Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Because babies in CA?

Among other things.

[Frans Waterlander]

Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.

Who cares about the electoral college, constitution, and the federal framework!? What we need is a revolution. And renaming the United States of America into “People’s Republic of America.”

[James Clark]

Who cares about the electoral college, constitution, and the federal framework!? What we need is a revolution. And renaming the United States of America into “People’s Republic of America.”

...says the guy whose preferred candidate from president literally argues that the law doesn't apply to him, and whose preferred party is on record repeatedly copping to cover suppression as an election tactic. 

Puh-leeez.

Spare me your crocodile tears as you weep for the republic.

[James Clark]

Why are you all even arguing about getting rid of the electoral college? First tell us which 38 states you think are going to vote in favor of that proposition.

Because it's an interesting discussion that involves history, politics, and law. 

For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president.

PS - Joe - you should check out some of the sublinks there.. Data suggests that your reliance on the EC to make each state relevant is misplaced.  For example, in 2016 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states, comprising 30% of the population.  Check it.

[Alan Klein]

Because it's an interesting discussion that involves history, politics, and law. 

For example, each state has the right to assign electors as they see fit, so you can work within the Constitutional framework and still directly elect the president.

PS - Joe - you should check out some of the sublinks there.. Data suggests that your reliance on the EC to make each state relevant is misplaced.  For example, in 2016 94% of campaign events were held in 12 states, comprising 30% of the population.  Check it.

First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition.  Second it has not been tested in the Supreme COurt and would be thrown out as unconstitutional.  Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want.  As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton.  And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump. 

Additionally, unless every state signs on, then those that don;t would have huge power to flip the election as all of their state's electors vote for one candidate while the other states divide their votes between two candidates or more.  It would also encourage more third party candidates hurting one or more popular candidates who could have won but now don;t because their vote was watered down.  PLus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.

[Alan Klein]

PS The reason it's unconstitutional is because my vote is determine how others vote in other states.  My vote doesn;t count.  As an aside, how is that democratic?

[bwana]

Well, it seems he needed to get the press of his back, so he decided to assassinate some random iranian and iraqi officials while congress was still on holiday.. no one is talking about impeachment anymore. True, demonstrators were attacking the US embassy in Iraq but the trail to those generals was not clear. I wish he had the NSA/CIA issue a statement showing how they identified the culprits first-but then I guess the Iranian/Iraqui would have denied it.

Asymmetric warfare has its own rules. Trump et. al. could have made it look like [pick one of the following] (Russians/Chinese/Saudis/Israelis) did it. Or they could have made it look like an accident. Polonium is quite effective as Russia demonstrated a few years ago.

I feel like our nation has become another Laurel and Hardy comedy. Can you just hear Congress (Oliver) saying to Trump (Stan) - 'now this is another fine mess you gotten us in to'.

[Alan Klein]

Well, it seems he needed to get the press of his back, so he decided to assassinate some random iranian and iraqi officials while congress was still on holiday.. no one is talking about impeachment anymore. True, demonstrators were attacking the US embassy in Iraq but the trail to those generals was not clear. I wish he had the NSA/CIA issue a statement showing how they identified the culprits first-but then I guess the Iranian/Iraqui would have denied it.

Asymmetric warfare has its own rules. Trump et. al. could have made it look like [pick one of the following] (Russians/Chinese/Saudis/Israelis) did it. Or they could have made it look like an accident. Polonium is quite effective as Russia demonstrated a few years ago.

I feel like our nation has become another Laurel and Hardy comedy. Can you just hear Congress (Oliver) saying to Trump (Stan) - 'now this is another fine mess you gotten us in to'.

The President says that Iranian General Soleimani, who has been credited with killing around 800 Americans troops directly with his troops or through allies of Iran over the last ten years,  flew into Baghdad Iraq and met with a leader of an Iraqi terrorist group that attacked the embassy the other day and were planning to attack again to kill American civilians and troops.  The president killed both of these enemies of America.   If the president did nothing, and we wound up with another American embassy taken over like what happened under Pres Carter with Americans killed like in Benghazi under Obama, everyone would blame Trump for not protecting Americans.  Trump did his job. 

While we don;t want to get into a war with Iran, we can't allow these forces to attack us.  What would you do in his situation? 

[James Clark]

First, you won;t get enough states to sign on to that proposition. 

A surprising number already have.

Second it has not been tested in the Supreme Court and would be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Both of these statements can't be true    

Third, it would cause some electors to flip to switch the winner at the last minute as all the electors from one or two states decide to ignore the state rules and vote for who they want.  As recently as in 2016, two Trump electors who should have voted for him flipped to vote for Clinton.  And 5 Clinton electors flipped and voted for Trump.

As you suggest, as of now the electors are already not necessary bound by the state's popular vote.  Their right to act independently is, at worst, undetermined.  If anything, this would eliminate that problem.

Additionally, unless every state signs on, then those that don;t would have huge power to flip the election as all of their state's electors vote for one candidate while the other states divide their votes between two candidates or more.  It would also encourage more third party candidates hurting one or more popular candidates who could have won but now don't because their vote was watered down.

Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.

Read the details - the compact doesn't take effect until states comprising 270 EC votes put it into law.  At that point, whatever another state/group of states does becomes irrelevant because 270 EC votes are already committed.

PS The reason it's unconstitutional is because my vote is determine how others vote in other states.  My vote doesn't count.  As an aside, how is that democratic?

It's democratic is the same way that your vote doesn't count now if you're on the losing side of a winner-take-all state.  The fact is, the ONLY way everyone's vote counts equally is in a direct popular vote. 

[James Clark]

While we don;t want to get into a war with Iran, we can't allow these forces to attack us.  What would you do in his situation?

Not escalate in the first place.  Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).

[Alan Klein]

A surprising number already have.

Both of these statements can't be true    

As you suggest, as of now the electors are already not necessary bound by the state's popular vote.  Their right to act independently is, at worst, undetermined.  If anything, this would eliminate that problem.

Plus, if you can actually get all the states to sign on, then you should be able to get 38 states to approve an amendment to the constitution.  So what's the point?

This whole compact is a feel good bill that will accomplish nothing.


Read the details - the compact doesn't take effect until states comprising 270 EC votes put it into law.  At that point, whatever another state/group of states does becomes irrelevant because 270 EC votes are already committed.

It's democratic is the same way that your vote doesn't count now if you're on the losing side of a winner-take-all state.  The fact is, the ONLY way everyone's vote counts equally is in a direct popular vote. 

You missed the point that I made regarding this.  What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate?  How would you enforce it?  The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote.  There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was.  In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority.  There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and  throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.

[James Clark]

You missed the point that I made regarding this.  What if one of those states changes their minds and ignore their compact and allows the electors to ALL vote for the other candidate?  How would you enforce it?  The electors according to the constitution go to Washington to give their vote.  There would be great incentive to change the vote from proportional to all electors if the popular vote went differently than what the state vote was.  In other words, let's say a Democrat state that voted Democrat popularly had to have their electors vote Republican because the country wide vote was Republican in majority.  There would be great incentive for that Democrat state to ignore the compact and  throw all their electors votes to the Democrat to swing the election to the Democrat.

I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal.  It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.

[Alan Klein]

Not escalate in the first place.  Iran was under control, then Trump came in and dicked it all up. Because he's an "f'ing moron" (Tillerson's words, not mine).

Iran was not under control.  Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president.  The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things.  Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME.  Obama gave them billions to finance their designs. 

[James Clark]

Iran was not under control.  Sulaimani was killing Americans and moving Iran to control the Middle East long before Trump became president.  The compact was in force before Trump took over yet the Iranians were liong doing these things.  Additionally, the nuclear compact gave them a green light to do all these things as Obama did nothing deliberately to dissuade the Iranians from pushing themselves to control the ME.  Obama gave them billions to finance their designs.

I don't think there's any way to rationally conclude that the ME is in a better situation today than it was on the last day of the Obama presidency.  Besides, according to the 7 Benghazi hearings we had to endure, this latest attack is entirely Trump's fault.  Or maybe Pompeo's. 

[Alan Klein]

I think under the terms of the compact that would be illegal.  It's not just a casual agreement (like Obama made with Iran ) - it would have the force of actual law behind it.

Well, it's a dream that will never happen because it requires states to give up their power and vote to other states and voters in other states.  The people who vote for this don;t understand the implications.   The first time a state has to change their votes to electors that their state didn't vote for, the whole compact will fall apart.  Can you imagine Democrat California changing their electoral vote to Republican because the majority popular vote in the country was Republican?  They'd hang the guy who pushed their legislature to pass this bill. 

[Alan Klein]

I don't think it's any way to rationally conclude that the ME is in a better situation today than it was on the last day of the Obama presidency.  Besides, according to the 7 Benghazi hearings we had to endure, this latest attack is entirely Trump's fault.  Or maybe Pompeo's. 

Territorial ISIS was destroyed and its leader killed.  Iran is in trouble economically and could collapse like the Soviet Union did.  Those are positives.

Now it's possible that we could be in further conflict with Iran.  And it would be nice to get out of the ME totally.  A pox on all their houses.  They're going to continue to kill each other.  I don;t see why we have to act as referee and get bloodied by their tribalism and religious hatreds.  I don;t see the Germans, or Dutch, or Brits jumping in to take over from America.  Heck, we don;t need ME oil.  They do.  Let them keep a lid on the mess.  So we get stuck with the job.  Trump actually is losing his instinct to get out as he promised.  Maybe the Neocons got to him.     

[bwana]

Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?

[Alan Klein]

Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?

Except for Israel, I wasn't  aware of anyone else who likes us. The Saudis put up with us because we protect their butts.  The fact we're going against SHia Iran makes them and all the other Sunnis in the region happy.  They hate the Shias more than they hate us.  The thing to remember about the Middle East is strength is the only thing that counts.  Weakness on our part makes them aggressive.  They only understand violence.  If you kiss their butts, they'll kick yours. 

Why should America establish closer relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan?  Actually I thought we were.  But, regardless,  we don't need their only.  Europe does.  They should be sending troops over there, not us, to protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Turkey under Erdogan, is looking for more power there and has drifted religious oriented.  Not Trump's fault.  He has worked to make Erdogan happy regarding the Kurds.

[Rob C]

1. Unclear is why there were so many demonstrations against the US embassy only. 2. Israel/Russia/China are all in close proximity to Iraq/Iran. They stand most to suffer from a nuclear 'accident' in the region. Yet they are not pushing for nuclear restraints on Iran nor are they being overtly hostile-though who knows what they are doing covertly. 3. Mossad certainly has more people on the ground there and could have intervened against these generals who are more of a threat to them.

4. By thumping his chest, Trump has exposed all US citizens to risk. All US businesses in the region will suffer and now have to spend more on security - or leave those markets.Why isnt the US cultivating better relations with Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan? equally oil and gas rich nations? 5. Turkey who was once a stalwart US supporter seems also to be turning to a more neutral stance. We will have no friendly allies in the region soon. 6. The last thing we need is a swath of anti-US sentiment sweeping through that entire region.

Is this his idea of stopping the impeachment-starting another war?

1. Easy: the US is the Great Satan in those eyes.

2. Israel is the US in all but name, or at least, that's the world perception, never more so than now, through marital/religious/fiscal/military/blind political connections, just as with all international alliances going back through history. A brief look at European history is all you need take to see how marriages made the borders change overnight.

Russia/China are not in love with the US; their foreign diplomacy is different: China buys into countries whereas Russia either takes, or battles its way into alliances of opportunity. The US (and much of Europe, for that matter) appears, to me at least, always to be caught a little behind the pace. That could be because from the top, there's only one place left you can go. And we all know everything changes.

3. That's certainly a nice truth or non-truth to have citizens of Israel believe.

4. That's been the case for decades, now. Trump's just another face of it.

5. Turkey plays all sides, always has. That's why it had an empire and why, when that period passed, it continued to be important in the region. The lands known as the Balkans have ever been a hotbed of intrigue. Think of the relationship as that of island Britain and Europe: some commercial friendship, some blood friendship, some competition, some love some hatred, and huge amounts of misunderstanding. Turkey isn't relatively isolated in the physical world: unlike the US it plays with guys next door who can throw stones through your windows. The US, today, is finding that countries who have rockets are closing those safety distance and it doesn't like that one bit. Welcome to the new world.

6. Far too late to prevent that. Sadly, it doesn't even take hostile US action to bring it about: a fundamental failing in human nature is manifest in the fact that being in positions of comparative wealth create their own gulfs. It's a kind of reversal of the Stockholm Syndrome, where people who help you eventually become disliked because of their very superiority in being able to help you in your lesser circumstances. Charity is best received anonymously. The Beatles told you: you can't buy love.