| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it would have been better to fire Comey on his first day in office, but it had to be done at some point. Better late than never in this case.
Sorry, man. I'm just not buying that.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its predjudicial to judge people by their words! And actions. So unfair. No president gets treated more unfairly than Trump.
|
As for Comey, we know he is corrupt because he testified to Congress that he must inform the congressional oversight committee for intelligence on a quarterly basis on any new counter-intelligence operations. He opened the probe into Trump in July 2016, yet he never told Congress. He deliberately hid that from the people who should be informed. That includes Ryan, Pelosi, McConnell and Schumer. Why was he intentionally hiding what he was doing? Why did he think he could hide the FBI’s activities from any oversight? Why did he wait until March 2017 to finally inform Congress?
Because he is a swamp dweller.
You are very confused.
Investigating possible crimes by the Trump campaign is not a "counter-intelligence operation".
Not only can the FBI keep the existence of criminal investigations secret... it is standard practice. You generally don't want possible criminals to know that you are investigating them.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like we are back to, "guys, guys, Trump was joking..." Its well beyond tiresome of Trump never being held accountable for anything......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ima gonna leave this here while I check out a noise over by the curtains:
NYTimes: "Comey, Unsettled by Trump, Is Said to Have Wanted Him Kept at a Distance"
So, question about "Trump was joking"... do they have tapes where they could hear it said in an obviously joking tone? Or is this more of the "Well, it's OBVIOUS to anyone that that's what he meant" stuff they keep hoping we'll believe?
Looks like we are back to, "guys, guys, Trump was joking..." Its well beyond tiresome of Trump never being held accountable for anything......
The establishment Republicans are just as bad as Drumpf, as far as I'm concerned -- just in a colder, more conventional way. If we get out of the next 4/8 years with our republic intact, we need to make sure that everyone remembers who stood up for the people, and who licked the boots of the great con man and dictator wanna-be.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its predjudicial to judge people by their words! And actions. So unfair. No president gets treated more unfairly than Trump.
You know, for a supposed strongman president Trump sure does like to act like a six old child that complains about "unfairness" when his teacher send him to the office for bullying the other kids.
He actually reminds of Cartman know that I think about it. I guess the media is Kyle in this analogy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"RESTHPECT MAH ATHORITYYY!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its unfortunate really since as much as 'I dont like Donald Trump'..... I do 'love the concept of Donald Trump'
Career politicans on the whole do very little of real worth when in power since they view the whole thing as being 'part of their career in politics'....
Bush, Clintons, Obama... etc.... all career politicans and all mediocre at best.
I like the idea of non-politicians in power.... its a shame in the UK that this is very improbable.
In order to be truly great or achieve anything of true worth... you have to be prepared to take significant risks.
99% of career politicians just arent prepared to do this...
If everything goes to pot due to this Trump-Putin thing, the USA will be back to career politicans for the forseeable future
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"RESTHPECT MAH ATHORITYYY!"
"excuse me sir...will you step out of the car?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a non career politician that was a good person? Or at least one that hadn't bullied and manipulated a system while providing absolutely nothing of real value to it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a non career politician that was a good person? Or at least one that hadn't bullied and manipulated a system while providing absolutely nothing of real value to it.
Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha... wait, were you being serious!?!
Where is this unicorn you speak of...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a non career politician that was a good person? Or at least one that hadn't bullied and manipulated a system while providing absolutely nothing of real value to it.
A nice idea in theory, but probably less realistic in practice than Plato's enlightened despot.
One of the main issues with any "non career politician" is that politics requires a very unusual skill set. Trump, and any other high profile CEO, is used to being The Boss, and in fact, that's one of his major problems. He runs -- or ran -- a reasonably tight ship where everyone was supposed to do what he wanted and display personal loyalty to him, at risk, famously of getting fired.
But, really, that's not much different than how Steve Jobs ran Apple, how Bill Gates ran Microsoft, how Martha Stewart ran MSL, how Henry Ford ran Ford Motor Company,... the list is long if not actually endless (because there have only been a finite number of people in the world). The business community loves autarchy.
Politics, especially American politics, is a little different. It doesn't really matter who is President -- he (or she, eventually) still can't fire a Federal judge, or even a sitting Congressman. His ability to make policy is strongly constrained by the fact that any yahoo with $100 can file a lawsuit asking for the policy to be overturned on constitutional grounds, and the person who hears that suit is (by design and construction) completely untouchable by Presidential Power. The President doesn't have the authority to write new laws; he can't even submit bills for consideration (he needs to find a member of Congress to sponsor his legislation for him). All he can do is try to persuade a rowdy bunch of other politicians who are, ultimately, responsible only to their own constituents. Even Paul Ryan can't make the rank-and-file legislators vote the way he wants to, and he's the Speaker of the House.
So the idea that what we need to get decisive action in Washington is someone who has no idea how to get any decisive action done in Washington is.... well, let me say that it is typical for doc roc, in that it's absolutely Alice-in-Wonderland out of touch with reality.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would anyone love the idea of non-politicians in power? What possible value does "hey this field impacts the lives of basically everyone, often in life-or-death ways--let's get some amateurs in here!" have? Sometimes it feels like many people have no real grasp on how governance works, and think that holding office is the sort of thing you can learn in an afternoon with a few Wikipedia articles. Or maybe just falling back on cynicism as a simplification tool? Dunno. Politics/governance a big field where history and complex rules and lots of details are *important*. To be good at it requires its own brand of expertise. And it's weird that politics seems to be the only (or at least primary) field where IF ONLY WE HAD MORE PEOPLE WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS OUR PROBLEMS COULD BE SOLVED! gets widespread traction.
My hot take: the solution to problems in governance isn't to embrace ignorance in our representatives, it's for more of the population to take a hand in learning the specifics of their government's mechanisms. It'll make us collectively much better at understanding what's a problem, why, and how we could move forward. Sadly, I don't know how to make that happen, since getting even a well-functioning lay knowledge (which is where I'd rate myself) can take a lot of time and energy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason 'career politicians' often seem 'powerless', 'mediocre', 'unable to accomplish anything big' is that they are supposed to. With every democratic system they are governing and working the systems tools to keep the system working with new/changing elements. Big changes are not supposed to happen on the whim of a politician - they are supposed to happen through governing systems - if at all.
That might seem terribe slow, too slow sometimes, but putting the power into the hands of a ruler, politician or not, is bound to backfire for at least part of the population - and that part will grow larger by the hour.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding outsider presidents:
When contemplating General Eisenhower winning the Presidential election, Truman said, “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also perhaps one that wasn't a delusional idiot?
Now you're just being unreasonable.
I can't say he's delusional until his wile coyote esque ability to not be affected by gravity as long as he doesn't acknowledge it runs out and he actually does fall.
|
On the original topic
On 8 May Comey testified that the investigation was not pressured in any way.
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.
Since the memo about the Trump-Comey meeting was in January there seems to be difficulty in making the jump that Trump ordered the investigation closed and serves as further evidence that an informal (and legal) request was more likely.
Why would anyone love the idea of non-politicians in power? What possible value does "hey this field impacts the lives of basically everyone, often in life-or-death ways--let's get some amateurs in here!" have?
Because it's better than the system that is deliberately designed to hand the rich all the power to prevent any meaningful change, and is bought from every level all the way up.
There are some fields where talent and knowledge are absolutely critical, and some where you're just outlining a general direction and your Igors will take care of the nitty gritty for you. Politicking lends towards the later.
|
|
What's the cutoff line then? One term as a Senator? Two? A decade in state offices? Where's the line between person-with-valuable-experience and person-corrupted-by-THE SYSTEM? "Career politician" seems like a meaningless bugaboo buzzword to me.
What about jobs technically outside of politics but tightly bound up with it? Say, a big bank exec or a former general? Why isn't that sort of contact considered "corrupting"(looking at you, Flynn)?
On the original topic
On 8 May Comey testified that the investigation was not pressured in any way.
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.Since the memo about the Trump-Comey meeting was in January there seems to be difficulty in making the jump that Trump ordered the investigation closed and serves as further evidence that an informal (and legal) request was more likely.
... or that Comey was lying to avoid embarrassing his boss. That seems to be SOP in the Trump administration, until people wise up that, first, it doesn't actually protect them, and, second, Trump is likely to undercut them for no apparent reason (just to keep everyone off-balance?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basis of the idea of non-career politicians is that they are people like us. People we can identify with. People who understand the conditions we live under. People who would not betray the common man to enrich themselves.
It is a naive thought, of course. But still, it's not a good thing that almost every politician spent their entire lives in conditions that never intersect with those of common people. If the only options you ever get to vote for are excluded from all the problems you face, due to circumstances of their birth and their wealth, the idea of democracy is moot. During Saddam's last elections, the vote was between two parties, one a bit more liberal, the other a bit more conservative, both with Saddam at the helm. That is the logical endpoint of that system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the cutoff line then?
Between the rational people who judge potential politicians on a case-by-case basis based on their experience (in government or not), judgment, and proposed policies -- and, on the other side of the line, wing-nuts who use phrases like "drain the swamp" or "outsider" as a substitute for actual evaluation.
|
|
@BNW Why is it better? I don't look at Trump's bumbling and think "gee, his lying and narcissism is problematic but A+ on the lack of understanding how the system works!" Incompetence doesn't serve any us well.
Do you think being President (or a Senator or Governor or whatever) is merely symbolic? The fact that politics involves delegating to staffers and specialists doesn't remove the absolute necessity for relevant experience and expertise. Otherwise you just get a string of nicer Trumps, who want their national security briefings limited to two pages with bullet points and nice graphs.
EDIT: and who abruptly reverse themselves on everything from tax policy to currency manipulation to trade deals because their knowledge on those topics could fit on a meme.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of non-politicians in power.... its a shame in the UK that this is very improbable.
A 'non politician' in the presidency could well be a good thing... but it should have been obvious that Trump would not.
In order for a 'non politician' to do well in such a position they'd have to be aware of their comparatively limited understanding of government procedure and political maneuvering and take steps to address this. Trump was never going to do that. He seems to believe that he is uniquely gifted, even in areas where he is obviously deficient (e.g. "I have the best words").
Basically, being a 'non politician' is not in and of itself a good qualifier for the presidency. It brings both advantages and drawbacks... but in Trump's case the advantages are minimized (e.g. he isn't independent of moneyed interests... because he IS a moneyed interest) and the drawbacks are out of control.
Really... the issues the president is expected to deal with are so diverse and so complex that all of the presidents you've had have been severely underequipped for the job. Any lack of experience and such is merely a matter of scale.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But still, it's not a good thing that almost every politician spent their entire lives in conditions that never intersect with those of common people.
Is it? Is it also "not a good thing" that most physicians spend their entire lives in conditions of good health?
Public health is a major problem in the United States. Issues like food (un)availability, pollution exposure, unsafe living conditions, and so forth are, well, issues. For some reason, the Professor of Public Health at Whatsamatta U. has no problem understanding that malnutrition in low-income school children is a problem, despite the fact that the last time she skipped a meal, it was because she was a young intern and was working a fourteen-hour shift. She doesn't need to live in an apartment with lead paint peeling off the walls to recognize them as unsafe conditions.
She does, however, need to be fairly well-educated to recognize just how unsafe those conditions are, to be able to devise effective public policy responses, and to advocate for those policies.
Somehow, doctors who are "outsiders" to the conditions they study are still effective, but politicians aren't?
|
|
@Sissyl: I don't see how that follows at all. The average American doesn't have, need, or in most cases WANT the kind of expertise needed to be President. If having that experience makes you too elite to be trusted then let's just cut to the chase and choose President's by lottery. I'm totally on board with criticisms about money in politics & eliminating barriers that make it hard for non-wealthy people to run for office, but that's very different from considering a career in politics suspect in and of itself. EDIT: I understand this isn't the argument you yourself are making, I'm just responding to the school of thought we're both describing.
@Orfamay: I don't disagree, I think that fits nicely with my argument that citizens need a stronger grasp of political intricacies.
An "outsider" President (however you choose to define that) to my mind is actually more vulnerable to being hijacked by advisors with an agenda. Obviously all Presidents have to rely on their Cabinets and which experts they talk to, but the less experience one has going in the more power that gives to the people being relied upon to fill in the gaps.
|
|
Can I reverse this question a moment? Student debt is skyrocketing, yet colleges are paying professors to do research rather than teach day in and day out. Why shouldn't we socialize higher education as well?
As an actual college professor I find this hilarious. Schools provide trivial funding, if that, for research. Schools only provide a variably sized start up package so that the professor can get his lab up and running, a tiny bit of money to attend conferences, and usually a space for an office and lab. Professors are expected to actively pursue NSF and NIH grants to fund there own research, and if they can't...pay for it out of pocket. On top of that, many high profile positions actually REQUIRE grant money for the professor to survive, only paying out half salary with the other half being expected to come from grants.
For many professors, we spent a large chunk of our time endlessly applying for grants, which is a huge laborious process with tons of bureacratic red tape to get through not to mention the huge time sink that is writing the grant itself. Often this ends up as wasted effort, since continual cuts to grant-funding agencies against rising costs of research and competition means that 80% of grants get rejected. To give you a sense, between various job tasks, I regulary put in 12+ hours a day 7 days a week, only a small proportion of which is actually reflected in my salary.
Once/if we get a grant, as much as half of our grant money goes to University overhead. The whole lump sum in general goes straight to the school, which often makes money out of the interest.
And high profile research can often be a major selling point in public media, which can get more students interested in attending your school, and get more alumni excited enough to donate. I know my University loved the free media attention by the new fossil dolphin I published on last year. And a strong research program allows you to involve undergrads into your work, so they get hands on...
Thank you for the response as I did learn things from it. As a Professor I'm sure you are familiar with asking a leading question to stir conversation like throwing a little gasoline on the fire.
In 2009 Democrats held both houses and the Presidency, They could have passed ANYTHING including student loan reform or socializing secondary education. My contention this was never done since universities are bastions of liberal philosophies. The implication of socializing something is the government gets to dictate worth and value rather than the free market. If its okay to tell doctors how much they can charge or be reimbursed, why not do the same to professors and college administrators? Yes it's murky waters since state universities receive significant funding and constraints from the respective state already.
In hindsight, this is sufficiently off topic enough I will refrain from making or accepting further comments off topic from the main discussion, but I am not cutting and running. If this topic or the opportunity to "school me" interests you feel free to open a new topic.
@BNW Why is it better?
Because the system working as intended is supposed to suck for ordinary people while providing advantages to the elite. A career politician acting within the normal channels of the system can't effect any change because those channels were set up specifically to deny any change.
I don't look at Trump's bumbling and think "gee, his lying and narcissism is problematic but A+ on the lack of understanding how the system works!" Incompetence doesn't serve any us well.
It's kind of admirable in the same way that a jackass video is admirable. I mean, you don't know why they're putting flame throwers on roller skates and jumping off that ramp but it's kind of interesting that it actually works and they can actually do it...
Of course, with jackass it's not the audience that you're covering in gasoline...
Do you think being President (or a Senator or Governor or whatever) is merely symbolic?
Largely, yes. I think most of the people in the forum here could manage the job adaquately, even if "holy #()#*$)#*$ i don't know what i'm doing quick, google, who's the worlds premier expert on _______... Bob, get them in here.
Compared to the current administration you'd like FDR inside a week
Otherwise you just get a string of nicer Trumps, who want their national security briefings limited to two pages with bullet points and nice graphs.
I think wanting the right thing done goes further towards getting it than ability.
EDIT: and who abruptly reverse themselves on everything from tax policy to currency manipulation to trade deals because their knowledge on those topics could fit on a meme.
Or because it was a good lie to tell the base. Hard to tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Can I reverse this question a moment? Student debt is skyrocketing, yet colleges are paying professors to do research rather than teach day in and day out. Why shouldn't we socialize higher education as well?
As an actual college professor I find this hilarious. Schools provide trivial funding, if that, for research. Schools only provide a variably sized start up package so that the professor can get his lab up and running, a tiny bit of money to attend conferences, and usually a space for an office and lab. Professors are expected to actively pursue NSF and NIH grants to fund there own research, and if they can't...pay for it out of pocket. On top of that, many high profile positions actually REQUIRE grant money for the professor to survive, only paying out half salary with the other half being expected to come from grants.
For many professors, we spent a large chunk of our time endlessly applying for grants, which is a huge laborious process with tons of bureacratic red tape to get through not to mention the huge time sink that is writing the grant itself. Often this ends up as wasted effort, since continual cuts to grant-funding agencies against rising costs of research and competition means that 80% of grants get rejected. To give you a sense, between various job tasks, I regulary put in 12+ hours a day 7 days a week, only a small proportion of which is actually reflected in my salary.
Once/if we get a grant, as much as half of our grant money goes to University overhead. The whole lump sum in general goes straight to the school, which often makes money out of the interest.
And high profile research can often be a major selling point in public media, which can get more students interested in attending your school, and get more alumni excited enough to donate. I know my University loved the free media attention by the new fossil dolphin I published on last year. And a strong research program allows you to involve undergrads into your
you may want to check out the public education thread, down the hall to the left.
|
|
... or that Comey was lying to avoid embarrassing his boss. That seems to be SOP in the Trump administration, until people wise up that, first, it doesn't actually protect them, and, second, Trump is likely to undercut them for no apparent reason (just to keep everyone off-balance?)
Possibly, but I find it doubtful. This is the guy that reopened the Clinton email investigation days before election based on new information. During testimonies about this decision (paraphrasing here) Comey stated "I follow the letter of the law". There are already statutes that dictate if an investigation is being coerced, it must be reported to the DoJ "immediately". The Trump-Comey meeting is months old and if we are to believe this memo is a smoking gun Comey will essentially plead guilty to several crimes.
I don't think he's worried about how his new boss looks. I think is worried about walking a fine line between keeping secrets and revealing them now he is being subpoenaed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 2009 Democrats held both houses and the Presidency
...But they did not hold a filibuster-proof majority for more than about four months, not counting the time they weren't in session, and of those four months many days were lost because of illnesses. And, as history afterwards has shown, the Republican party was very much willing to filibuster whatever they could.
It takes time to write and vote on legislation. The current Congress, incidentally about four months in right now, has not completely passed a single big bill. This probably would have been easier if the Republican party had actually written a better healthcare bill during the literal years they had since the ACA's passage, or at least made a decent rough draft for it... but all evidence suggests they did absolutely nothing, then cobbled together a tax cut and called it a healthcare bill*.
*Personally, I would call something a real healthcare bill if it does at least one of the following: Reduces costs, improves outcomes, or enables more people to get care. Somewhat impressively, the AHCA does the opposite of all three of these... mostly because it's not a healthcare bill, it's a tax cut for the wealthy that happens to involve tens of thousands of preventable deaths per year and tens of millions of people losing insurance coverage.
And this does matter, mostly for budgetary reasons - passing big things, especially bills affecting taxes, helps them figure out how much they can spend on other things (like student loan reform).
---------------------------
Anyway, back to the Comey discussion, Trump directly said "No" when asked if he asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. That directly contradicts Comey's memo... and could be a trouble spot for him, given that FBI agents' notes are generally acceptable as evidence in court (and Comey was apparently somewhat famous for taking detailed notes on things). Since the President cried wolf too many times, I feel like any court would be more inclined to believe Comey...
... or that Comey was lying to avoid embarrassing his boss. That seems to be SOP in the Trump administration, until people wise up that, first, it doesn't actually protect them, and, second, Trump is likely to undercut them for no apparent reason (just to keep everyone off-balance?)On the original topic
On 8 May Comey testified that the investigation was not pressured in any way.
HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.Since the memo about the Trump-Comey meeting was in January there seems to be difficulty in making the jump that Trump ordered the investigation closed and serves as further evidence that an informal (and legal) request was more likely.
Also that Trump isn't a senior official at the DOJ.
|
|
Because the system working as intended is supposed to suck for ordinary people while providing advantages to the elite. A career politician acting within the normal channels of the system can't effect any change because those channels were set up specifically to deny any change.
So...the system has never been changed for the better? If it has, what made it possible then but not now? And why are well-meaning amateurs the way forward as opposed to coordinated political experts with a shared ideal? Not to be mean, but when I suggest that cynicism is being used as a simplification tool this partially is what I'm talking about. Normally I'd put my rants about organizing here but I'll spare everyone since you've probably seen it already.
You views on the Presidency are, I think, very very wrong. But I think the rest of your argument makes sense given that foundational assumption, we just disagree on that root idea. The idea of running the country by desperate catch-up googling as a matter of principle freaks me out.
I think wanting the right thing done goes further towards getting it than ability.
As my granddad used to say" "Wish in one hand and s**t in the other and see which one fills up first." Which was I guess his folksy way of saying wanting a thing you have no clue how to get is a great way to not get that thing.
Or because it was a good lie to tell the base. Hard to tell.
Not remotely hard, it fits the Trump pattern perfectly. And it's not a pattern I want to emulate. "Nobody knew reforming the political system could be so hard," eh?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 2009 Democrats held both houses and the Presidency, They could have passed ANYTHING including student loan reform or socializing secondary education.
Only if they had 'gone nuclear' to remove the filibuster. Failing that, they needed 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything... which they only had in theory for a few months and in practice only on a few specific days when Kennedy and Byrd were healthy enough to come in for a vote.
Basically, they had just barely enough time to pass one major initiative... Obamacare. I'd probably have gone with something different, but the point is that the idea that they could have passed anything and everything they wanted is not true.