President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by frank07

As for the pardons - he can only pardon people after they've been convicted, not while they're going through criminal proceedings. If he tried to pardon Manafort and Flynn now, the pardons would be struck down in court. He knows this, otherwise he would have done it.

I don't think this is correct. Nixon was pardoned without being convicted of anything. As a matter of fact, he was never formally charged with anything. He was an "unindicted co-conspirator".

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

Please explain why a vote in a more populous state should carry more weight than a vote in a less populous state.

I fail to see your point. A vote in a more populous state does not carry more weight than one cast in a less populous state now. If the Electoral College was abolished, all votes would be equal.

[frank07]

Originally Posted by HugoHackenbush

I don't think this is correct. Nixon was pardoned without being convicted of anything. As a matter of fact, he was never formally charged with anything. He was an "unindicted co-conspirator".

Very different circumstances.

Nixon's Presidential pardon for all Federal crimes that he "committed or may have committed or taken part in" while in office was really immunity from prosecution dressed up as a pardon.

Ford justified the pardon, calling it "an act of mercy", because he doubted Nixon would get a fair trial, and bringing him to trial would take years, and the country needed to "heal and move on" .... Oh, and there was also the small matter of the 1976 Presidential election.

Trump would have to justify pardoning two of his inner circle accused of treason, money laundering and lying to the FBI, without it a). looking like blatant obstruction of justice, b). getting struck down by the courts on appeal and c). making him look even guiltier.

He wouldn't get away with it. If he coulda, he woulda.

[tsunamiSD]

Trump has again shown his 'know nothing' side - being angry at Bezos because of all of the articles the Washington Post has published that have shown him and his gang to be liars, cheaters, and possibly collusionists with foreign powers - he has been talking about Amazon not paying enough for shipping via the USPS. He has been listening to UPS and FedEx too much, and not to a lot of his own advisors.

Some years ago, a federal commission ruled that package prices only had to cover 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s fixed costs. The other 94.5 percent were put the price of sending traditional mail. USPS likes it that way, as it has a monopoly on sending traditional first-class mail, which lets it raise postage without worrying too much about losing business (email and online billing is a much bigger threat than other terrestrial mail carriers). But it competes with the private sector on carrying packages. Raising prices there could encourage big shippers like Amazon to switch services.

UPS and FedEx, of course, would want the USPS to raise prices so they could...

[frank07]

Originally Posted by tsunamiSD

Trump has again shown his 'know nothing' side - being angry at Bezos because of all of the articles the Washington Post has published that have shown him and his gang to be liars, cheaters, and possibly collusionists with foreign powers - he has been talking about Amazon not paying enough for shipping via the USPS. He has been listening to UPS and FedEx too much, and not to a lot of his own advisors.

Some years ago, a federal commission ruled that package prices only had to cover 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s fixed costs. The other 94.5 percent were put the price of sending traditional mail. USPS likes it that way, as it has a monopoly on sending traditional first-class mail, which lets it raise postage without worrying too much about losing business (email and online billing is a much bigger threat than other terrestrial mail carriers). But it competes with the private sector on carrying packages. Raising prices there could encourage big shippers like Amazon to switch services.

UPS and FedEx, of course, would want the USPS to raise prices so they could...

And to think: two years ago Bezos was viewed as a threat to modern civilization, with Amazon his glorified sweatshop.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by Bosko C

Trump is very dangerous. The world is at risk with him as President. We need to get him out as soon as we can. He is Putin's puppet and will do whatever Russia wants. It is scary that he can launch nuclear weapons whenever he wants. I don't know why he can't be arrested right now. He admitted on TV interview he grabs woman's pussies. That is rape. It is disgusting that someone who is President of the US can do something like that. He should have been disqualified the moment his first victim spoke up. I'm really scared about a war with Russia. Trump is so crazy that I know he will try and start one, Bernie should be the President. I was upset when he lost to Hilary, but will vote for him again next time.

In theory it would be nice to have a quality assurance standard to prevent malevolent cretins from running for high office. In practice, your opinion (or mine) cannot be the governing standard of who is allowed to be the President. That's why the USA has elections; so everyone shares the blame when a dolt like Mr Trump gets in.

Mr Sanders will be rather elderly by the time of the next election cycle and it is potentially an eight year stint.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

There was a time when the USA really did hold a special place in the world. For decades during the height of the Cold War the USA was the guarantor of the freedom I and my generation experienced in Britain as I grew up; same for others in Western Europe. Nothing is for nothing in this life and undoubtedly the USA found it useful to deploy assets on British soil, plus of course British military sometimes assisted US foreign policy, most notably in the Korean War. But although Britain was not getting a free ride, and she paid more and had the most uncomfortable seat (the benefit of the special relationship, you see); it was still a lot better than walking.

Unfortunately, and inevitably, this special place was abused and gradually forfeited over the decades. That sort of special place is earned and earned the hard way. But I have not forgotten looking at the graves in Madingley and I literally could not see the end of them, there were so many. I will always consider America to be special; not even Trump can take that away.

My dad's oldest brother served in the U.S. Army and fought in Europe during World War II, narrowly escaping death several times during the Battle of the Bulge. Later, he participated in liberating some of the camps.

He left the service but stayed in the reserves after that war. (Unlike his brother and my mom's oldest brother who would serve over 30 years as naval officers, and her father who died in harness in 1946 after serving in the Navy since 1917.) My uncle was called up to serve in Korea and transferred to the regular army. He would also see combat duty in Vietnam.

His wife told me after he retired that he felt that he and his brother had been betrayed. They had sacrificed their lives to serve a country whose ideals they believed in only to see the country betrayed and led down a corrupt and immoral path by big corporations and their Congressional lackeys.

Originally Posted by frank07

The electoral college works, even if it has twice delivered a result I was unhappy with.

I am not quarreling with the electoral college or the result, but have grown very tired of the assumption that the votes of 2.9 million people, 2.14% of the total should be ignored simply because they live in California. Actually, Trump drew 3.4 million fewer votes than Clinton in California and lost his home state of New York by 1.5 million votes. In my opinion those voters chose wisely given the chaos, corruption, and wealth transfer from working people to the rich we have seen so far in the Trump Administration.

Democracy rests on the one vote per person principle. The United States is a republic specifically designed to prevent the abuses of demagogues and mob rule, but any system designed by men will fail sometimes. It is working as designed to limit the damage Trump and his Congressional enablers can do.

To my mind saying Trump should win despite getting absolutely clobbered in the truly dynamic states is a bogus and facile argument and I have grown tired of hearing it.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by frank07

My reason for saying the electoral college 'works' is simply this: what if it's our person who wins by losing next time? We'll all be praising the system and the Founding Fathers to the heavens.

Nope. This discussion is in the abstract, nothing to do with who won or lost, when.

Point is the the electoral system inherently values some people's votes higher. You haven't explained why that should be other than that's the way it's always been. But since you have a system where the voting districts are drawn of political reasons not pragmatic ones, anything is possible and apparently acceptable. And one where companies are treated as individuals and Unions are not when neither should be - fairness and equity don't seem to be a underlying principle of US democracy...

That having been said - there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and inner city voters, suburban voters and rural voters all have different and often conflicting priorities. But President should be decided by one US citizen one vote, IMHO

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Nope. This discussion is in the abstract, nothing to do with who won or lost, when.

Point is the the electoral system inherently values some people's votes higher. You haven't explained why that should be other than that's the way it's always been. But since you have a system where the voting districts are drawn of political reasons not pragmatic ones, anything is possible and apparently acceptable. And one where companies are treated as individuals and Unions are not when neither should be - fairness and equity don't seem to be a underlying principle of US democracy...

That having been said - there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and inner city voters, suburban voters and rural voters all have different and often conflicting priorities. But President should be decided by one US citizen one vote, IMHO

As mentioned in my previous post the Electoral College was part of the controls the drafters of our constitution built into the design of the republic to avoid the danger of the tyranny of the majority and large states completely dominating small states. The arguments revolved around a demagogue possibly bewitching one or more large states. In the original design, the framers envisioned state legislatures having more sway over the electors as well. The founders were mean of means and property. The constitution was designed to contain the emerging impulse of the small farmers and tradespeople who had done most of the actual fighting during the recent Revolution from transferring wealth to themselves via the ballot box. All the talk of democracy was a smoke screen. Remember that the slaveholders were granted representation in proportion to the number of slaves they held while quite obviously those slaves were to have no political power.

The recent break with tradition by the SCOTUS in regards to corporations is an aberration brought about by the appointment of a bunch of corporate lawyers to the court. The problems that have resulted from this ruling will likely cause a constitutional amendment restoring the old milieu to be adopted in the not too distant future. For one thing, it is becoming increasingly evident that some corporations are using the Congress to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by frank07

As I'm sure you know, the electoral college is an archaic weighting system dating back to 1789, originally designed to keep the then still fragile union together, guaranteeing that one state's vote counted as much as the next's.

Until 2000, the electoral college was the appendix of the Presidential voting system - there, but essentially useless. Lose it and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. No President had lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college.

Five men have been elected president despite losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Adams was selected by the Congress from among the 4 men receiving votes although Andrew Jackson had the most popular and electoral votes, but not a majority. Hayes was elected as a result of a backroom deal ending Reconstruction in the South.

Republican mandates have a lot of odor attached.