Bush and Cheney Impeachment round table.

ripsrips

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Posts
1,315
Media
10
Likes
2,459
Points
443
Location
California (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
They're all the same...Democrats & Republicans...they will, lie, cheat, steal, kill to stay in power and they will still get away with it.
So get used to it until "everyone" Senate & Congress gets voted out so we can all start over...fat chance of that ever happening...not unless a :BoomSmilie_anim: hits DC and they're all there and they all get fried.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
They're all the same...Democrats & Republicans...they will, lie, cheat, steal, kill to stay in power and they will still get away with it.
That doesn't mean that they're the same. They're both bunches of dirtbags, but not in exactly the same ways. The real trick in American politics is not to decide who's the scumbucket and who isn't - if you think somebody isn't, you're overlooking something major. The trick is to decide, in any particular situation, which scumbuckets will do the most good, even if it's inadvertent. I suspect that many voters don't realize this. But you can sometimes see it in action. Massachusetts and New York, two states Democratic down to the bottoms of their polluted rivers, very often vote in Republicans at town, city, or state level. It appears that when the usual Democratic graft and corruption become too extensive to ignore, they vote in Republicans for a couple of terms. After the old corruption is turned out, the voters turn to Democrats once again. This doesn't mean that Republicans are necessarily all that much less corrupt than the Democratic machine; it means that the corruption isn't of exactly the same sort. A couple of Republican terms upset the plans of Democratic career feather-bedders, with a consequent drop in Democratic graft. For a while.
 

B_buhballs

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
59
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
151
Pinned back with what? You haven't provided a single (what's smaller than a "shred"? A confetto?) of substance for your agendum. There's no pin.

You're not helping yourself if you dismiss the text of 18 USC 1512 as "confetto" when you were the one who introduced said text as support for your argument. I need do nothing more than ask you read it again, but without assuming your conclusion. This may be impossible for you to do, in which case you can return here to take another shot at me.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
However, such a system can't be grafted onto the US without doing terrific damage to separation of powers. The executive (meaning the head of government, rather than the head of state) in the Westminster parliamentary system is a subset of the legislative branch, and it remains, in certain limited ways, subservient to it.

Kind of, but it's not quite that simple, unfortunately.

In the UK, Parliament is the Legislative branch and the 'cabinet' (in effect) the Executive. The PM, while appointed by and responsible to the Crown is, accountable to Parliament politically. The office of the PM is certainly not accountable to the electorate - not legally or constitutionally anyway.

The PM is also the De Facto (not the De Jure) head of state. This is an evolved role of course, back in the days of (weasel) Walpole and his immediate successors the role of PM wasn't defined as it is now and the role was played in an arguably far more Presidential manner.

The constitution explicitly ensures the supremacy of Parliament. Yet, the PM and the Cabinet are also members of Parliament, the PM controls Parliament's timetable and agenda. Given the wide ranging powers the PM has over Parliament resulting from Royal Prerogative and other constitutional powers, his ministers (and thus indirectly the Civil Service), power of Patronage and so on any true accountability is weak in constitutional terms.

However, effectively, there are considerable checks on the power of the Executive. The PM needs the support of Parliament (and to a lesser degree, his cabinet) to Govern, thus a strange situation exists; Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence (happened last in 1979), effectively sacking the PM. Conversly the PM can (subject to consent of the Monarch) dissolve Parliament and call a General election.

Finally, in addition, generally at least, overwhelming public opposition will cause a PM to back down, a notable recent exception being Iraq. The decision by Blair to ignore the electorate, many of his own ministers, aides etc even though he was under no obligation to listen, cost him his reputation. His tendency of behaving in a manner widely perceived as 'Presidential' didn't help him at all either.

This 'stand off' has generally served the UK well, at least in recent history.

The role of the Lords, or rather, what's left of it is largely one of scrutiny and revision. I can reject bills passed by the Commons but cannot defeat them if the Government is hell bent on it, Parliament will invoke the Parliament Act. That rarely happens, the last time (I think) was the fox hunting ban. The main role of the Lords is as the highest Court of Appeal.

That is, of course, not so in the presidential system. The President's powers in no way derive from Congress, and Congress can't circumscribe them.

True, such a clearly defined separation has advantages and disadvantages, as does any system of course. Of course the functioning of a Parliamentary system isn't so different for most every day practical purposes. The end result is usually the same, fudged policies, nepotism, bungled opportunites, partisan backbiting, interest groups and lobbyists getting in the way.

Britain tried being a republic, more by accident than design a few centuries back for a very short while - but decided against it pretty sharpish.

And that's not a bad thing. Looking back over more than two centuries of American history, I think it's safe to say that the country has had more genuinely bad Congresses than genuinely bad Presidents.

I suspect that's very true, the power of the president being subject to checks and balances (and vice versa) can work for good or ill, I suppose.

So far as a recall process is concerned, I suppose one could argue that knowing one may be subject to being shown the door for, presumably being a putz, may focus one's mind. The downside of course being that those deciding said putzness would likely be doing so based on dubious, partisan grounds. This would surely be a serious disencentive for doing things that, though unpopular may be for the best. Separation issues aside, any such process at this level would be open to such abuse it would surely be unworkable.

Besides, a mechanism for removal of the President already exists.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
That doesn't mean that they're the same. They're both bunches of dirtbags, but not in exactly the same ways. The real trick in American politics is not to decide who's the scumbucket and who isn't - if you think somebody isn't, you're overlooking something major. The trick is to decide, in any particular situation, which scumbuckets will do the least harm, even if it's inadvertent. I suspect that many voters don't realize this.

Slight edit to reflect the way I view politicians....:smile:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
I'd have agreed with you in the past, but it's clear that the present administration is not only (1) obstructing the investigations that could lead to those convictions; but also (2) obstructing "routine" elections by placing litmus-tested political allies in the positions of the federal attorneys whose job it is to prosecute election violations like voter intimidation, caging, etc.

Given that double-whammy, I support impeachment and conviction, although I'm pessimistic about the likelihood of finding 18 Republicans willing to place the Constitution above their party.
Big d mentions the "seperation of powers" in one of his previous posts, but that concept has been severely damaged by the current administration. Unfortunately, the nasty loophole in sep. of powers is that so much of the judiciary is appointed by the executive... and the watchdog offices (Inspectors General) are also political appointees. So, the White House does some political favors, and appoints a Chief and a couple of Justices to the Supreme Court, the top dogs in the Department of Justice, and the DoJ Inspector General.

When some evidence of criminal activity in the White House arises, the Congress (legally) requests information. The White House (illegally) refuses; the Congress requests investigation (as required by law) from the DoJ, which refuses. The IG protects the AG & DoJ, and the SC protects the IG. It's gotten a little to incestuous for my liking.

That doesn't mean that they're the same. They're both bunches of dirtbags, but not in exactly the same ways. The real trick in American politics is not to decide who's the scumbucket and who isn't - if you think somebody isn't, you're overlooking something major.
Every time I make that same assertion, the staunch democrats accuse me of being republican, and the staunch republicans call me a liberal democrat. It becomes so obvious during campaigns, but I often feel like I'm the only one who sees it. It seems like no candidate ever runs on his own merit; they trick the sheeple by saying "yes, I'm a slimebag, but I'm less slimey than the other slimebag, so I'm your guy!" And the sheeple fall for it. Every time.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
That's a good; we can have Al Frankin to host, rush limbaugh to do announcement, and Bill clinton to entertian the lady guests.
Oh dear, don't forget to add ann coulter to do the shrieking... don't want any uncomfortable lulls in the conversation. She'll ensure that the noise level never falls below 256 dB. Plus, it is a bit endearing when she foams at the mouth. Throw in the Witch-face twins (Paula Jones and Linda Tripp) and we've got a PAR-TAY!
 

whatireallywant

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
3,535
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Every time I make that same assertion, the staunch democrats accuse me of being republican, and the staunch republicans call me a liberal democrat. It becomes so obvious during campaigns, but I often feel like I'm the only one who sees it. It seems like no candidate ever runs on his own merit; they trick the sheeple by saying "yes, I'm a slimebag, but I'm less slimey than the other slimebag, so I'm your guy!" And the sheeple fall for it. Every time.

I refer to it as "the lesser of two evils"... I've voted for the lesser of two evils in nearly every election I have voted in. (or at least, the lesser according to me...)

I get really annoyed by the "attack" factor in political ads, and also in political "discussions", which is why I almost never discuss politics unless I pretty much know I'm in a "preaching to the choir" situation. Yeah, that's probably cowardly of me, but that's just how I am. I'm not going to say where I stand here, just that I feel that most elections are for the lesser of two evils.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There's an alterative to "lessor of two evils" voting: vote for a third party. It's what I did in 2004 and it's better than abstaining which is what I did in 2000.