Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[hrothgar]

So, among the debates and the policy papers, we see how a candidate copes with the unfair and the unexpected. Not very well, I think that was the verdict on Hillary. If she really wants to know What Happened, I think she should start with that.

 

I prefer to think that the American people got the President that they deserved...

 

Good luck to them...

[RedSpawn]

If Hillary had immediately succeeded Bill, I might be worried about the dynasty problem. But she didn't. She went on to have a successful political career of her own, while Bill was busy running the Clinton Foundation with Chelsea, and this prepared her for the Presidency. Of course she would seek advice from Bill, but I'll take his advice over Ivanka's any day.

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? Technically, we didn't elect BC to a 3rd term, but he would just have a potentially material say in White House matters since his capable wife is in the Office of the President. And more likely than not, she will discuss thorny issues with those in her inner circle, including her husband.

[y66]

I think we agree. Had Hillary won she would have been President Hillary, not President Hillary channeling Bill. Bill might not agree, but I expect she could easily have explained to him that his term was over.

 

The Dems regarded her as the certain candidate. This may have created, both with the public and with her, a setting that ultimately worked against her.

 

A lot of unfair things happened during the campaign. That's not new, only the specifics vary from one election to another. In a strange way, this is useful. Unfair things happen in life, unfair and in particular unexpected things happen during a presidency. The Shah of Iran develops caner and seeks treatment, for example. So, among the debates and the policy papers, we see how a candidate copes with the unfair and the unexpected. Not very well, I think that was the verdict on Hillary. If she really wants to know What Happened, I think she should start with that.

I am neither advocating nor justifying unfairness, but it is a fact of life and we note how a candidate deals with it.

I don't think Trump's "unfair" antics did her in. She really needed to get out there, pound a few beers with the white blue-collar voters who supported Obama (of whom 18% voted for Trump) and make them feel like she was going to do real stuff, not fake stuff, to get their regional economies going again, that it wasn't going to be easy, that it wasn't going to happen over night, but she was not going to rest or play golf until she succeeded. Basically, be like Sanders on trade and education and channel Rocky. Not easy to pull off after a bitter primary with Bernie for someone who doesn't look like Sylvester Stallone.

[Winstonm]

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment?

 

No. It was be stupid not to listen to his advice. How many president have the advantage of a living, breathing, ex-president in the WH with them?

[cherdano]

The good news is that Donald Trump is getting advice from Jared Kushner, who will solve the opioid crisis, bring Middle East peace, reform the VA, and negotiate with China. Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!!

I forgot to mention the, according to sources close to Ivanka, moderating influence of Ivanka Trump. Her moderating influence would stop Trump from doing silly things like ending DACA (making life miserable for 1.2 million people), imposing a transgender troup ban (making life miserable for soldiers who trusted the government that they could be open about who they were for no reason other than reversing a decision by Obama), or (perhaps) withdrawing from the Paris agreement (making the future less safe for 6 billion people, just to reverse a decision by Obama).

We can all be grateful for Ivanka's effective moderating influence (according to sources close to Ivanka). Bill Clinton couldn't compete with that!

[Al_U_Card]

I don't think Trump's "unfair" antics did her in. She really needed to get out there, pound a few beers with the white blue-collar voters who supported Obama (of whom 18% voted for Trump) and make them feel like she was going to do real stuff, not fake stuff, to get their regional economies going again, that it wasn't going to be easy, that it wasn't going to happen over night, but she was not going to rest or play golf until she succeeded. Basically, be like Sanders on trade and education and channel Rocky. Not easy to pull off after a bitter primary with Bernie for someone who doesn't look like Sylvester Stallone.

you got that right. Hillary was just so objectionable, personally, politically and policy-wise that only the devoted, virtue-signaling, left-leaning aristo errr democrats would vote for her. Trump was the "bird" that was given to the established order. He may be a joke, but he is your joke for the next 3 years.

[rmnka447]

If Hillary had immediately succeeded Bill, I might be worried about the dynasty problem. But she didn't. She went on to have a successful political career of her own, while Bill was busy running the Clinton Foundation with Chelsea, and this prepared her for the Presidency. Of course she would seek advice from Bill, but I'll take his advice over Ivanka's any day.

Unfortunately, she didn't take Bill's advice about the campaign. So that's why we'll probably end up with a Tax Reform bill that will include a tax credit for day care expenses courtesy of Ivanka's input on women's issues to her father.

[kenberg]

you got that right. Hillary was just so objectionable, personally, politically and policy-wise that only the devoted, virtue-signaling, left-leaning aristo errr democrats would vote for her. Trump was the "bird" that was given to the established order. He may be a joke, but he is your joke for the next 3 years.

Yep, you got that right. Just the other day someone was saying to me, "Ken, you are such a devoted aristo errr democrat, always virtue signaling". I leaned to the left and gave him the bird. Then we opened another bottle of gin.

[Al_U_Card]

Yep, you got that right. Just the other day someone was saying to me, "Ken, you are such a devoted aristo errr democrat, always virtue signaling". I leaned to the left and gave him the bird. Then we opened another bottle of gin.

Not bad. ;) Outside observers can at least provide a different perspective. Beer works too...

[barmar]

OK. But if Hillary receives and potentially acts on advice from the First Gentleman ( who used to be a Former President), doesn't that fly in the face of the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? Technically, we didn't elect BC to a 3rd term, but he would just have a potentially material say in White House matters since his capable wife is in the Office of the President. And more likely than not, she will discuss thorny issues with those in her inner circle, including her husband.

Not much more than electing the son of a former President, IMHO. More generally, Presidents take the advice of many people we didn't elect, there's not much we can do about that.

 

There's a big difference between "having a potentially material say" and actually having the nuclear codes. The purpose of the 22nd Amendment isn't to prevent previous Presidents from having any future influence. The 22nd Amendment wouldn't prevent an ex-President from being elected as Vice President, for example.

[Winstonm]

Question: Do you honestly think Hillary would have thrown herself into the job with energy and good intent with absolutely no advice or direction from her husband at all? My problem with HRC, besides the character issue of her campaign receiving material support from the Democratic National Committee and never officially apologizing to Bernie Sanders for the lapse of judgment, is that it almost feels like her husband has a chance at 16 years affecting policy at the White House.

 

I am not suggesting that HRC isn't her own woman. I am suggesting that the very fact that husband and wife can vie for the Presidency out of a nation of 330 million people smacks of what is wrong with our political system. HRC had a mentality that she should have ascended to the White House because of her sex, her pedigree, her political clout, and her family name. It's problematic in 30 years when you have the possibilities of:

 

• George H.W. Bush (4 years) (1989-1993)
  
• George W. Bush (8 years) (2001-2009)
  
• Bill Clinton (8 years) (1993-2001)
  
• Hillary Clinton (4 years) (2017-2021)
  

 

Are we a constitutional republic because this Presidential list has dynastic overtones had Hillary won?

 

Seems odd - and one-sided - to me that you have little complaints about the nepotism occurring in the Trump administration. Hillary and Bill are a nothingburger in comparison.

[helene_t]

The 22nd Amendment wouldn't prevent an ex-President from being elected as Vice President, for example.

Really? What if the president dies and his VP (who is an exp-president) becomes president? Would that be constitutional?

[hrothgar]

Really? What if the president dies and his VP (who is an exp-president) becomes president? Would that be constitutional?

 

I am guessing yes because the ex-president was not elected a third time

 

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[mikestar13]

I am guessing yes because the ex-president was not elected a third time

 

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

Definitely no because of the last sentence of the twelfth amendment: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[hrothgar]

Definitely no because of the last sentence of the twelfth amendment: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

that is circular reasoning.

[kenberg]

My guess is that the possibility of a two term president sneaking into the third term via the vice-presidency never occurred to the people drafting it. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Taken literally, this does not prevent a two term president from running again, it only prevents him/her from being elected. So it appears to restrict the actions of the Electoral College. I suppose this makes sense, if a person says "I am not allowed to be elected but vote for me anyway" what are we to do? Forbidding the Electoral College from electing him is a solution. Of sorts.

 

So what are we to do if the former two term president becomes vice-president and then the president dies? For that matter, former presidents have, I believe, served in Congress. The Speaker of the House can assume the presidency under some conditions, as can a Cabinet member I believe.

 

In 1966 George Wallace was ineligible for a third term as governor of Alabama so his wife ran and won. Whatever her merits, she was not Hillary Clinton. George Wallace was depressing enough, and this end run around the state constitution more so.

 

I guess in theory someone could be president in perpetuity. Toward the end of each term s/he finds a terminal cancer patient whose family is short of cash. S/he has the cancer patient run as president, s/he runs as vice-president, after the election the cancer patient dies and the family gets the cash. Four years later we do a re-run.

 

Ruling out all forms of the bizarre is tough. I'm fine with leaving the twenty-second amendment as it is and trusting that at some point public reaction would keep the worst extremes from happening.

 

But then we did elect Trump, didn't we.

[Winstonm]

The issue of failing charter schools changing to private schools and still receiving public voucher funds exemplifies - to me - the basis of the Republican basic agenda, and the real reason behind the call for less regulation: (ehphasis added)

 

“Public money is being handed out without oversight,” said Diane Ravitch, a New York University education historian and public schools advocate, who served as assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/failing-charter-schools-have-a-reincarnation-plan

[barmar]

The issue of failing charter schools changing to private schools and still receiving public voucher funds exemplifies - to me - the basis of the Republican basic agenda, and the real reason behind the call for less regulation: (ehphasis added)

That seems to be the idea in the latest health care proposal -- just give out block grants to the states, and let them decide how to spend it.

[barmar]

that is circular reasoning.

More like modularity. Rather than repeat all the eligibility criteria for both offices, and update them both whenever it's amended, it simply says that VP has the same criteria as the President. Which makes sense since the VP can become POTUS, so we wouldn't want an ineligible person slipping in through this back door.

[PassedOut]

Nambia exists

 

Many of my friends have gone through the wardrobe to Nambia and have come back rich! And the health care there is the greatest!

:rolleyes:

[kenberg]

Nambia exists

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

In fact I was more offended by

 

"I have so many friends going to your countries trying to get rich. I congratulate you, they're spending a lot of money," Mr Trump said.

 

I have known people before who, even when they are trying to say something nice, come across as insulting. That's how I see this. It's like congratulating a college president because his campus is such a great place to pick up women.

[jjbrr]

And the health care there is the greatest!

 

It happens to be universal with a public option in Namibia, assuming that's what he meant.

[Winstonm]

I am no longer certain that this country is worth saving or living in. To wit: (emphasis added)

 

Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore said in 2005 that “homosexual conduct should be illegal,” and declared in 2015 that “homosexuality should be illegal.” Moore, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, was suspended from the court last year for refusing to enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Moore is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, facing off against incumbent Sen. Luther Strange in a runoff next Tuesday. Strange has the backing of President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), while Moore’s backers include prominent Trump-aligned conservatives like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, ex-Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka, and former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon.

[jjbrr]

You're from Oklahoma and that's where you draw the line?

[Winstonm]

You're from Oklahoma and that's where you draw the line?

 

:P

 

A tad more - what gets to me the most is the 62 million who voted for Trump and the 40% who still support him. And that the Republicans to be supported. that they continue to hold all branches of government hostage, and their supporters are intent on forming an evangelical theocracy.