This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans realized they could appeal to their voters by going mask-off.
That's true to some degree, but they were not all always crazy.
Although I disagree with for instance McCain (deceased) and Mitt Romney may wear magic underwear, so he obviously is a bit crazy, they were not completely insane. Like numerous all of the MAGA crowd.
I wonder how much Republican politicians actually believe in the shit they say vs how much of it is just to please the small-minded bigots for votes. They seem to oppose the left on every single issue, no matter how trivial.
One of the major reasons for the electoral college is because many of the founding fathers thought the people were too stupid to not elect a populist (like Trump) and that Congress should choose the president, but the other side thought it gave Congress too much power. So they compromised with the electoral system.
It's been well known since day 1 that the people could do a very bad job choosing the president. The problem is that the EC has been so watered down at this point that the only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we're under the tyranny of the minority. And, ironically, it gave us trump and might do so again.
only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority.
Although optimistically a lot of the way the government was designed is to prevent exactly the type of person that Trump is becoming president, tyranny of the minority is part of the system. EC and the senate are definitely designed in a way to prevent the unwashed masses from gaining too much power, and keep in mind when the framers were designing this we're talking only about white land-owning men. Our government's design is progressive for its time compared to a literal monarchy, but it's still clearly designed with a caste system in mind.
people were too stupid to not elect a populist
i mean he did also lose the popular vote. that was a pretty significant thing that happened. like i understand where you’re coming from here but he very much did lose the popular vote.
Criminals shouldn't be barred from running though. In fact, there's precedent for people running for President from prison, and it should be allowed in order to make sure that the state doesn't imprison people from jailing political opponents.
Look up Eugene V. Debs. And yes, this is an opinion, not a legal question. We're talking about which laws should govern who gets to run for President, and I feel like they're already too restrictive as they are.
While not a legal argument, look up Alexei Navalny in Russia. He’s been the leader of the country’s opposition party for some time and beyond his attempted assassination, he’s become a political prisoner and has been trying to maintain political status from gaol. He absolutely should be able to run and would objectively be a better president for the average Russian than Putin is.
While it’s not an American example, it’s a general example of why people who are technically criminals (in his case, a political prisoner) should be able to run for office - even from gaol.
It’s one of those situations where a protection needs to be in place that, sadly, can also be abused by bad actors.
What's concerning is the Dem party leadership is still operating under that assumption....
They're either that out of touch with American politics, or they'd rather risk the country than risk themselves being held accountable in a hypothetical future.
Either way, I think that's disqualifing, we need people willing to actually fix shit rather than just attempt to not let things get worse and then use that as a threat to keep getting elected.
We tried that with Obama's SC seat, using it as a fear motivator to convince people Hillary should be president. The party lost that bet, but didn't learn a single fucking thing. They just want to double down on the strategy.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they're hurting their own chances since lots of people vote for shitty D candidates only to prevent a Republican from winning.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
Very good points.
Obama’s SC seat
I don't know what that is.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances
I'm not quite sure I follow, and I disagree that making laws that protect democracy better would hurt them in an election.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
Yes, it was absolutely outrageous how they claimed they could choose Hillary, even if Bernie won.
republicans blocked a supreme court pick of obamas for over a year in congress so that trump could pick it. Previously even some liberals like to have shared power were one party controlled some and the other controlled the other but with the current republican party platform of batshit crazy and no honor Im not sure if anyone still sees that as a viable idea.
I started to type a reply explaining that, then I realized I already did that in the comment you're replying to in the simplest way I could think of...
Like, I'd legitimately just be typing the parts you didn't quote.
In a piece in Vanity Fair, Lewinsky offered her vision for a more robust democracy via six new amendments: no presidential self-pardons, mandatory background checks for presidents, no suspensions of the U.S. Constitution, a retirement age for elected officials, elimination of the Electoral College and codification of a woman’s right to an abortion.
There's not a single thing wrong with anything she's saying, except that she doesn't go far enough. Well, also that part about suspension of the constitution I wonder what it means. If you suspend the constitution, then you'd presumably also not care about an amendment that says you cannot do so.
But anyways, for pardons, I would say that there should be a ban on any pardon where the President has a conflict of interests. For example, when Trump pardoned Stone. The President specifically shouldn't be able to pardon anybody who he knows personally or who helped him personally.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
Suspension of the constitution meaning the president can't say Habeus Corpus doesn't apply during a state of crisis or some other similar example.
Lincoln did it, so did Wilson, Bush was too stupid to do it so Cheney got the Patriot act passed to do it for him.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus doesn't come from the Constitution, it is from common law. However, the Constitution does say "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." This both protects Habeas Corpus, and also allows for suspending it. It was controversial when Lincoln did it because he did so unilaterally as president, rather than Congress doing it, but the Constitution doesn't actually say who can suspend it, or specify a procedure, so Lincoln's act was within the Constitution.
Tldr: Suspending Habeas Corpus is controversial, but not the same as suspending the Constitution.
The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says "I'm suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency", what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.
I'm less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I'm not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side's oppo-research wouldn't. But hey, can't hurt. I'm guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.
It doesn't look like Trump plans to discuss his way out of the constitutional crisis:
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
This would enable the government to make anyone they don't like criminals to keep them out of office.
I didn't suggest that it would keep them out of office, just that it would be released to the public. If that public information is enough to keep them out of office, then guess what? The government today already has the ability to do it. The biggest difference is that everybody would be subject to it.
Do you have to have a clean record to run for president, or just to vote?
Assuming that isn't meant to exclude babies born by cesarean...
Getting rid of the slavery-era EC would be excellent, that's for sure. No way the cons will go for that; it's the only reason they win any presidency since 1988 (W getting popular vote for second term was due to being a "war president" and an incumbent and even then, it was a squeaker - and he would not be in there in the first place if it wasn't for the EC in 2000).
There would still be two parties. They would just both shift left until they were roughly equal again. We currently have a right party and a far-right party. One of the reasons Democrats are so ineffective is because they are trying to appeal to an incredibly wide swath of voters. They talk as if they are centrists, but their actions are conservative, and people on the left are left without representation. Eliminating the EC would shift Reps to the left to appeal to more voters, which would push Dems to the left to distinguish themselves, and the middle ground would actually be in the center again. That sounds like a big win to me.
The EC gives far too much power to a minority of people. It's bad enough that in the Senate, a state with as many people as California gets the same representation as states with hardly anyone in it, but the EC also lets people in the hinterlands select our POTUS over the will of the majority of the people.
The people in the radicalized hinterlands are already able to send a rep to the House, even extremists like Marge and Bobo; that should be enough.
The EC is slave-state leftovers, it should go the way of slavery itself.
There's not a single thing wrong with anything she's saying, except that she doesn't go far enough
She's just spitballing. Making policy isn't her job, but at least she gave the conversation a nudge in the right direction
Re conflicts of interest, how is that line drawn?
As an example could Ford have pardoned Nixon?
I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
As an example could Ford have pardoned Nixon? I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
Why would you believe that the President should be able to give a pardon to somebody like that? What's the benefit to the American public?
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
He doesn't know those people. There is no personal conflict of interests.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
There already IS a review board. There already are clearly defined methods for legal challenges. And that has nothing to do with pardoning your buddies after they committed crimes, especially if they committed crimes FOR YOU. Trump and Nixon went against the usual process. Federal pardons are almost always only given out after a person has completed their sentence, and on recommendation of the board.
Re Ford pardoning Nixon,
I think https://youtu.be/6uUzrvJtZps from Bob Woodward gives an interesting view, but I think Ford himself sums it up similarly when he said,
"My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book"
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/...
Ford believed pardoning Nixon was the best way for the country to move forward. I disagree with that decision, however I think it's the Presidents job to make that decision. It likely cost Ford the next election.
Everything you've said is evidence that Ford shouldn't have had the power to pardon Nixon.
You have read the speech, and listened to Woodward, and know all of the ramifications, and you still say you disagree with his decision. This is the reason why we have processes, such as courts. There is absolutely no need for unilateral executive power in this situation.
And importantly, you didn't answer my only question... How does this power benefit the American public?
Ford's excuses were that he wanted to move forward. Why don't we just move forward with murderers, as well? I'll answer that. It's because usually, we like to feel justice so that we can move forward. Nixon never truly faced justice.
Ford said that the economy would suffer. That was just his guess. We've had almost the same thing today with Trump, and the economy isn't suffering. So, that means that Ford was probably just wrong about that excuse.
Ford said that he wanted to have his own Presidency, instead of being overshadowed by Nixon. That was never going to happen, no matter what he did. He became President without any general vote, voting him into either Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was President only because that was what Nixon wanted. But even if that hadn't been the case, Presidents are judged by how they respond to problems. Waving your hand and pretending the problems away doesn't help the American public.
These were all Ford's excuses for why he did it. But they were bad excuses. There's simply no benefit to America to allow Presidents to do this. I consider this matter closed. As you didn't actually answer my question, I don't see any point in continuing. Your last comment was your chance to answer my question, but instead you gave Ford's answers, and said that you disagreed with them. I believe that was a silly choice. But what's done is done.
You don't need to know someone to have a conflict of interest. A candidate running on the promise to pardon everybody for every crime if they vote for that candidate is a clear conflict of interest. Or pardoning somebody for payment.
I suppose the idea is that the justice system can still fail. Everyone can do the "right" thing but at the end of it all, it just doesn't feel right. Another option might be to resolve issues with the justice system making the correct call at the time, but not one we agree with now.
For example, Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession, Biden declared that if you have a simple marijuana possession offense, you're pardoned.
Even though marijuana possession was a crime at one point, it's silly now, so you get a pardon.
Now technically I doubt there are many folks with ONLY a federal simple marijuana possession charge and so this applies to very few people and it doesn't absolve them from any other convictions. However I think as the President, Biden is setting guidance for the country. Governors should see this and then act similarly to pardon state crimes. Congress should see this and implement related laws.
Ostensibly there is a background check done on all of those it's called the vetting process. But up until now it's only been a voluntary process that virtually all presidents and most senators and congressmen go through.
To use the reverse term to that which Monica Lewinsky did, it took an luddite president like Trump to expose the weakness of not having laws that enforced those vetting processes.
That's the point, it kinda doesn't matter. If someone is trying to suspend the Constitution, an amendment saying not to isn't going to stop them.
Not gonna lie, she raised my bar once or twice in the 90s.
I don't think libs have beef with Lewinski
hey both your cows posted, just fyi.
Twice the opportunity to downvote
I've seen this happening also a lot on Reddit in the past and a few times here. I don't think people post a few times the same comment by purpose. Could this be a client related bug?
Its not reddit or lemmy related, this happens for almost any user submission if your internet connection stutters at just the right moment.
Its why sites like your bank or larger purchase shopping sites will tell you to only click a button once, even if its been a few seconds and nothing happened. Dont want to accidentally double charge yourself
Now that's a name I haven't heard in awhile. She probably doesn't have much of any social capital left, but if she wants to spend her last bit on this, I get it.
A lot of people admire her for not hiding what happened at all and being unapologetic about it because it wasn't her fault. She was a young intern and he took advantage of her. Only the asshole Republicans still victim-blame her. Meanwhile, she has shown to be an extremely thoughtful woman who has a lot of very good political points to make and they wouldn't let her make them in Vanity Fair if she didn't have any political capital left.
The only issue I see here is that she's basically preaching to the choir.
She's a woman who pissed of Hillary Clinton by airing dirty laundry...
She threw her entire political future away, because Hillary is incredibly spiteful and for some reason has always held a lot of sway with the DNC.
The only issue I see here is that she’s basically preaching to the choir.
Voters agree, but for some reason politicians never mentioned it when Dems could have done anything about it...
That's worth a conversation
Hillary has done a lot for the modern Democratic Party.
You know she was one of the first advocates for universal healthcare, right?
The hate for Hillary is the result of a propaganda campaign launched when she was First Lady of Arkansas.
You know she was one of the first advocates for universal healthcare, right?
I've never even heard that, which is surprising considering she's ran for president multiple times... Can you provide a link so I can look into that?
The hate for Hillary is the result of a propaganda campaign launched when she was First Lady of Arkansas
Claiming anyone that doesn't like her fell for propaganda doesn't make sense... Pick the best person in the world, someone has a valid reason not to like them.
Clinton has zero charisma and has strong political views that progressives, moderates, and conservatives all hate.
I mean hell, if what you just said about universal healthcare is true, that's enough for lots of Dems and almost all Republicans to not like her...
Unfortunately lots of Dem voters keep electing Dems that don't want to fight for that.
Really, it's difficult to think of any other US politician that has been constantly dragged through the mud for nearly as long as Hillary Clinton. 30+ years of non-stop propaganda... And she still almost beat Trump.
I don't think either party is willing to give up the self-pardon power even if it is discussed. That said, it is not clear that a president actually has that power.
This article presents both arguments- https://www.thoughtco.com/...
That said, it is not clear that a president actually has that power.
If there's one thing voters want out of the Dem party after trump...
It's for them to codify shit instead of relying on the honor and good faith of the Republican party.
But like you said, the Dem party doesn't want to give that up, because some day they might use it. They're more worried about protecting themselves as individuals than protecting the country.
Which is one of the many reasons 1/3 of the country regularly doesn't vote.
Any source showing that Hillary did anything to Monica Lewinsky? Or is this just some conspiracy theory BS that's adjacent to the "Clinton Crime Family" bullshit that makes Hillary out to be like a baby-eating Michael Corleone?
As with all our political conversations, we’ll only open an honest discourse a minimum of 50-70 years after it happened.
I didn't realize she had stepped back into the public eye. I'm guessing she got her Vanity Fair position on the strength of her ideas and writing, as opposed to her history, because honestly, the history is ancient at this point.
Not her fault. It was equally her fault unless you think young women are too delicate to make good decisions on their own. Are you suggesting they need chaperones to follow them around to protect their virtue? Are you suggesting they are too weak to control themself around powerfull individuals?
While this was a great failure on the part of Bill Clinton, it was also a failure of her character as well. His greater in that it had implications to a country and it is a shitty thing to do. Her in that it was just a shitty thing to do.
IDK, I always thought it was just stupid of her to come out with that story.
I also don't believe she was pressured by Bill Clinton, but more that she was pressured by a fanatic special examiner, who went everywhere to dig up whatever. No matter how irrelevant and despite it not being illegal. Completely opposite to the Republican examiner Mueller against Trump, who took forever to dig up NOTHING even when you didn't really have to dig. And despite evidence of treason by Michael Flynn, he was pardoned and got away scot free for cooperating!!! Republicans are rotten, and they control just about every level of policing and security in USA.
Nonsense. He was 49 and she was 22. Furthermore, he was the President of the United States. There was a massive power imbalance. She was pressured by him just being in the position he was in. Maybe it shouldn't have been exposed to the public, but he absolutely took advantage of her and she was very brave once it was exposed.
I disagree, she was 22, she knew what she was doing. She was ambitious, and probably hoped for favors.
It's just like the idiotic sentiment that Melania Trump is somehow OK, and was considered somewhat a victim when Trump was president, she knew perfectly well what she was doing, and all evidence shows she's as batshit as her husband.
She handled a bad situation with grace and dignity. Also, it bears repeating that the same people who want to ban books are the ones who are most willing to make sure that blowjobs are mentioned in history books.
I think she has more social capital now than ever before. She’s a well-respected activist working on important issues. Her willingness to speak openly and honestly about her experience, as well as her willingness to joke about it, and frankly to be in the public spotlight at all after what the media did to her, is downright inspiring.
I recommend checking out some interviews she’s done over the last few years. She has a uniquely relatable way of discussing huge societal issues. I’m genuinely impressed any time I hear her talk.
tbf, I do my best to avoid consuming too much domestic US stuff. It's a sanity thing. I'll see her more when she shows up in international outlets.
edit: Or here.
Totally fair. The smoldering dumpster fire is very hard to watch. Actually I’ve walked past many an actual dumpster fire, and they’re much easier to stomach than the current state of things in the US.
She's made good capital selling herself as patient zero for online harassment IMO.
If you hadn't seen John Oliver's interview with her I recommend it
She had a brief resurgence around the time of the "me too" stuff, and was vindicated for a lot of the things that happened to her. A lot of people view her (and that overall situation) very differently now given how our culture has changed.
I believe she's an activist of sorts now? I could be misremembering.
This woman became a white house intern cause in all likelihood she wanted to become a politician, and the Clinton thing just turned her into a late night talkshow joke
Americans are such pearl clutching hypocrites. They hate women for having any sexuality, unless it means they get to fuck her. She gave Clinton a bj, and somehow that makes her a terrible person. Who would ever want a woman to give them a bj? Shes sick in the head, I tell you!
... I haven't really seen anybody in here saying anything bad about her. What I said was not any kind of insult, having little social capital simply implies she has not been heard from much. Which she is free to do if she wishes, we value our private lives, family, things like that. Not everybody wants to be famous.
Fuck the Republicans and their perjury trap and all, but after 25 years can we finally admit that the President getting a blowjob from an 21yo intern is a bad thing?
A manager at any other company or government position would be fired for it because consent is a tricky thing when there's a power imbalance.
Why are we pretending it's all okay with the most powerful person on the planet and a young woman whose entire career and aspirations can be completely made or destroyed my him in an email?
I don't think anybody thought it was okay. You do understand that there is this thing where both sides are wrong? That was clear from day one.
Yes, Clinton should have been fired. What about Reagan though? Thanks to his cabinet for which he was responsible, thousands of innocents died. What about Nixon? He barely got what he deserved. What about bush, starting a war over lies (false pretenses is way understating it) that cost the lives of thousands upon thousands on all sides... The fucker should have been in jail.
I think there were way worse things going on on presidencies than a blowjob with an iffy power balance and concensus
If POTUS and and intern represent an iffy power balance, what does an actual power imbalance look like? Even in this post, you are still minimizing his culpability. And sure, you are spot on about those Republicans, but that's irrelevant to the point you responded to.
Yes, the overarching consensus among establishment friendly Democrats has been to completely ignore what we learned about Bill Clinton in that incident. Sure, leave him in office if the Republican option is worse (and they always are), but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.
but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.
I truly don't want to go down the rabbit hole of seeming to defend bad actions, but, you are assuming coercion and non-consensual behavior though, are you not?
If so, do we know this for a fact?
Maybe others who judge them otherwise consider what they did as consensual and non-coerced activities.
My point is just how other people judge the actions when judging the person, not if I personally thought the actions were correct or not. Personally I would have turned down a consensual offer in the work office.
It is a bad thing.
Clinton should have been fired for it.
Republican/conservative values and worldviews demand the power imbalance between men and women.
Oh boo fucking hoo
You forgot the /s
You're kidding right? Pardons in themselves are crazy, but didn't know presidents can pardon themselves?
Turns out most of the US government relied on norms, traditions, and basic human decency, but very little of it was actually codified into law. Which in this day and age is like having no rules at all since no one has any shame anymore
Thank God for Trump, unironically. Stress-testing helps highlight problems.
We seem to be reacting similarly too. As if nothing is happening.
This is going to be the subtitle for whoever writes the book about Trump in a few years.
The precedent is jo bidon /s
I found your joke funny.
thx obamo
The rules around pardons are incredibly vague. Presidents have typically treated them vary seriously and used them sparingly. Then Trump saw it as an opportunity to make some cash and do favors for his cronies who committed crimes to help him.
The legal consensus is that they can't, but it's never been tested --nor did anyone ever seriously conceive of it as a possibility-- so it's theoretically possible as a matter of law.
Only works on Federal crimes the state and local ones that he committed will still stick. So that Georgia election will not be going away
As a non-american, living in an other continent, this is indeed news to me. It's honestly the first time I hear about this being annactual possibility. I'm fact, its a couple of days ago that I found out, (through Lemmy) that there is no limit to how many pardons a president can issue! I thought it was only a few!
Word around town is Trump was selling pardons for $2M each. If you look at some of the pardons he granted on his way out, it seems quite possible.
I mean, she's not wrong, but she knows you start by getting 290 votes in the House, right? The same group of people who couldn't get 218 to decide who their own leader was?
Just say you don't want Biden to pardon himself for his crimes and let the GOP go wild and vote it in.
That's so crazy...it just might work.
I don't know why stuff like that isn't tried more often, in more artful ways obviously.
Realistically because they could care less about opposing the dems if it keeps their power. If they actually tried some reverse psychology shit like that the GOP would happily let it pass and show how they are more bipartisan than those 'filthy' liberals. They aren't all complete idiots, they are fascists trying to dismantle our democracy.
If they actually tried some reverse psychology shit like that the GOP would happily let it pass and show how they are more bipartisan than those ‘filthy’ liberals.
They've killed bills that they created and submitted themselves before, once the other party accepted said bills.
How would they seem the more even-handed when it'd be the left capitulating?
I dunno, they'd probably support an amendment banning abortion, or preserving the 2nd amendment...
That's actually not the only route to getting a constitutional amendment. If 2/3 of the state legislatures in the country call a constitutional convention they can amend the Constitution independently of the Congress.
Though the likelihood of that is also very slim.
If we have a constitutional convention, enough legislatures are currently dominated by gerrymandered Republican supermajorities that we will literally be living in a christo-fascist, antebellum-esque state.
We're actually closer to that right now, I think there are 4 states left who need to call for it.
The problem with this method is the end game is still the same, you need ratification from 3/4 of the states and that won't happen. Both sides will poison pill the other.
You're being downvoted but you're right. Right wing groups have been calling for a constitutional convention for years because they know they'd have outsized influence on it.
A constitutional convention isn't "let's tackle this narrow issue," it puts everything on the table. It'd be a disaster with the current makeup of the states.
Yes, and family or close ties.
That is one of the few famous people whose opinion on this matters
Essentially Trump pardoning himself for all his thousands of crimes.
There is a legal argument that it is already the case, the idea being that you can't be the judge of your own case. Obviously, untested.
Honestly I get why this is, but I disagree slightly. A President should be able to pardon themselves from crimes committed before they were elected to that term. Otherwise you could run into a problem where a corrupt government/administration could jail it's competitor on bogus charges and then even if elected from a jail cell, that person couldn't serve.
If they did that to the President and Vice President then the speaker of the house would be made President and that's a position that can be manipulated with jerrymandering.
The position of a president needs to be held accountable on a higher moral ground then that of ordinary citizens and not the other way around.
If you did shit that would land you in prison, then this needs to be the place where you're at.
If you did shit that would land you in prison, then this needs to be the place where you’re at.
Throughout history, it's been more likely that someone who was elected from a jail cell was placed there by tyranny than the alternative. I don't think it's ever happened that a true criminal in jail won a race in jail; they're essentially always political prisoners.
I disagree with a bunch of her proposals simply for the reason that I fundamentally disagree that America should have an elected president.
I believe the 3 branches of government should be the Judiciary, the States, represented by the Senate, and the People, represented by the House.
The Senate isn't a legislating house, it's a house that has the choice to veto legislation with a 2/3rds or more vote, led by a Tribune who calls such votes when deemed necessary, if the Senate itself doesn't override the Tribune with another 2/3rds or more vote.
Critically, the Senate has 27 representatives from each state, 21 from permanently inhabited territories, and 15 from Indigenous Nations and Labor Unions of 5k or more members, and from County level divisions which have larger populations than individual states. Now every small guy in US politics has their interests served by the Senate.
The house is expanded so that every US State gets a number of reps equal to however many times 50k fits into their population, grouped into districts where 5-9 representatives hail from with a proportionate number of constituents. House is led by a Consul and elected cabinet.
The expanded House and Senate will be a lot to wrangle, but the American people will have a far more functional and personally validating selection of leaders and representatives, and that alone will significantly boost satisfaction with and thereby participation in our democracy.
All everyone wants is for there to be at least someone they feel like hears their deal sitting in office, and with these mega districts, odds are fairly good that at least one sitting representative and one sitting senator will be that guy who gets where you're coming from and assures you your issues are being fought for.
That's not the system of Government we have in the United States and no one proposing to tear up the Consitution to start a new Government.
You really out here saying that the system of government we have in the United States is a workable system?
The article is literally about changing the system, so why not change the system even more since we know what isn't working?
Does our system work, absolutely.
Does Trump look for loopholes, absolutely.
I disagree wholely that the system works, necessary change is held up constantly by archaic creaking procedures and the rightful distribution of power has long been parasitically weathered away by the unchained executive ever since Jackson normalized the fiat veto.
Any independent executive will inherently make itself a threat to the sovereignty of the people, because it will inherently seek ways to achieve its agenda whenever it runs up against legislative opposition.
This idea is outdated by 150 years. The Civil War clearly established that the United States is no longer a Confederation of individual states, it's a Union. We literally say "indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Senate doesn't need to exist. Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
I disagree that the Senate doesn't need to exist, I think that the hand it currently holds is unbalanced, but being a tool of intervention by small players against the will of the people trampling minority rights is a well justified place in government.
Plus, it's a 2/3rds plus veto, so it's only coming down when a large number of those seated across the political spectrum are in agreement that an act of Congress is going too far with something.
I said the Senate doesn't need to exist because:
Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
Do you disagree with that? It's true. No country ever moves from unicameral to bicameral because it's simpler and easier.
There's already other veto powers: the President and the Supreme Court can both veto the Legislature. Why does the Legislature need a veto for it's own decision? That's just unnecessary.
I'm proposing replacing the president's veto with the Senate's
That's literally the main thing they'd have in this model, the veto.
The reason they have it in addition to the courts is because the courts focus more on using it in cases where a law itself breaks established laws, while the Senate could use it for bills that are hypothetically legal but which still cross some other line like say disproportionately burdening indigenous communities or being unjustly against practices of organized labor.
How does she talk with all that presidential cock down her throat,
You try being an unpaid college intern and being told by the President to do sexual favors. She is not to blame.
Good Lord, get back in your basement, tsonfeir
Or perhaps you're a troll that should get back under your bridge?
ETA since the comment is now gone ... tsonfeir had said Good Lord, get back in your box, Monica
This is what she does for a living.
why? these are good suggestions. granted many things like it have been mentioned before but until we have them it bears repeating.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
That's not necessary, obviously Americans would never elect a criminal for President.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans.
save