Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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...

Ain’t that the truth. In politics, and in personal relationships.

[RSL]

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.

The first time a state flips their electors in the electoral college to the opposite from the way the majority in the state voted the fat will be in the fire. The election will be in the hands of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt how that'll turn out.

Interesting, James, you have strong opinions about U.S. politics, but you won't tell us where you are or how old you are. Hmmmm....

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Interesting, James, you have strong opinions about U.S. politics, but you won't tell us where you are or how old you are. Hmmmm....

To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.

[JoeKitchen]

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.

But this is not the case.  The constitution gives the electors the right to vote for whom ever they want.  This has been tested in the Supreme Court and upheld.  The Pack would be a state law, whereas the elector's right to choose is a federal law.  Federal law trumps state law. 

It is kind of like how a mail truck has the right of way over a police car or ambulance, because it is a federal vehicle and the others are not.

[RSL]

To be fair, James has provided plenty of personal info in the past. He is a cool guy.  We just happen to (politely) disagree politically.

I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography. But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.

[JoeKitchen]

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).

Both Trump and Obama drew a red line in the sand in the Middle East.  Obama did with Syria, and then, when Syria crossed it, Obama did nothing.  Not that I wanted a war with Syria, but if you are going to make a threat and not keep it, you make the country look weak and people will start to walk over you.   Best not to say anything. 

Trump said that if any Americans were killed, the USA would retaliate.  An American contractor was killed by Iranian backed forces last week near Kirkuk.  So, unlike Obama, Trump followed through.  Now, I certainly don't want a war with Iran, but threats and deterrents don't work unless you have the resolve to take action.   I would rather have this then ... just sending them a few palates of unmarked currency and hoping for the best. 

Furthermore, Iran was far from under control.  Have you missed the few stories on oil tankers being taken over?  Have you missed the stories on Iranian back militias causing havoc?  The fact is, evil people dont stop being evil just because you leave them alone.  Chamberlain taught us that with appeasement. 

[JoeKitchen]

Here's an interesting question concerning the pack. 

Lets say a state votes for the republican but the national popular vote was for the democrat.  In the state, who's party's electors will be the ones who vote?  Will the republican party electors be sent to DC to vote?  Since the state voted for the republican, I would assume under law the republican party electors would be the ones that would have to be sent. 

In case you dont know, the electors of a party are some of the most ardent supporters of that party, which is why it was futile to try and get the electors to change there vote in 2016.  I just cant imagine, given the fact that electors are allowed to vote for whom them choose under federal policy, that the electors would actually follow through in this situation (or if the parties were reversed) and vote against their party. 

Has this been addressed in the pack?

[Rob C]

Ain’t that the truth. In politics, and in personal relationships.

Yes, it's a lesson learned from having lived long enough, and in several different sets of circumstances, to see it happen before your very eyes.

[Alan Klein]

I know James is a good guy, Slobodan. I even like his photography. But I think everybody posting on The Coffee Corner should say where they're from and how old they are. That has nothing at all to do with their photography, but it has plenty to do with their political arguments.

+1  Knowing what country you;re from puts understanding on that person's perspective. 

[Alan Klein]

Here's an interesting question concerning the pack. 

Lets say a state votes for the republican but the national popular vote was for the democrat.  In the state, who's party's electors will be the ones who vote?  Will the republican party electors be sent to DC to vote?  Since the state voted for the republican, I would assume under law the republican party electors would be the ones that would have to be sent. 

In case you dont know, the electors of a party are some of the most ardent supporters of that party, which is why it was futile to try and get the electors to change there vote in 2016.  I just cant imagine, given the fact that electors are allowed to vote for whom them choose under federal policy, that the electors would actually follow through in this situation (or if the parties were reversed) and vote against their party. 

Has this been addressed in the pack?

That's why it will become a constitutional issue.  If the state allows the losing party's electors to go to Washington, rather than the winning electors, the voters from the majority winning party will sue in court claiming their voting rights have been taken away.  The State in effect reversed the vote of their state. I just can';t imagine the Supreme COurt allowing the losing electors to vote for the president.  What kind of voting rights is that?

[LesPalenik]

  In any case, I suspect Americans will start pulling back soon.  Then when  you'll have to spend more of your own money and blood defending yourselves, you'll miss the days when America was the world's policeman.

One way or another.

Iraq’s Parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country Sunday in reaction to the American drone attack that killed a top Iranian general.

Lawmakers approved a resolution asking the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/iraqis-vote-to-kick-us-troops-out-following-killing-of-soleimani/

[Craig Lamson]

The problem with this is that, by and large, “states” are arbitrarily drawn and aren’t individuals of singular mind and concern.  To say that “California” would determine national elections is irrelevant - the national concerns of one person in San Francisco vs one person in Lancaster CA are as different in some as they are mine, in Austin, Tx and Alan’s in NJ, or some other person in Wyoming.  What actually ends up happening is that rural communities aren’t given equal footing in the sense that a farmer in Idaho has the same impact as a tech magnate in San Jose, but rather that farmer has an impact that is proportionally *greater* than the man or woman in CA.

Why are we to value milk over silicon?  Wheat over fruit?  Just because 40 million people live within the geographical division we call “California” is no reason for them to have less representation when choosing a national leader than the good folks of North Dakota, is there?

I had a nice, long and detailed post written and I closed the window by mistake so I'll keep it short and sweet since I don't want to type it all again.

The system works and unless you plan on ditching the Republic of States in favor of the People's Republic the systems works perfectly. Each STATE is afforded the exact same number of elector votes for he President of the UNITED STATES as they are members and votes in both the House and the Senate.  No state is worth more or less than any other. As an Individual you are granted a one man, one vote compact within each STATE to vote for EC electors.  Your state decides how that vote is used.  No one is disadvantaged.  Everyone is treated equally.

Now if you want to change the system, have at it.  The framers gave us a process to do so.  Get the votes and you can amend the constituition.

The 270 pact is an interesting attempt to end run the constitution but I don't think it will suceed either on getting enough States to agree or pass muster from The SCOTUS.

Finally in answer to some other posters, I'm 67, and live in Indiana.  I have voted for Carter, Carter, Reagan , Bush , Perot, Clinton, Bush, Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump

[DP]

An American contractor was killed by Iranian backed forces last week near Kirkuk. 

everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians

[Alan Klein]

One way or another.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/iraqis-vote-to-kick-us-troops-out-following-killing-of-soleimani/

Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi  legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites.  The article should have stated that.  That's poor journalism and slanted news.   

[Alan Klein]

Only the majority Shiite Iraqi legislators voted for the Americans to leave. All the Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi  legislaters didn't even show up for the vote because they don't want America to leave. They're really afraid that once America leaves they will be abused by the majority Shiites.  The article should have stated that.  That's poor journalism and slanted news.   

That was 60 years ago.   Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later.   In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics,  not what happened 60 years ago. 

The only question for America is what we want to do about it. Does it make sense for us to be involved at all? Or should we just let all the parties Fight It Out Among themselves

[JoeKitchen]

everything was / is a proper payback for Mosaddegh... Americans and British started it... not Iranians

Going all the way back to 1953 are we.  Give me a break. 

You sound just as foolish as those old Cubans in Miami that cant get over something that took place 60 years ago.  Let at least keep things relevant to the last decade or so.  And by the way, the Iranian people are just as pleased as we are over this.  It's really the oppressive Mullahs that are at odds here. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Going all the way back to 1953 are we.  Give me a break. 

You sound just as foolish as those old Cubans in Miami that cant get over something that took place 60 years ago.  Let at least keep things relevant to the last decade or so.  And by the way, the Iranian people are just as pleased as we are over this.  It's really the oppressive Mullahs that are at odds here.

Interesting because it has also looked to me that it's the USA that can't get over what happened 60 years ago. Seems like you guys took it really hard when Castro tossed out the New York mafia. 

[JoeKitchen]

Interesting because it has also looked to me that it's the USA that can't get over what happened 60 years ago. Seems like you guys took it really hard when Castro tossed out the New York mafia. 

I want us to get over it too. 

Well I don’t know.  Opening up Cuba would sky rocket Cuban cigar prices, something that I would not want to see even though I have a hefty collection.   

In all seriousness though I think it would be better.  However the swing state of FL has a lot of sway right now, so those angry Miamians are getting there way.  If FL was a reliant red or blue state, the embargo would be over by now. 

[Robert Roaldi]

That was 60 years ago.   Your rationale is why Sunnis and Shias are still fighting 1400 later.   In any case what iran is doing in the middle east is about power politics,  not what happened 60 years ago. 

The only question for America is what we want to do about it. Does it make sense for us to be involved at all? Or should we just let all the parties Fight It Out Among themselves

Insofar as Iran is concerned, shouldn't we at least go as far back as the Shah. You seem to not like going back into history, but all you're doing is selecting the cut-off date that suits you. Why do you assume your date is correct.

I don't understand your comment about it being about power politics. Of course that's always part of the mix. What is wrong with that, it seems to be good enough for the USA. Why aren't other powers allowed the same motivations. That doesn't mean it can't be about other things too. Why is the USA aligned with Saudi Arabia? Is it because they're such good guys.

I can't begin to answer the question about whether the US should be involved. I thought that backing out of these issues was part of Trump's election platform. It's not as if the involvement of states outside the region have helped things very much.

[Alan Klein]

Insofar as Iran is concerned, shouldn't we at least go as far back as the Shah. You seem to not like going back into history, but all you're doing is selecting the cut-off date that suits you. Why do you assume your date is correct.

I don't understand your comment about it being about power politics. Of course that's always part of the mix. What is wrong with that, it seems to be good enough for the USA. Why aren't other powers allowed the same motivations. That doesn't mean it can't be about other things too. Why is the USA aligned with Saudi Arabia? Is it because they're such good guys.

I can't begin to answer the question about whether the US should be involved. I thought that backing out of these issues was part of Trump's election platform. It's not as if the involvement of states outside the region have helped things very much.

Why stop at the Shah that we put in power?  Let's go back a little further, - "Following the abdication of the shah in 1909, the Majlis placed his 6-years-old son, Ahmad Shah on the Iranian throne. World War I took place during his reign and Iran declared neutrality. However, it didn't stop the British forces and they occupied many parts of Iran, which caused the Great famine of 1917–1919 and death of 2 million Iranians."  Yep.  The Brits, again. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire


The point is history creates the present.  Not much you can do to change it.  However, what's going on has to be dealt with within the current situation whatever caused it.  Iran has been trying to control the Middle East for their benefit. Nothing wrong with that.  However, if it's against our interest, then we conflict with them.  It's the way of he world.  They're not wrong. But neither are we.  Both sides look to advance their interests.