Anyone who at this late date is still spouting this "drain the swamp" line have to among least informed people on planet earth. This is a all-you-can-eat buffet of massive, unprecedented corruption 24/7/365. The reason they continue to get away with it is because the scale of it is so unimaginable.
This sort of corruption has been happening for a long time and members of both major parties have indulged themselves in it. Why are you so concerned about it now?
Anyone who at this late date is still spouting this "drain the swamp" line have to among least informed people on planet earth. This is a all-you-can-eat buffet of massive, unprecedented corruption 24/7/365. The reason they continue to get away with it is because the scale of it is so unimaginable.
This sort of corruption has been happening for a long time and members of both major parties have indulged themselves in it. Why are you so concerned about it now?
I wasn't aware Sasha and Malia Obama were helping craft policy in the Middle East while getting loans and funding for their real estate empires. Obama wouldn't even refinance his house while in office, and for good reason.
The better question, for me, is why we wouldn't be concerned about government corruption, regardless of party affiliation. Nobody stands to benefit from corruption who isn't corrupt themselves.
The better question, for me, is why we wouldn't be concerned about government corruption, regardless of party affiliation. Nobody stands to benefit from corruption who isn't corrupt themselves.
Because, ideologically, the corrupt person on my 'side' is better than the non-corrupt person on your 'side'. I see this kind of thinking all the time regarding politics and religion. That's why I say 'morality' is subjective when it comes to those two arenas...
This sort of corruption has been happening for a long time and members of both major parties have indulged themselves in it. Why are you so concerned about it now?
I wasn't aware Sasha and Malia Obama were helping craft policy in the Middle East while getting loans and funding for their real estate empires. Obama wouldn't even refinance his house while in office, and for good reason.[/quote]
I can cherry-pick examples to bolster my assertion, as well, but what purpose would that serve? Why did I come back here again? *shrug*
People who voted for drain the swamp and lost their minds to 'lock her up' are now shrugging off nepotism and personal corruption to the tune of hundreds millions of taxpayer dollars funneled to corrupt politicians. They are also shrugging of a President who is a walking security nightmare who meets alone with Putin and jumps to believe Russia, Saudia Arabia, and North Over his own intelligence agencies.
People who voted for drain the swamp and lost their minds to 'lock her up' are now shrugging off nepotism and personal corruption to the tune of hundreds millions of taxpayer dollars funneled to corrupt politicians. They are also shrugging of a President who is a walking security nightmare who meets alone with Putin and jumps to believe Russia, Saudia Arabia, and North Over his own intelligence agencies.
Stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Yeah, he's totally a Russian puppet. We're so close now that even our military ships are mysteriously attracted to each other...
People who voted for drain the swamp and lost their minds to 'lock her up' are now shrugging off nepotism and personal corruption to the tune of hundreds millions of taxpayer dollars funneled to corrupt politicians. They are also shrugging of a President who is a walking security nightmare who meets alone with Putin and jumps to believe Russia, Saudia Arabia, and North Over his own intelligence agencies.
Stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Yeah, he's totally a Russian puppet. We're so close now that even our military ships are mysteriously attracted to each other...
If he's not a Russian puppet his non-stop praise for Putin, the secret meetings with him without US
personnel or even US translators, and his constant feigned ignorance about the ongoing cyber attacks and Russian disinformation campaign makes even less sense.
Why deny what US and foreign intelligence agencies tell us for a fact did happen? Why lie about it? Why meet Putin in secret? Why obstruct justice if there was no underlying crimes?
To me, he's a puppet to corruption. He really wanted that Moscow Trump tower that he had Cohen negotiating even AFTER he was serving as President. He'd happily sell us all out for a few bucks - and he's doing that to not only Moscow but to Saudi Arabia and Israel as well.
The better question, for me, is why we wouldn't be concerned about government corruption, regardless of party affiliation. Nobody stands to benefit from corruption who isn't corrupt themselves.
Because, ideologically, the corrupt person on my 'side' is better than the non-corrupt person on your 'side'. I see this kind of thinking all the time regarding politics and religion. That's why I say 'morality' is subjective when it comes to those two arenas...
@Balrog99 I can see a potential argument here, though it's not one I would be likely to follow. That probably reflects that my feelings about corruption are stronger than my feelings about most political issues though ...
However, even if you accept that argument about a particular person in a particular position, that doesn't make corruption a good thing - just a less bad thing in your view than the alternative. Would you accept that it would be better to reduce corruption as far as possible? (that's a serious question by the way, as there is an argument that you shouldn't do that - in order to attract the 'best' people into politics)
If you would accept that argument, then would you like to see some form of regulation or code of conduct that helps support it? I've mentioned before how odd it seems to me that there are codes of conduct for government employees in the US, but not for the President - would you like to see that changed? Are there any up and coming members of the Republican party that are advocating such changes and would make a good future President?
If you would accept that argument, then would you like to see some form of regulation or code of conduct that helps support it? I've mentioned before how odd it seems to me that there are codes of conduct for government employees in the US, but not for the President - would you like to see that changed? Are there any up and coming members of the Republican party that are advocating such changes and would make a good future President?
HA. I'd honestly vote for a Republican who said they were for that. I feel that corruption is THE biggest issue, through campaign finance and lobbying. All others are derived from inaction caused by it. Abortion, climate change, immigration, terrorism, private prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, all about the benjamins.
However, I think I can safely say my vote will be for the Democrat/Green party. Let's not forget it was conservative SCOTUS judges who said that money is free speech, and Republicans are all about keeping that pork slop rolling in.
Well I've said this 100 times at this point. Citizens United enshrined unlimited money in politics. And if you have unlimited money in politics, you open the door to unlimited corruption in politics. When money=speech then money essentially becomes the only speech that matters. And you can say all you want about the two parties, but the fact is that Citizens United was a case decided by the conservative bloc on the court (all appointed by Reagan or Bush Sr. and Jr.) and opposed by the liberal bloc (Clinton and Obama appointees with one appointed by Ford).
Almost everyone seems to agree that money is THE corrupting force in politics. Hell, even most Republicans probably believe this. And yet the "both sides" narrative continues, even though the court was CLEARLY split on ideological (one might even say partisan) grounds on the case that was most important to the future of the issue. Republican Supreme Court picks enshrined money in politics for the rest of the lives of everyone who visits this thread, and likely that of your children as well. Barring a constitutional convention, this will NEVER change. And given the current make-up of the court after Trump and McConnell's theft, even if there WAS a constitutional convention called that sought to get rid of money in politics (a pipe dream at best), this court would probably just interpret that amendment as the exact opposite of what it ended up being and proceed as usual anyway. If you are even SLIGHTLY liberal, even if you despised Hillary Clinton, not voting for her was the absolute stupidest strategic decision in regards to your political beliefs imaginable. It was all about the court. Republicans understand this, which is why they were willing to essentially shred the constitution to make sure they dominated it for the next generation and beyond.
I saw a report about the Catholic Church wading into murky waters by arguing that gender is entirely binary and people should not question their birth gender. Given how controversial the subject is I thought I should read the original document before making any comment - you can find that here.
The document is intended for anyone involved in education. That includes parents, though I found the language and references in the document pretty inaccessible and guess most parents would as well. I thought the document was a bit more nuanced than the BBC article suggested - for instance in setting out potential areas of common ground between the Church and gender activists (such as a rejection of sexism and showing respect for everyone irrespective of their sexuality). The document is arguing against a radical view that gender is a cultural concept and society is evolving towards the elimination of sexual differences. I agree that's a radical view, but disagree that it is at all commonly found in educational institutions.
The document sets out its essential position at the other end of the spectrum - arguing that gender should be solely determined by biological sex. I don't find that extreme any more convincing than the 'gender is a purely cultural concept one' though. Interestingly, the document does give a nod towards the fact that there are people for whom the biological sex is not necessarily obvious. In those cases it says that medical practitioners should make the decision on the sex - this would seem to me to greatly undermine the argument that gender is solely determined by biology, but that point is not explored.
Another major theme of the document is that families should be regarded as being founded by the union of one man and one woman - it states that is an "anthropological fact", though I doubt whether many anthropologists would agree. It also goes on to say that parents should be the prime determinants of what education is provided on gender and sexuality and that schools and wider society should recognize this.
Part of the reason I decided to post on this topic was that I've been following the story for quite a while now of parental protests in Birmingham (England) where a group of mainly Muslim parents (and quite a few non-parents) are trying to prevent primary schools from teaching that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality. This is not sex education, though that's the way it's often portrayed, but teaching about relationships as part of an equality agenda. That agenda is enshrined in UK law, so it does seem reasonable to me that it should be taught in schools, i.e. I don't accept the position expressed in the Catholic document (and supported by the Muslim protesters in Birmingham) that the views of parents should always trump the views of wider society when it comes to education.
I could say more, but I think it would be better to see if anyone else is interested in further discussion ...
On a completely different issue today is the first official day of the Conservative leadership election. There are 10 candidates in that who will be whittled down to the last 2 through a series of votes by MPs - a full ballot of Conservative members will then elect the leader (who will also be Prime Minister). Up until yesterday there were 11 candidates, but the one who was advocating a second referendum for Brexit was unable to get enough support to even be a candidate.
The discussions thus far have been more about domestic issues and personalities, rather than Brexit. However, that does still seem likely to be the major short-term headache for whoever the new leader is. The 10 remaining candidates range from advocating a slightly harder position on Brexit than Theresa May to a far harder position. The problem they will face is that, while Conservative party members support a tougher stance, it seems pretty clear there are majorities in both Parliament and the country that do not. A couple of the candidates have suggested getting round that by proroguing Parliament, i.e. not letting it sit. The idea would be that Parliament could not then pass a law to prevent a no-deal exit happening automatically at the end of the current extension agreed with the EU (on 31st October).
That tactic is of course what Charles I tried in the 17th century and the dispute with Parliament ultimately cost him his head . I don't think things would go quite so far these days, but I will predict that any attempt to actually prorogue Parliament in that way would not only be unsuccessful (the Queen would have to agree and I think there's no chance of that), but also cost any Prime Minister who tried it their job.
It was all about the court. Republicans understand this, which is why they were willing to essentially shred the constitution to make sure they dominated it for the next generation and beyond.
If the Republicans really wanted to pervert and control the SCOTUS, then Congress in 2017-18 would have amended the number of Justices and increase it to 11 or 13, which is a rarely-used power that body has, then fast-tracked all those Trump appointees through the Senate.
The better question, for me, is why we wouldn't be concerned about government corruption, regardless of party affiliation. Nobody stands to benefit from corruption who isn't corrupt themselves.
Because, ideologically, the corrupt person on my 'side' is better than the non-corrupt person on your 'side'. I see this kind of thinking all the time regarding politics and religion. That's why I say 'morality' is subjective when it comes to those two arenas...
@Balrog99 I can see a potential argument here, though it's not one I would be likely to follow. That probably reflects that my feelings about corruption are stronger than my feelings about most political issues though ...
However, even if you accept that argument about a particular person in a particular position, that doesn't make corruption a good thing - just a less bad thing in your view than the alternative. Would you accept that it would be better to reduce corruption as far as possible? (that's a serious question by the way, as there is an argument that you shouldn't do that - in order to attract the 'best' people into politics)
If you would accept that argument, then would you like to see some form of regulation or code of conduct that helps support it? I've mentioned before how odd it seems to me that there are codes of conduct for government employees in the US, but not for the President - would you like to see that changed? Are there any up and coming members of the Republican party that are advocating such changes and would make a good future President?
Let's just say that I'm not totally against impeaching Trump. The only caveat is that it has to be guaranteed to get rid of him. That is very unlikely with the way things are right now. Polarization affects even folks in the middle, unfortunately. That's why we need an actual party or parties that represent a middle ground. Neither party extreme represents me at all...
It was all about the court. Republicans understand this, which is why they were willing to essentially shred the constitution to make sure they dominated it for the next generation and beyond.
If the Republicans really wanted to pervert and control the SCOTUS, then Congress in 2017-18 would have amended the number of Justices and increase it to 11 or 13, which is a rarely-used power that body has, then fast-tracked all those Trump appointees through the Senate.
That would have required them to trash several traditions that have been useful to them in the past, and I feel their majority was not comfortable enough to do this. A small number of defectors would have been enough to kill this. I don't think this says much about what the Republics want, and more about what they feel they can get away with.
It was all about the court. Republicans understand this, which is why they were willing to essentially shred the constitution to make sure they dominated it for the next generation and beyond.
If the Republicans really wanted to pervert and control the SCOTUS, then Congress in 2017-18 would have amended the number of Justices and increase it to 11 or 13, which is a rarely-used power that body has, then fast-tracked all those Trump appointees through the Senate.
You do not want to use something that the other party will be able to use against you when they are in control.
I saw a report about the Catholic Church wading into murky waters by arguing that gender is entirely binary and people should not question their birth gender. Given how controversial the subject is I thought I should read the original document before making any comment - you can find that here.
The document is intended for anyone involved in education. That includes parents, though I found the language and references in the document pretty inaccessible and guess most parents would as well. I thought the document was a bit more nuanced than the BBC article suggested - for instance in setting out potential areas of common ground between the Church and gender activists (such as a rejection of sexism and showing respect for everyone irrespective of their sexuality). The document is arguing against a radical view that gender is a cultural concept and society is evolving towards the elimination of sexual differences. I agree that's a radical view, but disagree that it is at all commonly found in educational institutions.
The document sets out its essential position at the other end of the spectrum - arguing that gender should be solely determined by biological sex. I don't find that extreme any more convincing than the 'gender is a purely cultural concept one' though. Interestingly, the document does give a nod towards the fact that there are people for whom the biological sex is not necessarily obvious. In those cases it says that medical practitioners should make the decision on the sex - this would seem to me to greatly undermine the argument that gender is solely determined by biology, but that point is not explored.
Another major theme of the document is that families should be regarded as being founded by the union of one man and one woman - it states that is an "anthropological fact", though I doubt whether many anthropologists would agree. It also goes on to say that parents should be the prime determinants of what education is provided on gender and sexuality and that schools and wider society should recognize this.
Part of the reason I decided to post on this topic was that I've been following the story for quite a while now of parental protests in Birmingham (England) where a group of mainly Muslim parents (and quite a few non-parents) are trying to prevent primary schools from teaching that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality. This is not sex education, though that's the way it's often portrayed, but teaching about relationships as part of an equality agenda. That agenda is enshrined in UK law, so it does seem reasonable to me that it should be taught in schools, i.e. I don't accept the position expressed in the Catholic document (and supported by the Muslim protesters in Birmingham) that the views of parents should always trump the views of wider society when it comes to education.
I could say more, but I think it would be better to see if anyone else is interested in further discussion ...
The Catholic Church no longer gets to lecture anyone about anything for the rest of it's existence. And this is coming from someone who went to Mass every Saturday night for a decade as a kid. The size of the cover-up of the child sex abuse scandal is still not fully understood or appreciated. This entire document makes them look so painfully non self-aware that it almost boggles the mind. Transgender people didn't shuffle pedophile priests around from parish to parish for decades. But Catholic Bishops did. On a mass scale. And if religious parents want to indoctrinate their kids in only religious teachings they can quit their job and homeschool their kids. Until then, they can shut up about their entitlement to having their particular book of folklore taught in public school. And that goes for Christians, Muslims and Jews.
You do not want to use something that the other party will be able to use against you when they are in control.
Yeah. Not to mention, the nuclear option would be generally more impactful for Democrats than Republicans, owing to the conservative slant that the Senate has institutionally.
So it probably wouldn't work, and has the potential to empower your political rivals.
Lastly, they already control the court and have fundamentally broken a system that has (largely) worked since the founding of the country. Why pack the court when they have already done so by omission?
This sort of corruption has been happening for a long time and members of both major parties have indulged themselves in it. Why are you so concerned about it now?
Why are you so unconcerned about it, if you readily admit it's a problem? Like, it's not a problem in the "let's freak out, the sky is falling" sense; but it is a clear and obvious problem that can be address in simple ways. (E.g.: make members of the administration subject to basic conflict-of-interest laws, with clearly defined sanctions.)
Plus, it 100% HASN'T been happening for a long time. Every president in living memory has 1) disclosed their tax returns, and 2) put their businesses and investments into blind trusts. Only Trump has refused to do that and then openly embrace obvious conflicts of interest and potential instances of corruption. This is, in fact, a new thing.
Remember what Trump said about being able to shoot someone in broad daylight and his supporters would let him get away with it? Your "this is just what happens in government" is only happening because you are letting it happen - you are letting Trump get away with something that is clearly detrimental to Americans' interest, without pausing to think about whether he should pay a price for in reduced support. It's almost as if accountability doesn't matter at all for the Republican party
You seem to think that governments haven't been this way since the beginning of civilization. Maybe one of the benefits of having Trump and his cronies in office for a while will be better scrutiny of our politicians in general and maybe some concrete laws that can actually be used to put abusers in prison.
If you're in favor of better scrutiny thanks to Trump being in office... then shouldn't that mean you favor better scrutiny of Trump in office?
A broader point, though: politician /= government. The vast, VAST majority of government workers ARE subject to conflict-of-interest rules. When I was in government I wasn't allowed to take a "capital infusion" greater than 25 dollars. Doing so would mean, potentially, the loss the job, its attendant benefits (generally pretty good noncompensation benefits like health insurance, generous vacation policies, etc.), its retirement benefits, etc. Stuff gets offered all the time by people doing business with the gov't - not even as bribes most of the time, but just unthinking acts of generosity or thanks. And those offerings are turned down, all the time, by honest bureaucrats who tend to be 1) regular middle-class folks, 2) highly risk-averse, and 3) largely honest.
Most government workers don't want to be bribed. They want a dependable paycheck and the ability to pursue family life and hobbies, and in good gov't agencies there are very clear rules and reporting requirements that make taking a bribe very risky. And taking a bribe become a thing that is almost impossible to hide, so the risked penalty and the chance of being caught both seem very high. (And research has shown the the perceived risk of being caught is the biggest deterrent to criminal behavior.) In places where these rules are implemented well, they are VERY effective, and this kind of corruption is almost nonexistent.
So, we already have the tools and tactics to address these issues. But what about rich people? They don't care about the salary, or benefits, or pensions or whatever. How to police them? Simple: if they are going to retain interested that could potentially create a conflict of interest, simply force them to open their books. You want to keep making money from a real estate investment business, and take $90M cash infusions? No problem, just expose everything that needs to be known about it to put to rest the possibility of it being corruption. You want to keep things secret and shady? That's not a problem, then you can choose not to be in government or choose no to take the capital. If you fail to disclose material information to the extent necessary for it to be deemed legit, then make the whole shebang subject to forfeiture. (If you later demonstrate that it was innocent, then you can have it back.)
That's it. Clear rules and mandatory reporting (and clear penalties for failing to report accurately, JARED), and serious penalties that hit them where it hurts and have the burden of proof stacked in the government's favor. If you actually think there's a problem here, then you should support something like that.
And if we had something like you're describing already, I wouldn't have been put in the awkward situation of having to vote for somebody I didn't like because Trump would never have been allowed to run for president...
I have been concerned about corruption in politics and the revolving door they have with turning into lobbyists for a long time. It won't be "obstruction of justice" which brings down Trump; rather, it will be violations of the Emoluments clause, which are easier to prove.
I don't think Trump is doing things which other politicians have not done before. The difference with him is that he is doing them out in the open.
I have been concerned about corruption in politics and the revolving door they have with turning into lobbyists for a long time. It won't be "obstruction of justice" which brings down Trump; rather, it will be violations of the Emoluments clause, which are easier to prove.
I don't think Trump is doing things which other politicians have not done before. The difference with him is that he is doing them out in the open.
This whole "there has always been corruption, so why worry about it now" argument is ridiculous. You can apply it to all of the following: disease, crime, war and famine.
There will always be some corruption, but it matters how much.
It matters how shameless it is. It matters if there are consequences. It matters if there is a chance of getting caught.
Obama was extremely clean, so are Bernie, Warren and many of the other Democrat contender, excluding e.g. Biden, who is still much cleaner than Trump or any powerful Republican. Including Hillary Clinton (in the Biden category, not the Bernie & Warren one).
Corruption is not a 0/1 thing. It's a scale, and the Republicans solidly occupy the upper end.
All western democracies have make great strides in many areas since their founding. But never by accepting corruption and the status quo. This kind of cynicism is self-defeating.
Couldn't agree with @Ammar more. Any argument that "both sides do it" fundamentally misses the point, and is not a refutation to anyone wanting less of it in government.
In other news - everyone should watch this. It's 9 minutes of Jon Stewart talking to congress about the 9/11 first responders.
Couldn't agree with @Ammar more. Any argument that "both sides do it" fundamentally misses the point, and is not a refutation to anyone wanting less of it in government.
In other news - everyone should watch this. It's 9 minutes of Jon Stewart talking to congress about the 9/11 first responders.
One person is responsible for holding this up for YEARS and it's exactly who you would exepct it is. Mitch McConnell. And you can bet your ass that unlike Nadler, Stewart (who has been a spokesman for these guys for as long as I can remember) McConnell isn't going to be extending him an opportunity to address a Senate committee. Stewart is being diplomatic about this by (again) playing the both-sides game, but there are Democratic co-sponsored bills waiting to go as we speak on this. McConnell won't allow it to take place.
This man just did nothing less than invite another attack on our elections and admit he would willfully participate in it:
So any bets on what he and Putin talked about alone now that he's shown, yet again, he has no moral compass and will gladly accept any advantage from any source even from enemies. He probably swapped notes and suggested targets for Russian trolls and hacking. Maybe accepted some payoffs and suggested some places Putin could drop some cash at his properties and not get noticed.
Try imagine for a SINGLE SECOND what the response would be if a Democrat said something like this. This is open-season on American democracy being actively encouraged by a man who is sworn to protect this country as the #1 priority of his job. Based on this single interview, would should already be suspect of the 2020 results. He is saying in no uncertain terms to any foreign power "sabotage it in my favor, we not only won't try stop it, we'll help you". As I have said for months, the Republican Party just flat-out no longer believes in democracy, and if they say nothing about this, it is the final piece of evidence anyone will ever need.
Try imagine for a SINGLE SECOND what the response would be if a Democrat said something like this. This is open-season on American democracy being actively encouraged by a man who is sworn to protect this country as the #1 priority of his job. Based on this single interview, would should already be suspect of the 2020 results. He is saying in no uncertain terms to any foreign power "sabotage it in my favor, we not only won't try stop it, we'll help you". As I have said for months, the Republican Party just flat-out no longer believes in democracy, and if they say nothing about this, it is the final piece of evidence anyone will ever need.
Did you want him to lie and say he wouldn't take the information?
Comments
This sort of corruption has been happening for a long time and members of both major parties have indulged themselves in it. Why are you so concerned about it now?
I wasn't aware Sasha and Malia Obama were helping craft policy in the Middle East while getting loans and funding for their real estate empires. Obama wouldn't even refinance his house while in office, and for good reason.
Because, ideologically, the corrupt person on my 'side' is better than the non-corrupt person on your 'side'. I see this kind of thinking all the time regarding politics and religion. That's why I say 'morality' is subjective when it comes to those two arenas...
I wasn't aware Sasha and Malia Obama were helping craft policy in the Middle East while getting loans and funding for their real estate empires. Obama wouldn't even refinance his house while in office, and for good reason.[/quote]
I can cherry-pick examples to bolster my assertion, as well, but what purpose would that serve? Why did I come back here again? *shrug*
Stand for nothing, fall for anything.
Yeah, he's totally a Russian puppet. We're so close now that even our military ships are mysteriously attracted to each other...
If he's not a Russian puppet his non-stop praise for Putin, the secret meetings with him without US
personnel or even US translators, and his constant feigned ignorance about the ongoing cyber attacks and Russian disinformation campaign makes even less sense.
Why deny what US and foreign intelligence agencies tell us for a fact did happen? Why lie about it? Why meet Putin in secret? Why obstruct justice if there was no underlying crimes?
To me, he's a puppet to corruption. He really wanted that Moscow Trump tower that he had Cohen negotiating even AFTER he was serving as President. He'd happily sell us all out for a few bucks - and he's doing that to not only Moscow but to Saudi Arabia and Israel as well.
@Balrog99 I can see a potential argument here, though it's not one I would be likely to follow. That probably reflects that my feelings about corruption are stronger than my feelings about most political issues though ...
However, even if you accept that argument about a particular person in a particular position, that doesn't make corruption a good thing - just a less bad thing in your view than the alternative. Would you accept that it would be better to reduce corruption as far as possible? (that's a serious question by the way, as there is an argument that you shouldn't do that - in order to attract the 'best' people into politics)
If you would accept that argument, then would you like to see some form of regulation or code of conduct that helps support it? I've mentioned before how odd it seems to me that there are codes of conduct for government employees in the US, but not for the President - would you like to see that changed? Are there any up and coming members of the Republican party that are advocating such changes and would make a good future President?
HA. I'd honestly vote for a Republican who said they were for that. I feel that corruption is THE biggest issue, through campaign finance and lobbying. All others are derived from inaction caused by it. Abortion, climate change, immigration, terrorism, private prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, all about the benjamins.
However, I think I can safely say my vote will be for the Democrat/Green party. Let's not forget it was conservative SCOTUS judges who said that money is free speech, and Republicans are all about keeping that pork slop rolling in.
Almost everyone seems to agree that money is THE corrupting force in politics. Hell, even most Republicans probably believe this. And yet the "both sides" narrative continues, even though the court was CLEARLY split on ideological (one might even say partisan) grounds on the case that was most important to the future of the issue. Republican Supreme Court picks enshrined money in politics for the rest of the lives of everyone who visits this thread, and likely that of your children as well. Barring a constitutional convention, this will NEVER change. And given the current make-up of the court after Trump and McConnell's theft, even if there WAS a constitutional convention called that sought to get rid of money in politics (a pipe dream at best), this court would probably just interpret that amendment as the exact opposite of what it ended up being and proceed as usual anyway. If you are even SLIGHTLY liberal, even if you despised Hillary Clinton, not voting for her was the absolute stupidest strategic decision in regards to your political beliefs imaginable. It was all about the court. Republicans understand this, which is why they were willing to essentially shred the constitution to make sure they dominated it for the next generation and beyond.
The document is intended for anyone involved in education. That includes parents, though I found the language and references in the document pretty inaccessible and guess most parents would as well. I thought the document was a bit more nuanced than the BBC article suggested - for instance in setting out potential areas of common ground between the Church and gender activists (such as a rejection of sexism and showing respect for everyone irrespective of their sexuality). The document is arguing against a radical view that gender is a cultural concept and society is evolving towards the elimination of sexual differences. I agree that's a radical view, but disagree that it is at all commonly found in educational institutions.
The document sets out its essential position at the other end of the spectrum - arguing that gender should be solely determined by biological sex. I don't find that extreme any more convincing than the 'gender is a purely cultural concept one' though. Interestingly, the document does give a nod towards the fact that there are people for whom the biological sex is not necessarily obvious. In those cases it says that medical practitioners should make the decision on the sex - this would seem to me to greatly undermine the argument that gender is solely determined by biology, but that point is not explored.
Another major theme of the document is that families should be regarded as being founded by the union of one man and one woman - it states that is an "anthropological fact", though I doubt whether many anthropologists would agree. It also goes on to say that parents should be the prime determinants of what education is provided on gender and sexuality and that schools and wider society should recognize this.
Part of the reason I decided to post on this topic was that I've been following the story for quite a while now of parental protests in Birmingham (England) where a group of mainly Muslim parents (and quite a few non-parents) are trying to prevent primary schools from teaching that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their sexuality. This is not sex education, though that's the way it's often portrayed, but teaching about relationships as part of an equality agenda. That agenda is enshrined in UK law, so it does seem reasonable to me that it should be taught in schools, i.e. I don't accept the position expressed in the Catholic document (and supported by the Muslim protesters in Birmingham) that the views of parents should always trump the views of wider society when it comes to education.
I could say more, but I think it would be better to see if anyone else is interested in further discussion ...
The discussions thus far have been more about domestic issues and personalities, rather than Brexit. However, that does still seem likely to be the major short-term headache for whoever the new leader is. The 10 remaining candidates range from advocating a slightly harder position on Brexit than Theresa May to a far harder position. The problem they will face is that, while Conservative party members support a tougher stance, it seems pretty clear there are majorities in both Parliament and the country that do not. A couple of the candidates have suggested getting round that by proroguing Parliament, i.e. not letting it sit. The idea would be that Parliament could not then pass a law to prevent a no-deal exit happening automatically at the end of the current extension agreed with the EU (on 31st October).
That tactic is of course what Charles I tried in the 17th century and the dispute with Parliament ultimately cost him his head
If the Republicans really wanted to pervert and control the SCOTUS, then Congress in 2017-18 would have amended the number of Justices and increase it to 11 or 13, which is a rarely-used power that body has, then fast-tracked all those Trump appointees through the Senate.
Let's just say that I'm not totally against impeaching Trump. The only caveat is that it has to be guaranteed to get rid of him. That is very unlikely with the way things are right now. Polarization affects even folks in the middle, unfortunately. That's why we need an actual party or parties that represent a middle ground. Neither party extreme represents me at all...
That would have required them to trash several traditions that have been useful to them in the past, and I feel their majority was not comfortable enough to do this. A small number of defectors would have been enough to kill this. I don't think this says much about what the Republics want, and more about what they feel they can get away with.
You do not want to use something that the other party will be able to use against you when they are in control.
The Catholic Church no longer gets to lecture anyone about anything for the rest of it's existence. And this is coming from someone who went to Mass every Saturday night for a decade as a kid. The size of the cover-up of the child sex abuse scandal is still not fully understood or appreciated. This entire document makes them look so painfully non self-aware that it almost boggles the mind. Transgender people didn't shuffle pedophile priests around from parish to parish for decades. But Catholic Bishops did. On a mass scale. And if religious parents want to indoctrinate their kids in only religious teachings they can quit their job and homeschool their kids. Until then, they can shut up about their entitlement to having their particular book of folklore taught in public school. And that goes for Christians, Muslims and Jews.
Yeah. Not to mention, the nuclear option would be generally more impactful for Democrats than Republicans, owing to the conservative slant that the Senate has institutionally.
So it probably wouldn't work, and has the potential to empower your political rivals.
Lastly, they already control the court and have fundamentally broken a system that has (largely) worked since the founding of the country. Why pack the court when they have already done so by omission?
And if we had something like you're describing already, I wouldn't have been put in the awkward situation of having to vote for somebody I didn't like because Trump would never have been allowed to run for president...
I don't think Trump is doing things which other politicians have not done before. The difference with him is that he is doing them out in the open.
This whole "there has always been corruption, so why worry about it now" argument is ridiculous. You can apply it to all of the following: disease, crime, war and famine.
There will always be some corruption, but it matters how much.
It matters how shameless it is. It matters if there are consequences. It matters if there is a chance of getting caught.
Obama was extremely clean, so are Bernie, Warren and many of the other Democrat contender, excluding e.g. Biden, who is still much cleaner than Trump or any powerful Republican. Including Hillary Clinton (in the Biden category, not the Bernie & Warren one).
Corruption is not a 0/1 thing. It's a scale, and the Republicans solidly occupy the upper end.
All western democracies have make great strides in many areas since their founding. But never by accepting corruption and the status quo. This kind of cynicism is self-defeating.
In other news - everyone should watch this. It's 9 minutes of Jon Stewart talking to congress about the 9/11 first responders.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/11/jon-stewart-congress-reauthorizing-9-11-victim-compensation-fund-first-responders-sot-vpx.cnn
One person is responsible for holding this up for YEARS and it's exactly who you would exepct it is. Mitch McConnell. And you can bet your ass that unlike Nadler, Stewart (who has been a spokesman for these guys for as long as I can remember) McConnell isn't going to be extending him an opportunity to address a Senate committee. Stewart is being diplomatic about this by (again) playing the both-sides game, but there are Democratic co-sponsored bills waiting to go as we speak on this. McConnell won't allow it to take place.
So any bets on what he and Putin talked about alone now that he's shown, yet again, he has no moral compass and will gladly accept any advantage from any source even from enemies. He probably swapped notes and suggested targets for Russian trolls and hacking. Maybe accepted some payoffs and suggested some places Putin could drop some cash at his properties and not get noticed.
Did you want him to lie and say he wouldn't take the information?