US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[chez]

You ought to be careful.  He may come to get your guns.

Don't have nor need any guns.

[Chairman Bill]

No.

Strikes me that he would be if he could.

Right now, after his recent escapades, he's either completely lost the plot or wants people to think so; it would make a claim of being mentally unfit to face prosecution, far more believable.

[MattBurt]

Is Trump a dictator?

I think he wants to be, just like his buddies. But gladly he isn't. Yet.

[chez]

Strikes me that he would be if he could.

Right now, after his recent escapades, he's either completely lost the plot or wants people to think so; it would make a claim of being mentally unfit to face prosecution, far more believable.

Yeh...better lock him up in the looney bin with the rest of his buddies. Get nurse Ratchet as his personal nurse.

[Alan Klein]

I think he wants to be, just like his buddies. But gladly he isn't. Yet.

Cheap shot.  Trump never disobeyed a court order.

[James Clark]

Cheap shot.  Trump never disobeyed a court order.

He's currently in violation of a USSC order regarding DACA.

[Alan Klein]

He's currently in violation of a USSC order regarding DACA.

DACA continues.  He didn't shut it down.  Subsequent to the article your posted, the government issued new rules.  Since the way it runs is decided by presidential edict, (the way it was set up was through an Obama presidential order not through Congressional legislation) its rules are determined by the current administration.  This is what happens when a president like Obama writes law without Congress.  So the new rules will have to go before another Federal Court to determine whether its in violation of the original Supreme Court order. 

If this questionable case is the only thing in four years that shows Trump's dictatorial rule, you have a weak case.

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/admin-memo-scales-back-daca/

[James Clark]

DACA continues.  He didn't shut it down.  Subsequent to the article your posted, the government issued new rules.  Since the way it runs is decided by presidential edict, (the way it was set up was through an Obama presidential order not through Congressional legislation) its rules are determined by the current administration.  This is what happens when a president like Obama writes law without Congress.  So the new rules will have to go before another Federal Court to determine whether its in violation of the original Supreme Court order. 

If this questionable case is the only thing in four years that shows Trump's dictatorial rule, you have a weak case.

https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/admin-memo-scales-back-daca/

1) The "new rules" merely confirm the defiance of the court order on a technicality.  "OK we're not going to kill DACA - we're, uh, just not going to actually run the program."   

2) It's not questionable

3) You made flat wrong statement and I corrected you. (Is there a further rules clarification that I missed?  Are they now processing DACA applications again?  If so, I'm in error and I apologize, but as of August 24, the status is that they are not.)

Sidenote - "Unelected Federal bureaucrat" (you love to use that term to indicate a federal official who is abusing his/her authority, and it's perfect here - thanks) and noted little tin soldier and pompous ass Chad Wolf, currently illegally installed to head DHS, stated that, "If I ultimately determine to maintain the policy, there is nothing in [it] that would preclude aliens from making an initial request for DACA ... at that time."  (What an asshole.)

4) I specifically answered "no" when someone asked if Trump was a dictator.  You're the one that attempted to answer that question with a qualification that is easily proven wrong.   There are other examples of lower court decisions being disregarded while Trump cries until he finds a judge (often that he appointed) that will rubber-stamp his idiocy.  I simply chose the USSC example because there's no higher authority he can whine to.  If "Trump doesn't disobey court orders" is the best YOU can do to illustrate that he's not a dictator, you're the one with a case in bad shape.

(The folks above who've answered, "no, but he sure wishes he was" are about as close to correct as we're going get.)

[Robert Roaldi]

Are Americans suckers for grifters?  Here's a combination movie review and social analysis from The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/jake-tapper-elia-kazan-trump/616471/. I've never seen that movie, now I want to.

[Robert Roaldi]

The subject of this talk/podcast is about the US's military spending, but the interviewee spends a lot of time speaking about the US electoral process so I include it in this thread. He makes some provocative points and his background is not the ivory tower but the US military itself.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/massive-military-spending-is-turning-america-into-a-warfare-state-warns-ex-u-s-army-colonel-1.5738677

Here are the first 3 short paragraphs from the blurb,

"In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower cautioned the United States against "unwarranted influence" — what he saw as an alarming alignment of corporate interests with military operations, a relationship he famously called: "the military-industrial complex."

Since then, the term has largely been taken up by the political left in its critique of America's militarism, and how vast military expenditures end up creating conflicts they're supposed to resolve.

But Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is firmly on the political right. He spent over 30 years in the U.S. Army, was chief of staff for former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, and is a lifelong Republican. "

[Robert Roaldi]

The second amendment doesn't give you the right to overthrow the government that's acting constitutionally.  It's there to allow an oppressed people to overthrow a dictator.  I don't think Gretchen is one.

The British Crown was acting legally within its mandate in 1776, but presumably you're in favour of the revolution against it.

The original question remains. Who decides when a government is not legitimate and how do they decide that?

But it's a rhetorical question, no need to try to answer.

[Craig Lamson]

He's currently in violation of a USSC order regarding DACA.

It appears to me that program was not legal at its inception.

[Craig Lamson]

The British Crown was acting legally within its mandate in 1776, but presumably you're in favour of the revolution against it.

The original question remains. Who decides when a government is not legitimate and how do they decide that?

But it's a rhetorical question, no need to try to answer.

I’ll answer.  The people.

[James Clark]

It appears to me that program was not legal at its inception.

It’s not really within the purview of the Executive branch to make that decision, and it’s certainly not within the scope of the Executive to overrule the court on that.   That argument notwithstanding, Alan made a silly point that was easily dismissed.

[Craig Lamson]

It’s not really within the purview of the Executive branch to make that decision, and it’s certainly not within the scope of the Executive to overrule the court on that.   That argument notwithstanding, Alan made a silly point that was easily dismissed.

The Executive branch made the original decision.  The Executive branch has often decided not to obey law or at least not to enforce it.  All of which sucks.

Laws should not come from the Executive or the Judicial.  That is the task given to Congress and that should be the case no matter which party holds power.

Silly me.

I’ll let you play with Alan, if you don’t mind.

[kers]

The subject of this talk/podcast is about the US's military spending, but the interviewee spends a lot of time speaking about the US electoral process so I include it in this thread. He makes some provocative points and his background is not the ivory tower but the US military itself.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/massive-military-spending-is-turning-america-into-a-warfare-state-warns-ex-u-s-army-colonel-1.5738677

Here are the first 3 short paragraphs from the blurb,

"In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower cautioned the United States against "unwarranted influence" — what he saw as an alarming alignment of corporate interests with military operations, a relationship he famously called: "the military-industrial complex."

Since then, the term has largely been taken up by the political left in its critique of America's militarism, and how vast military expenditures end up creating conflicts they're supposed to resolve.

But Col. Lawrence Wilkerson is firmly on the political right. He spent over 30 years in the U.S. Army, was chief of staff for former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell, and is a lifelong Republican. "

it was in the forum- (maybe a post from you? ) that this article was brought under attention
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/covid-19-end-of-american-era-wade-davis-1038206

a quote: 'In 1940, with Europe already ablaze, the United States had a smaller army than either Portugal or Bulgaria."

Then it started to ramp up the military industry and it never came back to normal again.
What can you do when you produce so many weapons that have no direct purpose in times of piece?
Sell them to anybody and any nation that needs arms...too protect the interests of the US. Sell them even to the police and US-citizen. Start a war - that you win for sure...

It was Jules Verne that already spotted the problem in his voyage to the moon.  He used a redundant super heavy artillery gun from the US civil war to make the trip possible.

[James Clark]

The Executive branch made the original decision.  The Executive branch has often decided not to obey rather law or at least not to enforce it.  All of which sucks.

Yes, though not generally once the Court's final word is the they are acting illegally.

Laws should not come from the Executive or the Judicial.  That is the task given to Congress and that should be the case no matter which party holds power.

Again, yes, though with deliberate obstruction it becomes impossible to govern effectively, but that's another (probably more interesting) discussion.

Silly me.

Not at all.  Just not really germane to the question of whether or not Trump had ever disobeyed a court directive.

I’ll let you play with Alan, if you don’t mind.

Not at all

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's an alternate view of the violence in Portland. A reporter manages to get hold of leaked messages from far-right groups, https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/09/23/patriot-coalition-far-right-chat-logs-violence/.

I hope the US can find its way back from this unnecessary brinksmanship.

[Alan Klein]

1) The "new rules" merely confirm the defiance of the court order on a technicality.  "OK we're not going to kill DACA - we're, uh, just not going to actually run the program."   

2) It's not questionable

3) You made flat wrong statement and I corrected you. (Is there a further rules clarification that I missed?  Are they now processing DACA applications again?  If so, I'm in error and I apologize, but as of August 24, the status is that they are not.)

Sidenote - "Unelected Federal bureaucrat" (you love to use that term to indicate a federal official who is abusing his/her authority, and it's perfect here - thanks) and noted little tin soldier and pompous ass Chad Wolf, currently illegally installed to head DHS, stated that, "If I ultimately determine to maintain the policy, there is nothing in [it] that would preclude aliens from making an initial request for DACA ... at that time."  (What an asshole.)

4) I specifically answered "no" when someone asked if Trump was a dictator.  You're the one that attempted to answer that question with a qualification that is easily proven wrong.   There are other examples of lower court decisions being disregarded while Trump cries until he finds a judge (often that he appointed) that will rubber-stamp his idiocy.  I simply chose the USSC example because there's no higher authority he can whine to.  If "Trump doesn't disobey court orders" is the best YOU can do to illustrate that he's not a dictator, you're the one with a case in bad shape.

(The folks above who've answered, "no, but he sure wishes he was" are about as close to correct as we're going get.)

Trump is just following what he did to make his Muslim ban successful.  Then to the courts said his action was unconstitutional because it was too broad.  So Trump re-issued the ban in a more selective way, and it was subsequently approved by the courts.
 
This time, the courts didn't say his attempt to change DACA was unconstitutional or too broad.  It said that he violated some administrative procedure he didn't follow and for that reason they held up his cancellation of DACA. So now he's changed his directive.  New procedures will be followed.  It will go back to the courts for a ruling and he will then make sure the administrative procedure is followed to a tee.

But my main point is that this little bit of petty larceny does not make him a bank robber.  Nor a dictator. Just like Obama and all other presidents, they use presidential directives willy nilly which creates all sorts of legal issues because Congress didn't legislate it. Legislation prevents any president from messing with it.  So Obama makes the Iran deal without the Senate approval as required for lasting effect, and Trump reverses it.  DACA is just another similar case.

[Alan Klein]

It’s not really within the purview of the Executive branch to make that decision, and it’s certainly not within the scope of the Executive to overrule the court on that.   That argument notwithstanding, Alan made a silly point that was easily dismissed.

Actually, a more important issue is being raised; one of packing the court if Biden wins. While presidents have played at the margins of Supreme Court decisions, and others have as well, for the most part, Americans have respected its decisions. After all, it has no power to enforce their rulings.  That's the Executive's authority.  So I see packing the court as a major step in delegitimizing the Supreme Court. 

I realize that politicization from both sides has become especially prevalent since Bork. But we still follow its decisions. Roberts is bending over backwards to try to maintain it's legitimacy even to the point of making decisions that I believe are contrary to how he would have voted if not for trying to keep that legitimacy. It may be a back-assed way of doing that. 

In any case, if the Democrat pack the court should Biden win, that might be the final straw where people will just disregard their rulings arguing that the court is legislating from the bench, a charge that will have a lot of weight if the packing occurs.  America will be in a dangerous place if the court's decisions aren't respected.  HAve you given this any thought? Curious how you feel about it?