Trump Thread

[Husar]

At some point I fully expect Trump to call a press conference, lean into the mic, and scream "THE ARISTOCRATS".

That was a humorous post, you're a high quality humanoid.

[Kralizec]

This is US law, there is no "plain meaning". Donation of money means money with no strings attached, contribution expects interest.

Case in point on no plain meaning: Thing of value.

Property, not info.

Almost at the entirely at the beginning of that article:
"The following is an example of a state law on anything of value:"

And so far, all people here have been talking about is the campaign finance angle.


You don't see something intrinsicly bad about accepting help from a foreign government in a domestic election?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't see something intrinsicly bad about accepting help from a foreign government in a domestic election?

Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.


Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?

[Sarmatian]

Foreign news coverage is not normally something a campaign can control. It is not something to be accepted or rejected between principals. In itself it cannot be exchanged as a thing of value, and it is publicly available, and static once promulgated. Conspiracy to fix positive coverage between a campaign and foreign media, maybe it is covered by other election law, but under this one you would probably need adjacent factors.

The mere existence of coverage is clearly not prosecutable under this regulation.

What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".

[Gilrandir]

Trump, aka Gollum:

[Sarmatian]

I just read the emails Donald Jr released and laughed out loud. I'm certain he sent money to Nigeria at least once in his life. I mean, "Russian Crown Prosecutor"?

Daddy doesn't think I'm smart. He favours Ivanka all the time. I'll show them when I end up owning half of all oil in Nigeria...

[drone]

I just read the emails Donald Jr released and laughed out loud. I'm certain he sent money to Nigeria at least once in his life. I mean, "Russian Crown Prosecutor"?

Daddy doesn't think I'm smart. He favours Ivanka all the time. I'll show them when I end up owning half of all oil in Nigeria...

Behind his back, apparently the administration staff calls him Fredo. Not kidding.

[Montmorency]

Probably it was never presented as coming from a foreign government. And they were primed to assume that there was international "dirt" to be had on Hillary Clinton via the Clinton Foundation.


Of course, even if you DO accept that argument, it doesn't say much for their level of naivety or their competence does it?

In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Shockingly on the nose.

What is not omitted is admitted (I do find that concept interesting, as it is the other way around in European law, and I presumed it was similar in common law). Your definition of "anything of value" is too broad legally. A pep talk, a morale boost could be "of value".

Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?

The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.

[Sarmatian]

In the emails, Rob Goldstone, claimed the information was part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Shockingly on the nose.

Well, to have a collusion with Russia, you actually have to collude with Russia. Russian crown prosecutor doesn't really cover that :D.

I'm not certain any laws were broken here. Kind of like talking about snatching someone's purse and not doing it. This is something you pay political consequences for, not legal.

Didn't we have threads here on the differences between common and Continental law?

The definition is supposed to be broad. On the other hand, the existence of foreign people outside the US could in itself somehow be of benefit to a campaign. That doesn't make it prosecutable the way a discrete transfer of items would be. As I said, the difference between off-the-cuff moneymaking advice and actually transferring currency.

I'll take your word for it, as my understanding of common law is much worse than my knowledge of continental law, which is pretty limited
itself.

It's just that it doesn't make sense logically. Anything can be "of value", it's such a subjective criterion. Let's say Trump got some information from a foreign national - how do you decide if it was of value, meaning how do you decide if it had influence in Trump winning the election?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Of course it is subjective. That's what gives it flexibility, if the argument made is successful to a judge or jury, then it is illegal. Otherwise, it isn't.

The only other option when writing the law is a never ending list of codes that try to cover every last nuance and variance of real world situations. Oh, did this particular instance not exactly fit any of the definitions? Let him go, and in the near future we better add another definition in there.

[Montmorency]

Well, to have a collusion with Russia, you actually have to collude with Russia. Russian crown prosecutor doesn't really cover that :D.

I'm not certain any laws were broken here. Kind of like talking about snatching someone's purse and not doing it. This is something you pay political consequences for, not legal.





I'll take your word for it, as my understanding of common law is much worse than my knowledge of continental law, which is pretty limited
itself.

It's just that it doesn't make sense logically. Anything can be "of value", it's such a subjective criterion. Let's say Trump got some information from a foreign national - how do you decide if it was of value, meaning how do you decide if it had influence in Trump winning the election?

Sorry Samaritan, the phone are my post, so I'm just going to refer you to the application of the "golden rule" against absurdity in statutory interpretation.

Example to consider on common law, recently the New Hampshire legislature passed law to allow killing a fetus to be criminally prosecutable. To exempt abortion, they used language exempting pregnant women's "any act" from consideration as murder, manslaughter, etc. they quickly corrected the language, but if it had been used in trial the golden rule would not actually be seen to grant pregnant women immunity in crimes.

Sorry about that

[Kralizec]

Trump's healthcare overhaul is essentially dead.

I read that his next idea is to simply repeal the ACA with a two year delay, giving congress time to work on a replacement which would take effect after the 2018 midterms elections. I don't think that idea is going to fly, because there's no reason to believe that moderate Republicans, who opposed the bill because it would lead to millions of uninsured, will have any confidence there will ever be a GOP-only effort that they can get behind.

If we look broader than the GOP, it's doubtful that even a single Democrat lawmaker will cooperate because:
1. Nobody asked for their input before
2. The whole enterprise is an en excercise in Damnatio Memoriae. They will not cooperate with anything that is sold as a replacement, rather than an improvement of Obamacare.
3. Health care is a continuing embarassment for the GOP. The Republicans passed multiple repeal bills during Obama's presidency, knowing that he'd veto it anyway. Trump promised that a seamless repeal & replace would take place in the first month of his term. He also promised it would deliver better healthcare, for more people and at lower prices- a promise that flatly contradicts basic Republican ideas and was which was never going to happen by relying 100% on the GOP members of congress.

[Montmorency]

Meanwhile, some research on the fundamental supra-partisanship of democratic legislating:

To what extent has centralization of power in Congress enabled majority party leaders to shepherd their programmatic platforms into law? To address this question,
we examine congressional votes on all enacted laws from 1973-2014, as well on the subset of landmark laws identified by Mayhew (2005). In addition, we analyze the efforts
of congressional majority parties to enact their legislative agendas between 1993 and 2017. We find that legislating in recent congresses is nearly as bipartisan as it was
in the 1970s. Most laws, including landmark enactments, continue to garner substantial bipartisan support, and laws are rarely enacted over the opposition of a majority
of the minority party. Furthermore, there is no evidence that majority parties have gotten better at enacting their legislative programs. In fact, contemporary
congressional majorities fail in enacting their agenda items at rates that are equivalent to (and often inferior to) benchmarks set in less party-polarized congresses.
When majority parties succeed in legislating on their agenda priorities, they usually do so with support from a majority of the opposing party in at least one chamber
of Congress and with the endorsement of one or more of the opposing party’s top leaders.

The majority is not enough, people.

[Husar]

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major...hy-2014-4?IR=T

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US.

[Montmorency]

It makes perfect sense given that both parties are in the pockets of big business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major...hy-2014-4?IR=T



So it's really nice to know that stomping poor people and the middle class further into the ground gets bipartisan support in the US.

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

[Husar]

We discussed this very paper in 2014, so I'm more interested in hearing how the findings have been expanded and corroborated since then.

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.

But we're talking about slightly different things, how agendas are constructed (and the 2014 study points out it's lobbying groups in general, not just big business) and how agendas are legislated in the chambers of Congress between parties.

Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:

"When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster...

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

[Montmorency]

Yes we did, that's how I knew about it. And that was exactly my point, that the findings of your linked research don't do us much good if they are not cross-checked with the findings of the old paper to see which kind of legislation exactly gets the bipartisan support. Bipartisan support is not inherently a good thing after all. If killing five million people got bipartisan support you surely wouldn't celebrate that as a victory of democracy or whatever exactly you were insinuating.



Eh, no, not according to this direct quote:


Of course you have to factor in that people who work 3 factory jobs to feed their family have a much harder time organizing politically than those who call their wealth manager twice a day to hear how their money multiplies itself. Of course the latter will also tell you how they work 80 hours a week....in lobbying groups to get more legislation that makes their money multiply faster...

The point that we are talking about slightly different things seems a bit desperate since I was obviously aware of that. I wasn't saying your research is wrong, I was saying it is pointless in terms of achieving the goal of a better democracy if you ignore the other factors and parts of the legislative process. Which brings us right back to the point that your study should have done the corroboration work you asked for and checked what kind of legislation gets the bipartisan support and who benefits from it.

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

[Husar]

You have to recognize the different scope? Research doesn't have to be about what's good or bad in life or the dialectic of What Is and What Should Be, it can just dig up patterns on how things work in practice, and about different aspects of the whole.

The specific study I posted is relevant now as applied in the context of Republican struggles to get much done while controlling the government, and isn't designed to consider why parties do the things they do or how representative of their constituents they are. Those are different subjects that need separate research.

Yes, absolutely, it might just be that your post gave me the wrong idea about what you wanted to say. To me it looked a lot like "see, bipartisanship isn't dead since politicians get a lot done in a bipartisan way". And my response was meant to be that it may be a useless or incomplete study if the things that do get done in a particular way are the "wrong" things or the things that are not of particular public interest. Because then the important big issues may not fall into the relevant category of things that can (only) get done in a bipartisan way. That's why the nature of the legislation that makes up this bipartisan majority of legislature might also be important. Perhaps the reason they don't get anything done is exactly the nature of what they're trying to get done.
I also didn't post the other study to say why parties do what they do, but to show what kind of issues do get done (tendentially of course).

Take the ACA for example: https://www.healthreformvotes.org/co.../h165-111.2010

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is. On issues like health care and aimmigration, the two parties are more or less polar opposites whereas on other issues like corporate tax cuts they may actually agree (or did agree until recently).

Therefore the issue of the bill may be just as important in whether the findings of the study apply to it or not. Of course when the majority is not very large, a few stray voters can ruin the vote for the majority like we see now, but even that may simply be due to the nature of the issue at hand. When lives are at stake, an individual congressman may be more likely to stray from the party line than when the vote is about whether the bluebird will become the next animal of the month or whether the tax rate for the coal industry will be cut from 22% to 21.5%.

So just to make things more clear, how do you interprete the study and what can the GOP learn from it or how can they use it to their advantage?

[Montmorency]

The implication to take from the study was just that it isn't (only) Republican incompetence that explains why they couldn't figure out how to "Repeal and Replace" most of Obama's signature legislation by now.

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes. So a lot may simply depend on how devisive the issue is.

Here is a good summary of the findings. Between 1972-2012, the study found that there were 10 landmark bills passed in both chambers of Congress that involved the majority "rolling" the minority, and that most attempts by the majority to roll the minority in passing "landmark" laws failed over this period, and that controlling both chambers over just one did not improve this much, and that there isn't much difference in roll successes or failures between landmark and non-landmark legislation, and that the vast majority of landmark laws passed in both chambers involved strong bipartisan support. The 10 exceptional bills:

Those ten successes include the Family & Medical Leave Act, the Motor Voter Law, and the omnibus crime bill passed by the Democrats in the 103rd Congress; Medicare Part D and the second round of the Bush tax cuts passed by the Republicans in the 108th Congress; the Class Action Fairness Act passed by the Republicans in the 109th Congress; the PAYGO rules passed by the Democrats in the 110th Congress; and the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and SCHIP reauthorization passed by the Democrats in the 111th Congress.

I don't know about the earlier ones, but under Obama the famous ones like Dodd-Frank and Obamacare involved the use of uncommon procedural rules and heavy campaigning and solidarity that consumed the 111th Congress/early Obama administration.

For your pleasure on "why"s, here's something on how "Koch network" funding (as opposed to mere grassroots polarization) must explain some of the shift of the Republican Party to the radical right.

[Beskar]

The biggest problem is the name. Trumpcare is an oxymoron.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Your study says that most bills only get through with both a government and opposition majority, but for the ACA for example that doesn't seem to have been true, in fact I can't find a single Republican under the Yes votes.

Arlen specter switched from Republican affiliation to Democrat after some 30 odd years, I think less than a year before Obama care vote.

Also senator Bunning did not show up to the vote to potentially prevent closure. Because of that the RNC cut off all funding to him and primaried him as if he caused obamacare. Funny enough, he endorsed an outsider named rand Paul who beat the establishment candidate. Rand Paul was on of the four senators who ended up blocking the GOP efforts to kill obamacare....

[Montmorency]

Donald Jr. is not Fredo because Fredo was passive, tragic, and isolated from the events unfolding around him

Makes sense to me.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've never seen these films.

[Strike For The South]

They insist upon themselves.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Happened to see that not only does Larry King have an online political show, but that he recently interviewed Ron Paul.

I remember in 2012 when he seemed so refreshing for speaking about the shady the government does. Now it just seems like a severe case of 'Whataboutism'.

I miss 2012.

[Strike For The South]

The "shady " that the government does is generally derided by those who have never had to make an actual decision in their lives. Ron Paul is a hack who was never above giving pork to his district.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump is certainly showing a weakness of the American system.
If their is no "political will" to stop possible corrupt practices, misinformation and illegal activity; the President is essentially untouchable.
Can he preemptively pardon individuals? Apparently yes. Ford did it, Bush did it and I see nothing stopping Trump from doing it.
Good luck to America in this developing Constitutional crisis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The "shady shit" that the government does is generally derided by those who have never had to make an actual decision in their lives. Ron Paul is a hack who was never above giving pork to his district.

Yes, but at the time it seemed he was the only one who even acknowledged the history. I remember listening to the boos during the debates when he was the only candidate advocating for less foreign intervention.

And of course he was consistent. There's a great video from 1988 where he tells a fat person to lose weight and stop asking taxpayers to pay for his fatness.

Basically, I'm just saying its important to remember the outsiders who came before Trump. The Paulites were just as loyal as the Trumpists are today.

[Hooahguy]

Trump is certainly showing a weakness of the American system.
If their is no "political will" to stop possible corrupt practices, misinformation and illegal activity; the President is essentially untouchable.
Can he preemptively pardon individuals? Apparently yes. Ford did it, Bush did it and I see nothing stopping Trump from doing it.
Good luck to America in this developing Constitutional crisis.

He is essentially untouchable because the ruling party doesnt have the political guts to do anything about it. The political hellstorm that will arrive if the GOP ever decided to impeach Trump is worse than just letting him do his thing.

[rory_20_uk]

He is essentially untouchable because the ruling party doesnt have the political guts to do anything about it. The political hellstorm that will arrive if the GOP ever decided to impeach Trump is worse than just letting him do his thing.

I wonder whether they are calculating - almost hoping - that in the mid-terms the democrats will win enough seats to have the majority and then they can be the ones to impeach. They've a pretty good chance of winning the House at least and they only need 51 seats to progress impeachment to the Senate. If that were to occur he'd be so busy fighting investigations and impeachment along with the compulsory business that nothing else would get done.

Then assuming (a big assumption) that there are insufficient flat earther / anti-immunisation / mouth-breathing hicks to give him another 4 years we can all draw a line under the four years where the entire Trump cabal clasp their Presidential Pardons for all that happened in the four years.

[Strike For The South]

Yes, but at the time it seemed he was the only one who even acknowledged the history. I remember listening to the boos during the debates when he was the only candidate advocating for less foreign intervention.

And of course he was consistent. There's a great video from 1988 where he tells a fat person to lose weight and stop asking taxpayers to pay for his fatness.

Basically, I'm just saying its important to remember the outsiders who came before Trump. The Paulites were just as loyal as the Trumpists are today.

I mean consistent in the fact he punches down. I would argue that the Trumpites are more loyal than the Paulites. Nationalism is much more powerful than taxition.