Re: Trump to Win?

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

I see... I hadn't been thinking that, but now it makes sense. Gingrich did mention that we need to bring back something like the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

Problem is, there's no guarantee of who would be put in power once a corrupt pol was brought down. In terms of the legislature, it's up to the states, not the president.

I already noted that some of his plan items can be done through executive order, but there's no way to execute something like term limits without a law on the books. Or lobbying on elections? After Citizens United there's no way to even know where that money's coming from, let alone to limit it.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

I see... I hadn't been thinking that, but now it makes sense. Gingrich did mention that we need to bring back something like the House Unamerican Activities Committee.

Problem is, there's no guarantee of who would be put in power once a corrupt pol was brought down. In terms of the legislature, it's up to the states, not the president.

I already noted that some of his plan items can be done through executive order, but there's no way to execute something like term limits without a law on the books. Or lobbying on elections? After Citizens United there's no way to even know where that money's coming from, let alone to limit it.

I fail to see what HUAC has to do with public corruption. Gingrich's point was regarding domestic terrorism, but the story you linked from the virulently anti-Trump Huffington Post is itself a rewrite of a story out of Clinton operative David Brock's Media Matters boiler room. It is a non sequitur referencing comments taken out of context and not particularly relevant to the matter of public corruption.

I disagree with your assertion that there's little he can do. If he's determined, there are dozens of statutes that could be applied to these tasks. And the presidential bully pulpit along with a newly empowered populist media like the Breitbart operation can do much to reach the people directly to move congresscritters to either accept term limits or be term limited in the next election with Trump stumping for their opponent.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

He can't actually get them off the ballot, though, which is what you're suggesting he could do with an executive order.

That's what made me think if the HUAC comment, he would need a mechanism like that to do the "swamp clearing."

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

He can't actually get them off the ballot, though, which is what you're suggesting he could do with an executive order. That's what made me think if the HUAC comment, he would need a mechanism like that to do the "swamp clearing."

No. I made no such suggestion anywhere. And HUAC is not relevant at all.

The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. The HUAC was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

No. I made no such suggestion anywhere. And HUAC is not relevant at all.

Sorry, just trying to visualize what you're talking about here:

I'm pretty sure you're clued in enough to understand what Gwyn means by using the FBI. Investigating and prosecuting public corruption is a key reason we have an FBI and I'm wondering why that seems illegitimate or outside the pale of presidential behavior to you?
...
I think everybody could get behind that, don't you? I'd much enjoy seeing a few of these corrupted people who sell their public office to the highest bidder do a perp walk twice a week and once on Sunday, wouldn't anyone?

He's talking about cleaning house and you're suggesting he use FBI investigations and trials to do it, which sounds a lot like the kind of political theatre that took place with HUAC. We don't have a precedent for what he's suggesting, and corruption charges are relatively rare in the case of public officials (either because they really are hard to prosecute or due to cronyism), so to see them en mass would be quite a spectacle.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Sorry, just trying to visualize what you're talking about here:



He's talking about cleaning house and you're suggesting he use FBI investigations and trials to do it, which sounds a lot like the kind of political theatre that took place with HUAC. We don't have a precedent for what he's suggesting, and corruption charges are relatively rare in the case of public officials (either because they really are hard to prosecute or due to cronyism), so to see them en mass would be quite a spectacle.

I'm asserting that we enforce the law against public corruption using the investigative and judicial means we use to enforce other laws and prosecute offenses, say like tax evasion and any number of other infractions grand or petty with the same (more, actually) enthusiasm we everyday Americans must endure when we fail to obey the law. It requires no theater and we indeed have precedents galore. The agencies even go so far as to publish annually digests of cases where public officials have been found to be corrupt.

It's not clear to me why this seems to you like such an impractical and impossible thing when we are doing it and have done it. I did not call for show trials or any "en masse" "spectacle." Those were your words.

I expect that should enforcement be applied to Congressmen and Senators, staff and lobbyists with the same vigor and enthusiasm as is applied to lesser offices, then it should not take any great mass of prosecutions to start cleaning house. The same hold true for corporate officers and wouldn't it be wonderful if we could take that challenge on too.

I will admit, I would enjoy the spectacle of the Donald's FBI and Justice Department bagging one particular two-fer.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

I'm asserting that we enforce the law against public corruption using the investigative and judicial means we use to enforce other laws and prosecute offenses, say like tax evasion and any number of other infractions grand or petty with the same (more, actually) enthusiasm we everyday Americans must endure when we fail to obey the law. It requires no theater and we indeed have precedents galore. The agencies even go so far as to publish annually digests of cases where public officials have been found to be corrupt.

It's not clear to me why this seems to you like such an impractical and impossible thing when we are doing it and have done it. I did not call for show trials or any "en masse" "spectacle." Those were your words.

Yep, those are my words, and that's what it would be. Just about everything is these days, I couldn't imagine a corruption trial not being a circus.

That's a really interesting link, but it only shows 111 total public corruption cases in the 229 years since the writing of the Constitution. And these are just cases, not convictions (Aaron Burr was acquitted). If DT is going to clean out the corruption in Washington, he's going to have to more than double our nation's diligence thus far, and he only has eight years to do it.

And even if there were convictions (one, or even a hundred, it wouldn't matter), I'm not convinced that this would well up enough public outcry to force Congress' hand against itself in passing a term limit, or a ban on the revolving door.

In any case, that link is pretty telling if it's an exhaustive list of trials against federal officials. Highly uncommon. Maybe you're right, that one or two high profile legislators being convicted would force the issue on the other 533 senators and congressmen; but I doubt it.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to Win?

Yep, those are my words, and that's what it would be. Just about everything is these days, I couldn't imagine a corruption trial not being a circus.

That's a really interesting link, but it only shows 111 total public corruption cases in the 229 years since the writing of the Constitution. And these are just cases, not convictions (Aaron Burr was acquitted). If DT is going to clean out the corruption in Washington, he's going to have to more than double our nation's diligence thus far, and he only has eight years to do it.

And even if there were convictions (one, or even a hundred, it wouldn't matter), I'm not convinced that this would well up enough public outcry to force Congress' hand against itself in passing a term limit, or a ban on the revolving door.

In any case, that link is pretty telling if it's an exhaustive list of trials against federal officials. Highly uncommon. Maybe you're right, that one or two high profile legislators being convicted would force the issue on the other 533 senators and congressmen; but I doubt it.

You want a comprehensive list, then please do your own research. I made no claim that any of these are definitive, but suit yourself. I think it's an entirely appropriate thing to do and that our issue is not of capacity but of will. And now Trump brings the necessary will to the task and if he's elected, I expect capacity will increase.

I think it's a stellar issue to run on and a wonderful thing to contrast opponents. Why would anyone be opposed to prosecuting corrupt officials? It's curious stand, but that's what you seem to think and you are free to indulge your doubts, BPR. "Doubt makes a man decent."

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

I think it's a stellar issue to run on and a wonderful thing to contrast opponents. Why would anyone be opposed to prosecuting corrupt officials? It's curious stand, but that's what you seem to think and you are free to indulge your doubts, BPR. "Doubt makes a man decent."

I'm not at all suggesting that public officials shouldn't be prosecuted; I'm just not seeing the connection between prosecutions and getting Congress to tie its own hands through term limits and ending the revolving door of lobbying (which I also think are terrific ideas).

It also seems to me to be an exceedingly rare charge to successfully prosecute at the federal level, either for political reasons (quid-pro-quo) or because it is actually difficult to prove.

[bpr]

Re: Trump to Win?

You want a comprehensive list, then please do your own research.

This is a good read.

[gwynedd1]

Re: Trump to Win?

I'm talking about going totally off-script (scrapping the Constitutional duties/powers), and literally declaring that he has the power to do things which the president has no Constitutional right to. That's the only way I see him getting these kinds of things done.

Are you suggesting he use the FBI to dig up/release info on members of Congress in order to expose them, or have a bargaining chip with them so as to get their vote on things they would never go for, like term limits? That'd be kind of the same thing, I guess (different mechanism, same result).

I guess I have to say I don't know what the hell you are talking about again. HRC is certainly outside the law. What is protecting her is the Administration who will not prosecute. All Trump has to do is apply the law. This may impact much more than just her. Of course if its too broad then Congress would resist.If ordinary Americans are being jailed for J walking , and political elites are not, that all he needs, and its all the political class needs to be entirely against him. Think of a Julius II who traded in a currency very different than a Borgia.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to Win?

I couldn't imagine a corruption trial not being a circus.

...

And even if there were convictions (one, or even a hundred, it wouldn't matter), I'm not convinced that this would well up enough public outcry to force Congress' hand against itself in passing a term limit, or a ban on the revolving door.

I posted the list of what Trump wants to accomplish in his first 100 days and there was this jumping to the conclusion that he wants to use dictatorial powers to accomplish it. From that to: "he's going to create another HUAC." Then: "how bad will the witch hunts be?" To: "we'll end up with something worse than what we have now." And: "Congress will never go along with him. It's hopeless, so just give up."

The thought pattern went from jumping to conclusions > assuming the conclusions are true > assuming the worst possible outcome > clinging to the status quo in defeat.

This is precisely the thought pattern behind battered-wife/battered child syndrome: the fear that trying to escape abuse will backfire, or that freedom might be worse than abuse, so just stay with the abuser because while it hurts, it's familiar. It's security. The horses that won't leave the burning barn because it's safe.

This, IMO, is slave mentality. Victims of longstanding abuse are convinced that it's impossible to escape. They tell themselves that it really isn't that bad... maybe things will get better someday...

Our country has collective battered person syndrome from decades of governmental abuse, and the status quo's propaganda machine is playing to people's fears with everything they've got.

Otherwise why complexify and awfulize everything? I simply took Trump's list to mean that he would be introducing legislation to Congress on these matters within his first 100 days, for Congress to vote on. When he said that he would revoke all the unconstitutional executive orders signed by Obama, it means he knows there's a difference between constitutional and unconstitutional executive orders. He'll be getting advice on what he can and can't do by executive order. Items that require passage by Congress will likely be submitted to Congress. Trump's a master negotiator. For all his many faults, that's his biggest strength. He'll make it so that if Congress doesn't play along, they won't know what hit 'em.

If Trump is elected, that alone indicates such a populist rage against the status quo that Congress would be under immense pressure to pass legislation for term limits, end the lobbying revolving door, etc. They will be flooded with letters and calls from their constituents; if they deny them, there will be a slew of anti-corruption Independents running for Congress next time, and people ready to vote them in. I can hear the political campaign ads now: "He voted against term limits," "She voted to continue the corruption in Washington." They won't want to be on the wrong side of those ads.

Trump is offensive, rude, uncouth and has awful hair. But while he might not succeed in getting the corruption out of Washinton, do you see Clinton even trying?

Agree? Disagree?

[touchring]

Re: Trump to Win?

But while he might not succeed in getting the corruption out of Washinton, do you see Clinton even trying?

Agree? Disagree?

Wait till she meets Duterte.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/25/as...e-us-comments/

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to Win?

I guess I have to say I don't know what the hell you are talking about again. HRC is certainly outside the law. What is protecting her is the Administration who will not prosecute. All Trump has to do is apply the law. This may impact much more than just her. Of course if its too broad then Congress would resist.If ordinary Americans are being jailed for J walking , and political elites are not, that all he needs, and its all the political class needs to be entirely against him. Think of a Julius II who traded in a currency very different than a Borgia.

EXACTLY!
this admin - headed by a 'constituitional law' perfessah - who also goes-by the 'nobel peace prize' prez,
has been THE MOST UNLAWFUL ADMIN EVER

while starting EVEN MORE WARS - count em, THREE MORE!!!
even as they abandoned iraq, while 'doubling down' in afghanistan ????
WHERE THE US HAS NO 'vital interests' AT STAKE WHATSOEVER!

AND NOW - thanks to the hillamonster's 'strong foreign policy credentials' (where everything she and john F(raud) kerry have touched-off has gone from bad to butt fugly) we NOW HAVE GO BACK INTO IRAQ?

....
Trump is offensive, rude, uncouth and has awful hair. But while he might not succeed in getting the corruption out of Washinton,

do you see Clinton even trying?

Agree? Disagree?

o'hitlery 'even trying' ? (sarc dutifully noted)

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Riiiight...

when it was THEM - in the 90's, along with obozo from 2009 on, that's turned the entire DC 'establishment' into the

BIGGEST CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE IN WORLD HISTORY!

and i'll just leave this here...

Dilbert Creator Adams Exposes The Real Bully Party

"I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms... I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms."

• Oct 25, 2016 2:47 PM

this says it ALL:
(esp here, on the 'tulip - where we've recently seen some of The Most Outrageous Hypocrisy ever)

Authored by Dilbert Creator Scott Adams,
I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

• If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.
• If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.
• if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.
• On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.
• We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.
• We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that. Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)
• Joe Biden said he wanted to take Trump behind the bleachers and beat him up. No one on Clinton’s side disavowed that call to violence because, I assume, they consider it justified hyperbole.

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Some Trump supporters online have suggested that people who intend to vote for Trump should wear their Trump hats on election day. That is a dangerous idea, and I strongly discourage it. There would be riots in the streets because we already know the bullies would attack. But on election day, inviting those attacks is an extra-dangerous idea. Violence is bad on any day, but on election day, Republicans are far more likely to unholster in an effort to protect their voting rights. Things will get wet fast.
Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence. She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do.
I’ll say that again.
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.
Intentionally.
As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.
I hope you have too. Therefore…
I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms.
I don’t defend Trump’s personal life. Neither Trump nor Clinton are role models for our children. Let’s call that a tie, at worst.
The bullies are welcome to drown in their own bile while those of us who want a better world do what we’ve been doing for hundreds of years: Work to make it better while others complain about how we’re doing it.
Today I put Trump’s odds of winning in a landslide back to 98%. Remember, I told you a few weeks ago that Trump couldn’t win unless “something changed.”
Something just changed.
Read more here...
* * *
You might like Adams' book because Clinton’s bullies have been giving it one-star reviews on Amazon to punish him for blogging about Trump’s persuasion skills.

and what makes this all HILARIOUS, is having watched Wag The Dog last night
for the first time - and how it puts all of whats happened the past few years - but esp since the 90's - quite nicely into perspective (and i'll be watching it again, tonite)

[vt]

Re: Trump to Win?

The Bully party:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1522934...he-bully-party