Maybe in your mind, in mine it is just the even hand of justice regardless of social status or political position. We agree to disagree...
Except you disagree when its this AG and this FBI director and this president. So that's political.
And that's why the best thing the president could do for Trump would be to take the football out of his hands.
Right. Wasn't it in passing at an airport?
Please....were you or I privy to the subject of this meeting?
Nope. Doesn't have anything to do with it not being clandestine. Look, if they wanted to have a conversation no one knew about it wouldn't be that difficult.
So, it is now appropriate for that the relatives of people being investigated to have private meetings with the judge that will decide whether they are prosecuted or not now? That doesn't sound nefarious in the least.
lain:
Nefarious? Not unless you're inclined to see it that way. I thought it was inappropriate and I'd have waved the president off, politely. But then, again, she'd already decided to go with the FBI and for all I know that's exactly what she told him.
I wasn't aware that Trump was under any federal investigation for his charitable foundation
I don't know if he's under federal investigation. I know his charity is being investigated in New York and that a number of Dems in the House Judiciary sent a letter requesting an investigation by the AG. My point being that no charity should be above scrutiny.
I don't want a do over TH,
That's literally what you're asking for.
I want the entire affair to see a federal grand jury, and allow them to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that crimes were committed instead of dubious political figures deciding what is, and is not considered criminal...you know actual justice...just call me old fashioned.
I'd call you partisan. Grand juries are convened by prosecutors, who look over the evidence and decide whether or not they believe one should be convened.
Let Obama pardon her then, it is a public admission of guilt from where I am standing
But then, you already called her a felon, so...
but, like Watergate there may be plenty of players outside of Hillary Clinton as well. You remember, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean? their names are imprinted on my brain, and you can be sure that if crimes were committed with the Clinton Foundation Obama may have to issue a lot of pardons to bury it, maybe even one for himself....one never knows how deep these things go.
Maybe even one for himself? Thanks for underlying my point about partisan politics and rebutting this whole, "I just want to see a fair examination" routine you had going.
I am not contesting your use of the word because in this discussion we are both correct.
Okay, but I didn't start talking about the word to begin with. I just used it.
The will of the people has not been thwarted unless the the constitution is violated.
That's a word game. Like saying that if the jury decides a guy is guilty, if the system lets the judge overturn their verdict the jury's will hasn't been thwarted. Of course it has. It's just legal. So you can say that the system worked as it is permitted to, but you can't say the will of the people was heard in it, because that will was expressed at the ballot box.
Your rub is with the founders
Yes and no...that is, I agree with them when they found it necessary. But as I noted their reasoning on the point, it's undone by technology now.
You either don't understand why the founders saw fit to have a mix of direct & indirect elections for a mixture of state & populace interests or you just disagree with the reasoning
Or, I understood the necessity then and don't see any of it now.
either way that ship left the port over 200 years ago, and the current system has served us well...at least some of us I guess.
That's as goofy as someone saying, "Sorry you can't vote, black people, but we decided that and so..."
Not so fast, certainly suffrage & slavery were a consideration but, even a casual reading of Federalist 10 paints an entirely different picture. Madison speaks at length about the failings of countries that espoused "pure democracy" or "mob rule", he also wanted to keep majority "factions" of the populace from infringing on the individual rights of others.
Any number of people were uneasy about that, but you're conflating the entire system with a discussion of the EC and its support.
There are a lot of moving parts to the decision to have a representative republic over pure democracy than technology, slavery, or suffrage, there were deeper concerns over factions of the populace destroying the republic. I believe the system worked just as designed, no constitutional change required...we agree to disagree here as well.
I doubt you'd feel as strongly about it if two conservative presidents with popular majorites had been denied the office by system within the past couple of decades.
In my case, I think the utility it served has been met otherwise. And I'm not suggesting a revisit to this election. I mean we should consider eliminating it going forward.
No, it is to suggest that all voters saw their votes reflected by the state where they congregate
But they don't. Most states swallow the votes of the minority (even a 49% minority) and pretend the will of the state is a support for the tipping point system. The only real difference between what I'm talking about and what you're comfortable with is where the individual loses power. You're fine with it stopping at the state, which as we've seen can lead to multiple presidents that most people don't want. I want the buck to stop at the national level, eliminating that potential.
And as I noted and you agree, the regional and more narrow interests are strongly represented in another branch of government.
I would also add that if liberals are not willing to get on board with voter I.D. laws to assure that everyone voting is legally entitled to vote than the accuracy of the popular vote is already in question...especially in states over run with illegal aliens, sanctuary cities, & the like.
The push back on I.D. laws were mostly over the perception that conservatives were attempting to institute them to make it harder for the poor to vote. There aren't any serious studies that have noted the sort of voter fraud photo I.D.'s would attack are actually a problem in the system. Meanwhile, the avenues that help conservatives, like absentee ballots, go unaddressed.
Or, most of the 21 million Americans who would be impacted by photo voter ID laws are people who don't have government issued photo IDs. I'd say if we're going to have that requirement we should have a grace period during which the government assists those without one in acquiring it and/or providing one where poverty or fixed income wouldn't permit it else. Otherwise, the government just instituted a poll tax, indirectly.
If you're okay with that phase in, then I'm in, even in the face of no real report that indicates that sort of fraud is a problem. I'd also argue we should move election day to Saturday, so that working people can have an easier time casting their vote. Or open the process across a weekend.
