Decency, Trump and Obama.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2017, 01:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where have you read me mention impeachment?

Well, I did. Collective guilt, I guess.

(I admit again I don't know how you handle things - I kinda know he probably already would have been in Western Europe - but that this is mostly wishful thinking on my part regarding Trump. Obviously I have to adapt my picture of your democracy more towards Bulgaria.)

Isn't there really a law regarding abuse of power for personal benefit?

Quote:Richard Briffault, an expert in government ethics at Columbia Law School, told AFP that Trump's use of the presidential bully pulpit to defend his daughter's business "was inconsistent with any notion of the ethical obligations of a public official".

Link

...from what I understand, were he a government official this (and some other things) would be sufficient reason to ask for resignation - but it isn't for a president. Rules are more lenient towards the president then for his own cabinet members. Seems odd.

[*bfine32*]

(03-09-2017, 01:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Any time someone violates the Constitution it is based on interpretation. Some are just more cut and dry than others.

Once again poor wording on my part. When I said one's I meant individual's. Many parts of the Constitution and cut and dry and those that are not will be interpreted by SCOTUS or clarified with additional legislation.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-09-2017, 02:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I did. Collective guilt, I guess.

(I admit again I don't know how you handle things - I kinda know he probably already would have been in Western Europe - but that this is mostly wishful thinking on my part regarding Trump. Obviously I have to adapt my picture of your democracy more towards Bulgaria.)

Isn't there really a law regarding abuse of power for personal benefit?

Link

...from what I understand, were he a government official this (and some other things) would be sufficient reason to ask for resignation - but it isn't for a president. Rules are more lenient towards the president then for his own cabinet members. Seems odd.

Well duh.  Everyone knows to adapt to Bulgarian democracy when speaking of the US.  

and cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President once they are confirmed. Not the same as being elected. Of course anyone can ask anyone else to resign.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2017, 02:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, I did. Collective guilt, I guess.

(I admit again I don't know how you handle things - I kinda know he probably already would have been in Western Europe - but that this is mostly wishful thinking on my part regarding Trump. Obviously I have to adapt my picture of your democracy more towards Bulgaria.)

Isn't there really a law regarding abuse of power for personal benefit?

Link

...from what I understand, were he a government official this (and some other things) would be sufficient reason to ask for resignation - but it isn't for a president. Rules are more lenient towards the president then for his own cabinet members. Seems odd.

I've mentioned it before, but it isn't bad for a reminder. The president, as a person holding a constitutional officer, is not a contract employee and is not subjected to confirmation by the other branches. Therefore, there are no conflict of interest rules regarding the office. Senators and representatives have rules regarding this that have been set up by themselves, but the president has never had something like this.

Now, there are some broad guidelines in the Constitution regarding CoI, but they are geared more towards foreign emoluments (which is currently a case in the court). Also, and here is the really fun part, the president's immediate circle may or may not be subject to ethics rules. This may be something we will see in the courts in the near future. And, if they are subject to the rules, it is up to the president on whether to act on violations to those rules.

This is the problem as it stands with our Constitution and our current government. Our Constitution was set up with the idea of a weak executive and a small central government. That is no longer the case and the rules regarding these things are, IMHO, inadequate.

[Griever]

i just wonder why trump wants congress to investigate the wiretapping, if trump has proof that it was done...

[hollodero]

(03-09-2017, 02:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well duh.  Everyone knows to adapt to Bulgarian democracy when speaking of the US.  

and cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President once they are confirmed.  Not the same as being elected.  Of course anyone can ask anyone else to resign.

Sure everybody can. I hereby ask Sessions to resign - yup, worked, I could do that. 
What I meant was there would be sufficient reason for Congress to pursue dismissal, things that usually end with resignations due to immense political pressure. Pressure that is higher towards cabinet members than towards the president. I might understand why this is so, I guess Belsnickel explained it quite well - but I still think it's odd.

(03-09-2017, 02:36 PM)Griever Wrote: i just wonder why trump wants congress to investigate the wiretapping, if trump has proof that it was done...

Is there anyone who actually believes he has any proof?

And again, I don't get how things are done - but if there was anything to see, couldn't one simply ask Sessions to release that information (was Trump Tower tapped, who ordered it and so on...)? It seems an investigation would just waste a lot of money that could be saved by simply making this request. To me, but I'm a simple mind.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2017, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure everybody can. I hereby ask Sessions to resign - yup, worked, I could do that. 
What I meant was there would be sufficient reason for Congress to pursue dismissal, things that usually end with resignations due to immense political pressure. Pressure that is higher towards cabinet members than towards the president. I might understand why this is so, I guess Belsnickel explained it quite well - but I still think it's odd.

I guess it's because you're thinking of a parliamentary system where the PM would be responsible to the legislature more directly. The presidential system lacks that direct accountability.

[GMDino]

(03-09-2017, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure everybody can. I hereby ask Sessions to resign - yup, worked, I could do that. 
What I meant was there would be sufficient reason for Congress to pursue dismissal, things that usually end with resignations due to immense political pressure. Pressure that is higher towards cabinet members than towards the president. I might understand why this is so, I guess Belsnickel explained it quite well - but I still think it's odd.


Is there anyone who actually believes he has any proof?

And again, I don't get how things are done - but if there was anything to see, couldn't one simply ask Sessions to release that information (was Trump Tower tapped, who ordered it and so on...)? It seems an investigation would just waste a lot of money that could be saved by simply making this request. To me, but I'm a simple mind.

[JustWinBaby]

The tweet itself would not seem to be grounds for impeachment. However, if the WH were to interfere in any way with the investigations, and/or Trump would lie before Congress (seems like a reasonable possibility if he ever testifies)....then you have grounds for impeachment similar to with Slick Willy.

[Rotobeast]

(03-09-2017, 02:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Is there anyone who actually believes he has any proof?

[Dill]

(03-08-2017, 07:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So he's making career politician's uncomfortable, to include members of his own party. Remeber when folks said that would be a good thingYou didn't answer the Stock Market question. Just went on something about a 18-wheeler

 I don't remember anyone but Trumpsters saying it would be a good thing to make career politicians uncomfortable, but I doubt many think it a good thing to make career politicians uncomfortable by undermining the US intelligence services, including the majority of Fox News commentators.

The stock market has responded somewhat to continued good employment news and perhaps the hope of more financial deregulation.  What is that a sign of to you? 

A child driving an 18 wheeler would make career truckers "uncomfortable", along with most normal drivers.  Some, though, would love to watch folks' heads explode as the kid's truck careens down the highway.  He hasn't hit anyone yet.

But you don't seem to think Trump is a child, or especially incompetent, or perhaps even if he is, a president really isn't in position to do much damage to foreign or domestic policy.




 

[Dill]

(03-09-2017, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the problem as it stands with our Constitution and our current government. Our Constitution was set up with the idea of a weak executive and a small central government. That is no longer the case and the rules regarding these things are, IMHO, inadequate.

A question for you, Bels.

So many of the things Trump has done so far were once agreed upon as "out of bounds"; no president did them, so there was no need for legal restriction.

Along with those are actions which, though not prescribed, came to be respected and practiced by everyone, like releasing  tax returns.

I am curious if you think that one consequence of the Trump presidency will be tighter restrictions on the executive and perhaps some added requirements for future candidates, such as a law specifying release of tax forms and the like and further specification of what might count as "emoluments."  The public undermining of the Intel services--in favor of unvetted tabloid-level conspiracy theories no less--may also get Congress thinking of further restrictions if people can get past their astonishment. An intel-fueled policy disaster would hasten that.

Johnson's actions in the Vietnam War prompted the War Powers Act. Nixon's actions brought restrictions on the president's powers to surveil. Given those presidents far greater statecraft and relative mental balance compared to Trump, I am wondering what impetus the Trump presidency will give Congress to start eliminating grey areas and unspecified powers.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-10-2017, 08:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I am curious if you think that one consequence of the Trump presidency will be tighter restrictions on the executive and perhaps some added requirements for future candidates

Some would probably argue that is not a consequence, but a benefit.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-10-2017, 07:46 PM)Dill Wrote: The stock market has responded somewhat to continued good employment news and perhaps the hope of more financial deregulation.  What is that a sign of to you? 

"Continued" good employment?

Otherwise, I'd say it's a sign of favoring pro-growth policies.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2017, 03:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I guess it's because you're thinking of a parliamentary system where the PM would be responsible to the legislature more directly. The presidential system lacks that direct accountability.

Read and registered.

It still seems like abouse of office to me, though...  . I mean, could a POTUS appear in a commercial? Maybe lie in one of these bathtubes in the sunset that somehow represent an end to erectile dysfunction (I mention that because to me this is maybe the most bizarre symbolization in the whole commercial world)? Could he hold a press conference in an overall saying "Godaddy.com" or something like that?
If not, I still feel he also can't use his office to slam department store chains for not selling daughter stuff. But OK. I realize I'm beating a dead horse.

[hollodero]

(03-11-2017, 08:24 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: "Continued" good employment?

Otherwise, I'd say it's a sign of favoring pro-growth policies.

...seems like an ok word to me.

I honestly don't know if it's fair that he takes credit for that. How fast does an economy react to new policies with new hirings. But it's probably in the eye of the beholder.

[BmorePat87]

(03-11-2017, 08:24 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: "Continued" good employment?

Otherwise, I'd say it's a sign of favoring pro-growth policies.

(03-11-2017, 09:35 AM)hollodero Wrote:

...seems like an ok word to me.

I honestly don't know if it's fair that he takes credit for that. How fast does an economy react to new policies with new hirings. But it's probably in the eye of the beholder.

Business may have anticipated these deregulations after the election, so January and February hirings could absolutely be from Trump. They could also just be continued growth from the last few years. Trump is inheriting a good economy and policies that let businesses know that there is less oversight and restriction on them will absolutely cause them to do more. 

The other side of the coin would just be, are we deregulating too much? Are jobs worth the potential risks and the hit to the environment?

[hollodero]

(03-11-2017, 09:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The other side of the coin would just be, are we deregulating too much? Are jobs worth the potential risks and the hit to the environment?

Oh I shouldn't even get started on this. Cutting regulations is the "right's" (meaning the economic-liberal's  ) allrounder. The left has those too (just you wouldn't know, for you have no left), sure, but this deregulation talk is puzzling. As if regulations solely were in place to put obstacles to economy.

No one even seems to ask the question you're asking. Why are these regulations there in the first place. Mainly so that consumers and employees don't get screwed over, for ensuring public and worker's safety, for environmental protection, to make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes and so on. And some of them are probably useless. 

And whoever believes in a completely free economy probably believes all of them are useless, for a company that lets their workers perish, pollutes and transfers profits to the Caymans gets "bad reputation" anyway and hence couldn't compete on the free market. As if.

Regarding jobs, from earlier times one can say completely full employment is not the best thing for an economy too. When everyone knows he gets a job anyway, there's not too much incentive for many to do a good job. Sad, but true.

Finally, what the US seems to need are better paid jobs, not just "jobs". Needing three of them to get by is not the solution either.

[Belsnickel]

(03-10-2017, 08:23 PM)Dill Wrote: A question for you, Bels.

So many of the things Trump has done so far were once agreed upon as "out of bounds"; no president did them, so there was no need for legal restriction.

Along with those are actions which, though not prescribed, came to be respected and practiced by everyone, like releasing  tax returns.

I am curious if you think that one consequence of the Trump presidency will be tighter restrictions on the executive and perhaps some added requirements for future candidates, such as a law specifying release of tax forms and the like and further specification of what might count as "emoluments."  The public undermining of the Intel services--in favor of unvetted tabloid-level conspiracy theories no less--may also get Congress thinking of further restrictions if people can get past their astonishment. An intel-fueled policy disaster would hasten that.

Johnson's actions in the Vietnam War prompted the War Powers Act. Nixon's actions brought restrictions on the president's powers to surveil. Given those presidents far greater statecraft and relative mental balance compared to Trump, I am wondering what impetus the Trump presidency will give Congress to start eliminating grey areas and unspecified powers.

It is interesting how many of the things that we saw as necessary to place the president above reproach were based entirely on tradition and were not, in fact, codified. A lot of people just didn't realize that. The issue is that a lot of the things that people are having trouble with, we don't know who has the authority to codify anything against the behavior.

Congress has certain authority with regards to the POTUS, but do they have the ability to codify any of the traditions that have existed? We can't really be certain at this point. It would likely require a constitutional amendment, but that would not likely happen.

(03-11-2017, 08:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Some would probably argue that is not a consequence, but a benefit.

Indeed.

(03-11-2017, 09:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Read and registered.

It still seems like abouse of office to me, though...  . I mean, could a POTUS appear in a commercial? Maybe lie in one of these bathtubes in the sunset that somehow represent an end to erectile dysfunction (I mention that because to me this is maybe the most bizarre symbolization in the whole commercial world)? Could he hold a press conference in an overall saying "Godaddy.com" or something like that?
If not, I still feel he also can't use his office to slam department store chains for not selling daughter stuff. But OK. I realize I'm beating a dead horse.

The issue is that it seems like abuse of power because your ethical code would lead you to that conclusion, as it would for many other people. The problem is that there is nothing by law that would be an issue for many of these things. Just about everyone agrees with the position that it would be an abuse of power, but that doesn't really mean anything until the next election comes around and people voice their opinions. Of course, that doesn't even mean it will make a difference at that point, either.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-11-2017, 09:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Business may have anticipated these deregulations after the election, so January and February hirings could absolutely be from Trump. They could also just be continued growth from the last few years. Trump is inheriting a good economy and policies that let businesses know that there is less oversight and restriction on them will absolutely cause them to do more. 

The other side of the coin would just be, are we deregulating too much? Are jobs worth the potential risks and the hit to the environment?

We'll see.  Usually about 18 months is when I'd say a POTUS "owns" that economy. But I've never seen this reaction to an election - they are reacting to policies expected to be enacted, and for that matter the impact/outcome....you just really don't see that. I think businesses are dramatically re-thinking their 3-5 year plans created under a Obama/Clinton outlook. But you don't just flip the switch on an investment, and I'm not hiring people today to run a machine that won't be delivered and installed for 12 months.

Consumer confidence, business confidence, jobs and markets are all pointing toward optimism around more pro-growth policies.  There has been a very clear shift in optimism with Trump's election, and when businesses are optimistic about prospects they invest and hire.  Mirroring the Obamaconomy isn't going to cut it - we want considerably better growth, jobs (labor participation) and wages.

As for deregulation, tough to say.  I do think it's one lever used to favor (or punish) some industries vs. others, along with promoting other agendas/policies.  And if you're job is to regulate, then you are going to regulate if you want to continue to get paid - in other words, you'll never meet a regulator who won't say they need more people to find more things to regulate.

One of the few things I've agreed with Trump on I thought was great - for every new regulation, let's eliminate two.  Basically help pay for what's needed by getting rid of the wasteful and ineffective.