|
Echo Chamber posted:I'm the guy who didn't care for Keith Olbermann and thought he was part of the problem with cable news during his MSNBC days. He was a blowhard for sure and there were the aforementioned petty slapfights, but there were few, if any, times you could claim he didn't do his homework. That's what I liked him for.
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
I like Keith Olbermann because he's Tom Jumbo-Grumbo, and I think that's the best reason really.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:How did the US end up with a system where if the election is essentially stolen, the people who stole it basically still get to hold on to it by dumping a few people at the top? Because the line of succession was never really meant to be a response to our current situation. It's something that exists to ensure continuity of government, nothing more. The check that was in place to prevent our current situation was.... wait for it.... the electorial college. Never mind how antiquated the idea of ignoring the popular vote is, the electoral college had ONE JOB and this was it. That, more than anything, means it should go. This check on power doesn't work anymore and is actively doing more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/862139988548485125 (this tweet can be used as evidence that either Keith Olbermann rules and is awesome, or that he is crazy and dumb.)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Never mind how antiquated the idea of ignoring the popular vote is, the electoral college had ONE JOB and this was it. That, more than anything, means it should go. This check on power doesn't work anymore and is actively doing more harm than good. Even in some magical dreamland where the EC does something, what would they do? It's not like they're going to be all "Now now, you guys elected an unqualified tiny handed orange narcissist and we're just not having it. Instead, enjoy Bernie!" We'd have ended up with President Cruz or Koch or something equally horrifying.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Never mind how antiquated the idea of ignoring the popular vote is, the electoral college had ONE JOB and this was it. That, more than anything, means it should go. This check on power doesn't work anymore and is actively doing more harm than good. Honestly even if the electoral college worked ideally, it would still be inadequate for the current situation since so much of the most damning poo poo is only coming out after they'd already cast their votes. I mean yeah, all that stuff was ALREADY THERE before the election but investigations take time and it's entirely possible that not enough hard evidence would be produced until it's too late for the EC to do anything about it. There needs to be a mechanism in place where more than just a few scapegoats get punished when it's clear that the corruption runs all the way down to the bottom. Like, it's not as if the Republicans weren't engaging in voter suppression tactics and other electoral fuckery before Trump came along. "The system exists to serve only our interests" is at this point a fundamental aspect of their political strategy. If major, comprehensive electoral reform doesn't become the #1 issue in the US after this administration, then I feel like maybe the US is pretty much done as a functioning democracy. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I'm the guy who didn't care for Keith Olbermann and thought he was part of the problem with cable news during his MSNBC days.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The rundown of the line of succession for the Presidency during the main segment was pretty depressing. How did the US end up with a system where if the election is essentially stolen, the people who stole it basically still get to hold on to it by dumping a few people at the top? In Canada or the UK, if poo poo like this happened, they have another election. VP is explicitly there for when the President bounces due to death, incapacitation, or impeachment. Speaker of the House is a broken down, cheap knock off Prime Minister and is pretty much the official most representative of the overall electorate left in the government after the POTUS and VP are out. It is pretty much impossible to dump anyone into the position of President Pro Tempore of the Senate. They're just the most stubborn old man in the majority, having been there the longest and wanting nothing more for those young 60 year olds to get off their drat lawn. If we're having constitutional/electoral reform the current line of succession is way far down on the list of things that should be changed. Azhais posted:Even in some magical dreamland where the EC does something, what would they do? It's not like they're going to be all "Now now, you guys elected an unqualified tiny handed orange narcissist and we're just not having it. Instead, enjoy Bernie!" The Electoral College has to vote for someone who was on the ballot, so President Cruz or Koch would still be impossible in the mythic event of the Electoral College waking from it's 140 year slumber. Gyges fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
I can only assume the line of succession was determined at the end of a very long meeting when everyone really wanted to go home but one guy kept saying "Ok, ok. But whatever if that guy dies too?" so everyone just kept naming positions while desperately wanting to leave.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The Electoral College has to vote for someone who was on the ballot, so President Cruz or Koch would still be impossible in the mythic event of the Electoral College waking from it's century long slumber. Not that it isn't entirely academic, the Supreme Court has ruled that the electors are not allowed to vote for whomever they want, and the political parties can get a promise from the Electors that they will only vote for the nominees. And if they don't, they'll be removed and replaced with Electors that will. So fundamentally the electoral college is entirely pointless since they're legally bound to vote for whomever was elected anyway. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I can only assume the line of succession was determined at the end of a very long meeting when everyone really wanted to go home but one guy kept saying "Ok, ok. But whatever if that guy dies too?" so everyone just kept naming positions while desperately wanting to leave. The first 4 or so make sense, then it quickly turns into a random cabinet member generator. Really though, you need a literal Nixonian situation for the line of succession to actually make it past VP without the country imploding into chaos as dudes who nobody knows start become President. Gyges fucked around with this message at 00:23 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I can only assume the line of succession was determined at the end of a very long meeting when everyone really wanted to go home but one guy kept saying "Ok, ok. But whatever if that guy dies too?" so everyone just kept naming positions while desperately wanting to leave. To be fair this is nothing on poo poo like the line of succession for the British royal family. Like if the roof had collapsed at the royal wedding and everyone was killed, they still would have immediately known who was next in line for the crown. It makes sense for a line of succession to exist in the event of some unexpected disaster. The problem is that it's the ONLY mechanism that currently exists for replacing a US president outside of the standard election cycle. I mean hell, if someone in congress resigns/dies they call a special election for their seat. Why does this not apply to the executive branch?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
In the original version of the system, the President was the one who won the most votes, and then the Vice President was the one who won the second most votes. They changed things later when they realized it could be a problem to have a President and Vice President who were bitter, bitter rivals (also you can just imagine all the extra assassination attempts from the second in line). The idea after that was that the vice president would still implicitly have the approval of the public if he was elected alongside the president, but then Nixon appointed his own VP with no vote involved before he resigned, so it's pretty unlikely that the line of succession will ever get past the VP. The constitution wasn't really designed to be as fair as possible, but above all things, it always expected that some kind of idiot lunatic wouldn't be put in charge.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:To be fair this is nothing on poo poo like the line of succession for the British royal family. Like if the roof had collapsed at the royal wedding and everyone was killed, they still would have immediately known who was next in line for the crown. I refer you to the documentary "King Ralph" for an example of this process
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:To be fair this is nothing on poo poo like the line of succession for the British royal family. Like if the roof had collapsed at the royal wedding and everyone was killed, they still would have immediately known who was next in line for the crown. It makes sense for a line of succession to exist in the event of some unexpected disaster. The problem is that it's the ONLY mechanism that currently exists for replacing a US president outside of the standard election cycle. I mean hell, if someone in congress resigns/dies they call a special election for their seat. Why does this not apply to the executive branch? There are mechanisms in place to replace members of the line of succession. If the VP becomes President a new VP is appointed with the approval of the both the House and Senate. If the Speaker is gone, they are quickly replaced with a new election in the House. If the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is gone, it's just the next most senior guy. After that it's Cabinet members who all get replaced via nomination and confirmation. The only time we ever had to go past the elected VP was the time Nixon and Agnew were proto-Trumping their way through Washington.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
I wonder if the strategy was actually to choose an even less desirable VP as a defense to impeachment, especially after nobody that would've "balanced out the ticket" was willing to associate with the campaign. Still, even at his worst, Pence seems less insane than Trump, and then after that, Paul Ryan is a downright functional human being, which isn't saying much, but it's still worlds better than Trump. More than anything, I just want the human embodiment of the ultimate expression of dysfunctional corrupt politics to be taken down.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I wonder if the strategy was actually to choose an even less desirable VP as a defense to impeachment, especially after nobody that would've "balanced out the ticket" was willing to associate with the campaign. See if anything people like Pence or Ryan are worse, because they're just as awful, but appear more palatable to the masses and so are unlikely to do anything as mind-bogglingly stupid as Trump to get themselves booted out of office. Hell they could probably win themselves a second term just by seeming relatively sane compared to Trump, while still pushing the hard "gently caress the poor/minorities/women" Republican agenda. Basically a Pence or Ryan presidency would be Bush 2.0. Trump at the very least is SO toxic that he might take the whole party down with him.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I wonder if the strategy was actually to choose an even less desirable VP as a defense to impeachment, especially after nobody that would've "balanced out the ticket" was willing to associate with the campaign. That might be the case, but it was hardly a strategy. Trump seems to have basically chosed Pence at random, and tried to go back on the decision after he made it. Just so happens that most Republicans are human garbage, but more functionally competent than Trump so the same could be said of anyone else he might have chosen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I wonder if the strategy was actually to choose an even less desirable VP as a defense to impeachment, especially after nobody that would've "balanced out the ticket" was willing to associate with the campaign. Pence was chosen to appeal to the Conservatives who were uncomfortable about Trump but think the exact same way Pence does about abortion and LGBT stuff. The people who told me that the RNC was a "gay fest" because Trump said "LGBT... Q" once in his speech and a crazy gay guy spoke. He was there to assure them all that Donald Trump wasn't some closet liberal and that if he won he'd put in their crazy conservative Supreme Court judge.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Even in some magical dreamland where the EC does something, what would they do? It's not like they're going to be all "Now now, you guys elected an unqualified tiny handed orange narcissist and we're just not having it. Instead, enjoy Bernie!" Gyges posted:
Faithless electors are a thing that exists. It wouldn't have gotten someone else that wasn't on the ticket elected, but they didn't have to vote for Trump in a lot of cases. Azhais posted:Not that it isn't entirely academic, the Supreme Court has ruled that the electors are not allowed to vote for whomever they want, and the political parties can get a promise from the Electors that they will only vote for the nominees. And if they don't, they'll be removed and replaced with Electors that will. That's not what the link you used said. quote:The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. It says that the electors are not required to be free to act. In other words, it's not unconstitutional for states to enact laws against faithless electors. It does not say that electors are compelled to vote who is on the ballot or to their party lines in absence of those laws. 21 states do not have any laws about faithless electors. In some states that DO have those laws, the vote is simply voided rather than any penalty or replacement. Some states have replacement, some have fines (none have been collected thus far). There were, in fact, 7 faithless electors in this past election (5 against Hilary and 2 against Trump.) Some of the votes were invalidated outright, some were invalidated and recast with replacement electors, some have been fined but are appealing. So, there was enough to prevent Trump from getting the 270 votes needed for an election win as remote as the possibility was. Granted, it would have went to the house to decide at that point so he would have likely been chosen anyways. But there would have be repercussions (especially now as more and more scandal grows.) In the end, the RNC is to blame for not putting their house in order. They had no obligation to nominate Trump. This did so because it was the best possibility of granting them a 'win', but it's only a paper win that will likely end up hurting them more in the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
The secret is to be a rich, old, male Republican so that by the time the bill comes due for your actions you're one foot into the grave and give no fucks about the world burning around said grave.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I wonder if the strategy was actually to choose an even less desirable VP as a defense to impeachment, especially after nobody that would've "balanced out the ticket" was willing to associate with the campaign. Paul Ryan is a Randian piece of self-serving toady trash, I would never compliment him so far as to call him "functional" or "human". I'm not going to pretend that anything would really change or get much better in the event of trump getting impeached, but it would make me feel so much better to see him thrown into the trash / prison where he belongs, to see him recorded in history as the abject failure he is, and to laugh at his loving retard supporters. bull3964 posted:In the end, the RNC is to blame for not putting their house in order. They had no obligation to nominate Drumpf. This did so because it was the best possibility of granting them a 'win', but it's only a paper win that will likely end up hurting them more in the long run. See, I want to believe that their malice and/or incompetence will have consequences for them, but in my heart I know that the people that vote for these shitbags will always vote for "the conservative party" before they would ever dream of votin' for them LRBRLZ. raditts fucked around with this message at 03:28 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
If they continue to purity test their base they won't have much of one to keep them in power this time next decade.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Celery Jello posted:If they continue to purity test their base they won't have much of one to keep them in power this time next decade. This time next decade a quarter to half of their base will be dead or nearly there, and the damage will have been done. In two to four years' time they will do fifty years' worth of damage to the federal government, and make it their sole mission to retard its repair/revival.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
raditts posted:Paul Ryan is a Randian piece of self-serving toady trash, I would never compliment him so far as to call him "functional" or "human". Thanks, you said it before I could. He was so excited to strip millions of people's healthcare away. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Thanks, you said it before I could. Ryan's wife constantly looks like he went cheap on the Stepford conditioning.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
raditts posted:He was a blowhard for sure and there were the aforementioned petty slapfights, but there were few, if any, times you could claim he didn't do his homework. That's what I liked him for. I lost a bit of respect for him after he attacked Thon and called the students that had just raised $13Million for pediatric cancer research "pitiful morons". All because some awful poo poo happened at PSU before most of those kids even started attending the college.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
The presidential line of succession is really only there for Designated Survivor-type scenarios. Under less extreme circumstances, if the Vice Presidency is vacant when the president resigns or dies, and the Speaker become POTUS, the House will simply elect a new Speaker who will then be next in line, unless if he or she is ineligible, until the new POTUS nominates a new VP. It's a bit more complicated when we're talking about Acting Presidents if the president is ill. Conventional wisdom is that the Speaker has to resign from congress to "act" as president. But some constitutional nerds (but not many) have pointed out the paradox of the Speaker "acting" as POTUS if the Speaker isn't the Speaker anymore. I'm not a constitional lawyer, but I imagined the Speaker resigning from their congressional seat, but not the Speakership itself; not unlike how the President of the Senate isn't a Senator. But I haven't seen anyone else propose this solution to this hypothetical. It may even be less democratic, but I simply don't think the Speaker and pro tem should even be on the list because of the whole separation of powers thing. Just make it the VP, then the cabinet. also: 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The rundown of the line of succession for the Presidency during the main segment was pretty depressing. How did the US end up with a system where if the election is essentially stolen, the people who stole it basically still get to hold on to it by dumping a few people at the top? In Canada or the UK, if poo poo like this happened, they have another election. I'm rooting for the timeline where impeachment of Trump & Pence happens just before the midterms, the dems take over, and after confirmation in the Senate we get President Pelosi.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:It's a bit more complicated when we're talking about Acting Presidents if the president is ill. Conventional wisdom is that the Speaker has to resign from congress to "act" as president. But some constitutional nerds (but not many) have pointed out the paradox of the Speaker "acting" as POTUS if the Speaker isn't the Speaker anymore. I'm not a constitional lawyer, but I imagined the Speaker resigning from their congressional seat, but not the Speakership itself; not unlike how the President of the Senate isn't a Senator. But I haven't seen anyone else propose this solution to this hypothetical. Pretty sure you don't overlap your offices if you're moving on up due to line of succession. You resign, get sworn in, and the official chart treats the minute or two of time when you're just Joe Citizen, not a member of the government, as if it doesn't exist. Here's video of the only time in American History this has happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCaWDyDCrpk
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
I always dread knowing when the link I'm clicking on is a West Wing clip.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
The difference between fantasy and reality being that the GOP would prefer preemptively launching all the nukes and ending the world to *temporarily* giving up the presidency to a ~librul~. I remember an episode in that arc where Josh Lyman confronts the senate majority leader in the bathroom and harangues him about his suspicion that they were going to fast-track legislation through while they had the legislative and executive branches, and the guy looks at him like he has eight heads and says that the Republicans are in *awe* of how much trust Bartlet just placed in them and democracy and shuts him down cold. It's fun to imagine politicians having a moral compass that every so often unfreezes and points True North. =/
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
The West Wing is a neat show, but Aaron Sorkin has a repetitive, sanctimonious style that gets really tiresome after a while. It also has a sort of reverence for the government that seems really out of place these days. Of the episodes I've seen, my favorite was the one without any huge drama where all the White house staffers were meeting with wacky special interest groups. I prefer Yes Minister, it's more cynical and focuses on jokes rather than drama. And probably the most fun cynical twist is that at no point do they make it clear which is the ruling party.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
But that's the worst episode of an overrated show because it glorifies the worst map projection.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:But that's the worst episode of an overrated show because it glorifies the worst map projection. Yet said episode features John Billingsley prominently, and you can't help but smile whenever John Billingsley is involved in something.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:President Pelosi. Dear loving god no.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
raditts posted:Dear loving god no. Why do a lot of people reflexly think this is bad?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
It also has Nick Offerman talking about the plight of a wolf in modern America and Sam Lloyd urging the Whitehouse to pay more attention to UFOs.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
raditts posted:Dear loving god no. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the... dinosaur. President Trump, man. It'd be an improvement. I don't know if the Democrats would hamstring the 2020 primary, though.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
I can't think of much that would be worse than trump, but if we're imagining optimal alternate universes here, I feel like we could aim higher.oohhboy posted:Why do a lot of people reflexly think this is bad? Everything I see from her seems to suggest she embodies the Democratic Party that wants to put forth the exact minimum amount of effort required to still claim to be "progressive."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:27
|
|