91–100 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not allow you to buy stock based on what Trump picks.
Ha. Well in that case an ios app is small ball. For corruption on DJT scale, just become one of the top bag holders of $TRUMP to meet him and get corruption tips from the man himself. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-dishing-out-mar-a...
Here are the lessons: 1. The Supreme Court is not some neutral arbiter of a hallowed intractable document. They are political actors. Just like history books now write about the disastrous Court of the 1850s that went completely off the rails (Reconstruction wasn't much better), history will likewise write about the Roberts court as (IMHO) the worst in American history, particularly Citizens United and Trump v. Unite…
Did he say, "Congress should have authorized the Iran War," or did he say "Congress should have to authorize the Iran War." Those are two very different statements.
More to the point, did he say he would personally vote to authorize the Iran War? Did he say Democrats should vote to authorize the Iran War?
> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying something over and over does not make it true.
No, it's sadly true, the US is regarded as having an old, quaint, constitution that has deep flaws. Eg, an inability to enforce anti corruption at state and federal levels and a weak ineffectual process of bringing heels to boot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does making this rule matter? The pardon makes it all irrelevant.
My hot take is that the presidential pardon will be eliminated in our lifetime.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until money and politics are commingled there will be no solution
Personally I think they’re inherently linked. How exactly would it look like for money and politics not to be linked? Money is political. There are some low hanging fruit though like corporate personhood and super pacs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's sadly true, the US is regarded as having an old, quaint, constitution that has deep flaws. Eg, an inability to enforce anti corruption at state and federal levels and a weak ineffectual process of bringing heels to boot.
Yet it has produced the most fruitful country the world has ever seen. The genius of the document is that it assumes the corruption of a centralized power and provides the proper counter measures to return the power to the people.
> provides the proper counter measures to return the power to the people.
Wake me up when that happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect in the aftermath of this administration, the power of the President as a whole is going to be massively stripped back.
That seems highly questionable given how little pushback Trump got in congress, and it was almost entirely along party lines. What makes you think they'll suddenly grow a spine in 3 years?
Here are the lessons: 1. The Supreme Court is not some neutral arbiter of a hallowed intractable document. They are political actors. Just like history books now write about the disastrous Court of the 1850s that went completely off the rails (Reconstruction wasn't much better), history will likewise write about the Roberts court as (IMHO) the worst in American history, particularly Citizens United and Trump v. Unite…
> For example, Hakeem Jeffries saying Congress should've authorized the Iran War. Did he say, "Congress should have authorized the Iran War," or did he say "Congress should have to authorize the Iran War." Those are two very different statements. More to the point, did he say he would personally vote to authorize the Iran War? Did he say Democrats should vote to authorize the Iran War?
Jeffries does not support the war with Iran; he has strongly criticized it as a "reckless war of choice". He is actively leading efforts to pass a War Powers Resolution to force the immediate cessation of hostilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems highly questionable given how little pushback Trump got in congress, and it was almost entirely along party lines. What makes you think they'll suddenly grow a spine in 3 years?
The issue is people are afraid of him. There was plenty of Republican opposition to Trump but people either fell in line or got pushed out. (The main problem is that people didn't have the courage to oppose him all at once, he can easily handle one threat at a time.) I suspect even of Republicans voting in the lines today, they don't like him or his behavior but are too self-interested to do anything about it. When a…