all of those reasons are her fault. it is definitive that Trump did not collude with Putin/Russia. it has been proven. full stop. Putin certainly flooded the zone with disinformation, which you continue to spread. are you colluding with Putin?
That's certainly a possibility and our system is far from perfect but there is no perfect system. Even if impeachment was a criminal proceeding under the Judicial branch it's still possible that charges and conviction don't happen because of biases of judges and jury. Remember Mueller declined to issue indictments on Trump even though he made it clear that there was abundant evidence for crimes because of DOJ policy to not indict a sitting President. The idea behind separation of powers and multiple checks and balances was that biases will exist but if power is spread out those biases will be evened out. Also this goes to a real fear of several of the Founders that partisanship would overwhelm the country and Washington specifically warned against that in his farewell address.
Wendy Davis staged a filibuster in the TX Legislature in 2013 to block antiabortion law. McConnell did away with the filibuster on USSC appointments because Democrats were using it to try to block appointments. In the last 20 years Democrats in Congress have spent more time in the minority than they have in the majority and have certainly used the filibuster themselves to block legislation and appointments that they otherwise couldn't have stopped.
I reckon its been either good luck or the relative "goodness" of Americans that has protected America over time that until trump (and Nixon, at least in my lifetime) that the imperfect system has survived as well as it has. It also suggests that it is still at risk should trump run again (and I suspect he will). btw... the idea of separation of powers and multiple checks and balances would appear to be more at risk in 2024 should trump win, the republicans regain Senate and House and continue to hold or expand the partisan Supreme Court.
Any system is only as good as the people who run it. As is that our country has survived Nixon and Trump shows that there is still a lot of resilience in the system. If a single party can control all the branches of elected government and loyalty to an individual is more important than principles there really isn't much that can be done. It doesn't matter if it's our system, a parliamentary system, a constitutional monarchy, etc...
Ok, but the post I responded to was basing the argument against on the one thing and then when I voiced my opinion on the article and the rhetoric you responded to my post. I did not jump to conclusions on anything and I never you said personally wanted the police to be defunded it was an example of a terrible strategy which I believe tying the Filibuster to Jim Crow and segregation is. I did not jump to any conclusions, and you are the one that responded to a post that was not about you in an emotional way, as usual not me. This was never about you, it was about the article but as usual you took it personally, and then you have the nerve to call somebody else emotional?
I don't know what you are trying to say here, all of this is true, but it has no bearing on my argument that we should not abolish the Filibuster just because one party has abused it. I also don't know what this has to do with my biggest issue that people are tying the Filibuster to segregation as if that's the reason it should be done away with, I just want there to be an open and honest debate and not try appeal to people's emotions.
Actually it has been proven that Trump's campaign absolutely colluded with Russia. It has not been proven that it rose to the level of provable illegality. But collusion and cooperation between Trump's campaign and Russia absolutely happened.
I'm confused, I thought one of the major findings of the Mueller report was that there was no evidence of collusion. The ABA summary: Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ excerpt: Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice. am I missing something? serious question
A key difference: Wendy Davis actually filibustered for 13 hours. Any lazy senator who wishes to grind debate to a halt currently sends an email to the leader saying that they intend to filibuster and that's it. That isn't debate; it's an exploitation of rules that have evolved over time and are not codified. They should be forced to talk and, subsequently, 60 votes should be required to sustain a filibuster, not end it. This would keep actual debate on topic (no Ted Cruz recitations of Dr. Seuss) and force the Senate to be deliberative, not a sideshow. I don't care which party has abused it more and I do think there is some validity to Manchin and Sinema's argument that doing away with the current "gentleman's agreement" all but guarantees that the GOP will pass something they want with 51 votes in the future. However the current exploitation of the rules is not debate and has turned the Senate into a black box of posturing and stagnation. Make them debate and make them vote.
So here is one summary. @basso So there was absolutely collusion. In part the old saying "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" doesn't really apply here. Ignorance of the law is in fact an excuse when it comes to proving this crime. But Trump's campaign met with Russians to get information to help them win, and gave information to the Russians in exchange in addition to discussing future policy benefits.
You are a college professor which means you understand the importance of diction and semantics. This part is relevant to my point: Basso claims s negative as factually proven which isn't how our legal system really works right? When one is found "not guilty", there isn't a 100% chance the individual is innocent. It just means there isn't sufficient evidence to reach the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". So Muller's report says that there isn't sufficient evidence to reach the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he colluded. So @basso saying that it is proven with certainty that Trump and his campaign didn't collide is just false.
I wasn’t really having a conversation with you or basso, my question was directed at a statement franchiseblade made
@FranchiseBlade would be incorrect here also. There isn't definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However there is some evidence. You stated "no evidence". So both are wrong here.
Romney warns against getting rid of filibuster, citing possible Trump win in 2024 https://thehill.com/homenews/gingri...arns-against-getting-rid-of-filibuster-citing excerpt: "The United States Senate is one of our vital democratic institutions, and the power given to the minority in the Senate and the resulting requirement for political consensus are among the Senate’s defining features," Romney said while speaking on the Senate floor. "Note that in the federal government, empowerment of the minority is established through only one institution: the Senate," he said. "The majority decides in the House; the majority decides in the Supreme Court; and the president, of course, is a majority of one. Only in the Senate does the minority restrain the power of the majority." Romney asserted that the power afforded to the minority was "critical" because it helped to ensure that laws passed in the Senate appealed to both political parties and did not "originate from the extreme wing of either one." Without the filibuster, measures on taxes, safety net programs and national security would change every time another party gained the majority, Romney said. "There is also a reasonable chance Republicans will win both houses in Congress, and that Donald Trump himself could once again be elected president in 2024," he continued. "Have Democrats thought what it would mean for them — for the Democrat minority — to have no power whatsoever?" The Utah senator also accused his Democratic colleagues of hypocrisy, pointing to their frequent use of the filibuster when they were in the minority in the past. "Over the course of my life, I have found that when presented with a matter of personal advantage that would require abandoning principles, the human mind goes to work overtime to rationalize taking that advantage," he said. Romney also criticized Biden's speech on voting rights in Georgia, in which the president said Republicans were seeking to “turn the will of the voters into a mere suggestion.” "And so, President Biden goes down the same tragic road taken by President Trump — casting doubt on the reliability of American elections," said Romney. "This is a sad, sad day. I expected more of President Biden, who came into office with the stated goal of bringing the country together." more at the link
