between the central government and the states. I believe this is more in line with our 1787 Constitution writers view. Now fast forward to the late 1800’s and look at the name chosen for the South. The Confederate States of America. A leaning more along what it sounds like what all three of us want frankly.

However, sadly, I believe our nationally elected officials desperately want a unitary state.

 

[AM64]

I agree with regard to executive over reach. But I think it’s a giant tug of war between the executive and the legislative to take more power. It’s just easier for the executive branch to do it. I think neither should have more power and most of this crap should be left to the states. Now, as a business person, this would create more headaches for my company. We operate in 50 states, so it’s easier when we just have to follow fed guidelines. But that’s irrelevant to what should be happening.

That's the beauty of what the founding fathers tried to set up. States do their own thing unless it's in the best interest to work together like for national defense. As a country, we later saw the benefit in an Interstate Commerce Act to facilitate business and particularly transportation of goods across all the states. That works, and makes sense to act as a whole when it benefits the whole, but it doesn't mean we have to let the federal government control every aspect of our lives.

 

[RockyTop85]

So I would submit in the original most basic sense the term supported parity between the central government and the states. I believe this is more in line with our 1787 Constitution writers view. Now fast forward to the late 1800’s and look at the name chosen for the South. The Confederate States of America. A leaning more along what it sounds like what all three of us want frankly.

However, sadly, I believe our nationally elected officials desperately want a unitary state.

Yeah I agree with most of this. FWIW, when I say “federalism” I’m referring to a government in which the balance of power favors the state over the federal government. It seems to be the best resolution to many of the divisive issues facing our present Unitarian government.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yeah I agree with most of this. FWIW, when I say “federalism” I’m referring to a government in which the balance of power favors the state over the federal government. It seems to be the best resolution to many of the divisive issues facing our present Unitarian government.

And the Confederacy shall rise again! Amen!

States rights and self governance were also a huge part to the fragmentation of the republic. The southern states, rightfully so in my opinion, felt the the original parity in state and central governance had slanted too far towards centralized with a large dose of northern states input. But... that is an entirely different topic and thread.

And I believe I, you, and @AM64 are actually in agreement in the power and oversight allowed by our central government overlords.

 

[AM64]

Yes. The same will be true for Trump, when he leaves office.

Good. We need to get on with locking up ex-presidents. Then we don't have to listen to them, watch their nonsense, and we can reduce the security costs.

 

[VolnJC]

RIP Never Trumper movement...the NYTs stumbled upon a crumb of the truth...The Trump presidency has been far from catastrophic..and imagine what he could do if he didn't have to deal with the Russian hoax and bull#### impeachment attempts
The ‘Never Trump’ Coalition That Decided Eh, Nevermind, He’s Fine

 

[AM64]

Yeah I agree with most of this. FWIW, when I say “federalism” I’m referring to a government in which the balance of power favors the state over the federal government. It seems to be the best resolution to many of the divisive issues facing our present Unitarian government.

What I got is that "federalism" represents a pyramid of governmental bodies (from what I believed) was "federal" government down to local governments with power shared between them. So perhaps it's one of those fine and confusing distinctions over which academics argue finer points. As an engineer, I guess I probably see it differently ... sorta like an org chart but without pure subservience in all things to the next level up. I suppose I've always linked the terms "federalists" and "creeping federalism" into believing the term "federalism" meant the progressive usurpation of power at the top or federal level. Whatever that progressive usurpation of power at the top level is - I'm very much against it. It's almost like we took a generally bottom up rule and morphed it into a top down monster.

 

[RockyTop85]

And the Confederacy shall rise again! Amen!

States rights and self governance were also a huge part to the fragmentation of the republic. The southern states, rightfully so in my opinion, felt the the original parity in state and central governance had slanted too far towards centralized with a large dose of northern states input. But... that is an entirely different topic and thread.

And I believe I, you, and @AM64 are actually in agreement in the power and oversight allowed by our central government overlords.

I don’t know if that’s true or not. I took a civil war history class at UT that focused on those issues and the professor was noncommital as to whether that was accurate.

That said, civil war era federal/state government balance was totally different.

He made us write a paper that involved review of multiple microfiche newspapers from 1858-1865 or so. When I read those paper the thing that struck me was the difference between our current jargon for “the government” and their terminology then referring to it as “the union.” The feeling I got from reading those papers was unmistakably that the federal government at that time was an afterthought. Since then, that has changed.

Edit: when I say I don’t know if it’s true I mean I’ve heard it said that the confederacy broke with the union over state’s rights but I’ve also heard it said that’s revisionist. Several of the confederate states made declarations explaining their split with the union and I know Mississippi and Georgia referenced slavery, but South Carolina was predominantly directed at state’s rights IIRC. Seems like a mixed bag.

 

[AM64]

Yeah I agree with most of this. FWIW, when I say “federalism” I’m referring to a government in which the balance of power favors the state over the federal government. It seems to be the best resolution to many of the divisive issues facing our present Unitarian government.

Maybe the thing that confuses us all is that we shouldn't label the national government the "federal" government. Doing so completely twists the concept of "federalism" since it seems to associate "federalism" with "federal"/national government and makes the "federal" government appear to be the supreme ruling body rather than one of the cast of governmental bodies.

 

[RockyTop85]

Maybe the thing that confuses us all is that we shouldn't label the national government the "federal" government. Doing so completely twists the concept of "federalism" since it seems to associate "federalism" with "federal"/national government and makes the "federal" government appear to be the supreme ruling body rather than one of the cast of governmental bodies.

American political nomenclature is totally insufficient.

Our “liberals” aren’t actually liberal and our conservatives are no longer very conservative. In general we used to all be “left” or “liberal” compared to the rest of the world but we still referred to left and right.

It’s a mess.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

No, that's when you should have questioned the Bush Administration. The CIA wasn't pushing the war, it was the Bush admin going around the world to drum up support to invade Iraq on one person's account that was never corroborated that was ultimately proven BS. That's like taking the Steele dossier as truth to invade a country to feed the haliburtons and blackwater princes.

I missed it, who was defending Bush for anything?

 

[VolnJC]