-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
Oh good call. Yes I do blame him for how it is now, it would still have been a tragedy or disaster with someone else in charge but not IMO as bad. Not too hard to understand the distinction is it?"And yet I wrote : "I'm no fan of the man and glad he's gone" ......"
Yes but you keep attacking me for opinions which many (including Republicans) share."They can't be serious historians then if they are judging a President against 200 years of other US Presidents before he's even left office. "
-4 years of historical data. Oh, perhaps you are referring to everything his people have been shedding? There are still his tweets-official records.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-habit-of-ripping-up-records-trump-could-leave-a-hole-in-us-history/What primary sources are they using - or are they just using gut feel?
-They could be using secondary sources. You could write to them and ask. Or you could impugn their judgement based on your 'gut feel'..
-In the links you can find those historians and decide for yourself. You could also email survey organizers and ask if the names of the historians were made available: "For additional information about the survey visit www.siena.edu/sri/research or contact Don Levy at 518-783-2901, dlevy@siena.edu or Doug Lonnstrom at 518-783-2362."
Or look at https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/trump-best-worst-presidents-ranked/index.html
-Perhaps you could show them how it is done by reading the articles I linked and then going to the historians themselves. -
@Siam said in US Politics:
A change of tack:
Another long podcast - sorry, i currently drive trucks so get ample time to listen to long form. Also it's the only way to get a feel for authenticity of speakers.
This one has 20 odd minutes of Brett Weinstein explaining how America arrived here from post ww2.
It's brilliant. For the time conscious, it starts at 9 minutes. He recounts history and political social landmarks up to the present.
I can't recommend it enough, please give it a go.
Great context for what we're all wrestling with. If it matters, Weinstein is firmly on the left, if anything.
Bumping my own submission with no regard for modesty or self awareness...
The last 10 minutes is an appeal from Weinstein and makes a lot of sense ( certainly changed my stupid point scoring opinions). Again, worth a listen for the time poor
-
@Godder said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
@Godder said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
If I were Biden, I’d be inclined to pardon Trump.
It wouldn't do much - it can't stop or affect the penalties from impeachment (that's in the constitution), and Trump is in more danger of state prosecution than federal (particularly New York State), so it doesn't do much there either.
On the other hand, genius as a symbolic gesture that achieves little.
I'd also want Senate Democrats to call off impeachment dogs.
I admit I haven't read too much on impeachment terms, but if it were having to prove the 'offence' to criminal law standards I think there'd be a very real risk that Trump was acquitted. And that would be hugely more power to his elbow. On top of the obviously dubious nature of some of the election scrutineering his support will be enhanced.
The whole thing's a circus which can only detract from Biden's first 100 days.
IMO better for Joe to seize the moral high ground.
That's what a real statesman would do.
A pardon accepted is tantamount to an admission of guilt, and would take the wind out of his supporters' sails.
Impeachment is a political matter for Congress alone - SCOTUS has ruled that it's non-justiciable, and the Constitution specifically prevents a president from pardoning or reprieving any effects of impeachment. It is not double jeopardy to be impeached (whether convicted or not) and later charged for criminal acts for the same actions, or vice versa (if it was, people couldn't be impeached for being convicted of serious crimes).
Because it is not actually a court process (despite using a lot of legal terms), standards of proof and evidence is whatever Congress says it is, which is why it requires 2/3rds present and voting to convict (and likewise for expulsion of a Rep or Senator from Congress), not a lower standard.
Impeachment dates back to 1376 and the first impeachment for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was in 1386, and the term has never been intended to only include actual crimes (despite using crimes in the phrase), as impeachment for other matters needs to be available e.g. insanity, gross negligence or incompetence.
Because of the history of what impeachment is, it's a serious thing for a president to be seen to interfere with it as it is effectively None of Their Business. There is a lot of scholarship and belief in the separation of powers in the USA, and getting involved risks seriously annoying the whole Senate, not just a few senators.
In the US context, Biden is best served saying that it's a matter for Congress, not least because that's the truth, and that the Constitutional thing for a president to do is keep out, so he will be.
Edit: the Senate could censure Trump instead if they wanted a gesture short of impeachment. Seems unlikely, but that only requires a majority.
Ever heard of Jim Clyburn?
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
Jim Clyburn
That was an interesting read. But I didn't catch the link between Biden leaving impeachment to congress and not going down the pardon for Trump route? I wonder who Clyburn's favourite was before he went with Biden.
-
@Godder said in US Politics:
@pakman he voted in favour of impeachment and is a major player in Congress for the Democrats? His endorsement of Biden saw the momentum shift in Biden's favour in the primaries?
Reported that he had, implicitly with Joe’s support, leaned on Nancy to sit on impeachment. She initially agreed but when Pence wouldn’t go down 25 route would no longer be restrained.
-
Looks like Parler is coming back online with non-US hosting. As ever, when you deny people a voice (no matter how fruitcake and offensive those voices are), more often than not, you simply strengthen those voices and the conspiracy theorists in their midst.
Virtue signalling by Amazon, Google, et al, by kicking them off platforms may provide a warm feeling to some, but banning "offensive" speech always backfires.
-
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
OK, I'll bite.
Yes but you keep attacking me for opinions which many (including Republicans) share.
I'm not attacking you, I am disagreeing with your opinions and questioning your analysis. The fact they are shared with other people is irrelevant.
-4 years of historical data. Oh, perhaps you are referring to everything his people have been shedding? There are still his tweets-official records.
And zero hours of analysis against historical context. Contemporary historians told the world (and their students) for decades that FDR's New Deal brought the US out of Depression and was his greatest achievement. Now they teach the opposite.
Oh, perhaps you are referring to everything his people have been shedding?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-habit-of-ripping-up-records-trump-could-leave-a-hole-in-us-history/And yet you are arguing - or the historians you quote to prove your point - that unreleased historical records are irrelevant in judging whether Trump is the "worst President ever".
-They could be using secondary sources.
Which includes hearsay, vox pop, opinion pieces, contemporary political speeches by his opponents & news reports from Briebart. Very useful in determining historical context, but on their own pretty worthless without hard, documentary evidence such as official records & papers
-In the links you can find those historians and decide for yourself. You could also email survey organizers and ask if the names of the historians were made available: "For additional information about the survey visit www.siena.edu/sri/research or contact Don Levy at 518-783-2901, dlevy@siena.edu or Doug Lonnstrom at 518-783-2362."
They aren't historians - they teach Sociology & Business Studies at Siena.
-Perhaps you could show them how it is done by reading the articles I linked and then going to the historians themselves.
Thanks for the ad hominem, but I don't need to show "them" anything. They are the ones saying Trump is "the worst President ever", not me. I'll reserve my judgement until I know more.
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@Siam said in US Politics:
If anyone thinks Biden is the man then lay out the cards and we'll analyse that argument as we have done Trump's
Lesser of two evils seems to have been the voters consensus. Biden will also be analysed, that goes without saying, every president is.
CONSENSUS?!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
-4 years of historical data. Oh, perhaps you are referring to everything his people have been shedding? There are still his tweets-official records.
And zero hours of analysis against historical context. Contemporary historians told the world (and their students) for decades that FDR's New Deal brought the US out of Depression and was his greatest achievement. Now they teach the opposite.
I was taught former in 1970s! What is the current view?
Oh, perhaps you are referring to everything his people have been shedding?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-habit-of-ripping-up-records-trump-could-leave-a-hole-in-us-history/-In the links you can find those historians and decide for yourself. You could also email survey organizers and ask if the names of the historians were made available: "For additional information about the survey visit www.siena.edu/sri/research or contact Don Levy at 518-783-2901, dlevy@siena.edu or Doug Lonnstrom at 518-783-2362."
They aren't historians - they teach Sociology & Business Studies at Siena.
LOL
-Perhaps you could show them how it is done by reading the articles I linked and then going to the historians themselves.
Thanks for the ad hominem, but I don't need to show "them" anything. They are the ones saying Trump is "the worst President ever", not me. I'll reserve my judgement until I know more.
I would be astounded if in 30 years Trump will be seen as the worst President ever. I can conceive of him being considered one of the worst persons ever to have been President, but that is quite a different thing, and a distinction which many of the posters here seem to find difficult to make.
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
I was taught former in 1970s! What is the current view?
That it caused the recession in '37, centralisation of power & increased bureaucracy reduced industrial efficiency, it created big divisions in society between poor whites, wealthier Americans & African-Americans and slowed the return to full employment. A lot of the accepted "benefits" of the New Deal - e.g. full employment and increased wealth - are now believed to be actually due to WW2.
Not that it didn't achieve great things like Labour reform and improving financial regulation but it wasn't the wonder-strategy that was almost uncritically taught up to the '80's.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
I was taught former in 1970s! What is the current view?
That it caused the recession in '37, centralisation of power & increased bureaucracy reduced industrial efficiency, it created big divisions in society between poor whites, wealthier Americans & African-Americans and slowed the return to full employment. A lot of the accepted "benefits" of the New Deal - e.g. full employment and increased wealth - are now believed to be actually due to WW2.
Not that it didn't achieve great things like Labour reform and improving financial regulation but it wasn't the wonder-strategy that was almost uncritically taught up to the '80's.
All news to me. You seem to have kept up-to-date far better!
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
I would be astounded if in 30 years Trump will be seen as the worst President ever. I can conceive of him being considered one of the worst persons ever to have been President, but that is quite a different thing, and a distinction which many of the posters here seem to find difficult to make.
Yep. LBJ would make Trump look like a quiet, respectable choir-boy by all accounts. But, apart from Vietnam, he did some amazing stuff.
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
All news to me. You seem to have kept up-to-date far better!
History degree 10 years ago.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
All news to me. You seem to have kept up-to-date far better!
History degree 10 years ago.
That would have been pretty interesting. Balanced lecturers?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
I would be astounded if in 30 years Trump will be seen as the worst President ever. I can conceive of him being considered one of the worst persons ever to have been President, but that is quite a different thing, and a distinction which many of the posters here seem to find difficult to make.
Yep. LBJ would make Trump look like a quiet, respectable choir-boy by all accounts. But, apart from Vietnam, he did some amazing stuff.
I posted that historic LBJ speech a month or so ago. Wonderful. But pretty coarse fellow by all accounts.
US Politics