It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pelosi: GOP Led Congress Might Impeach Hillary If Elected

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There's enough to rite a book, honestly.

I think DC interjects itself into things best left to the individual or even state government just to justify it's continued growth.


Give me a specific example. With the possible exception of the Department of Education, I can't think of anything going on in DC right now that's an example of federal overreach. I certainly can't think of anything that I feel would be improved by dividing it up to states and cities, resulting in even less input on decisions being made.

There's no such thing as something being left to the individual. If it's a commodity it either belongs to the private or public sector. If you're not in favor of it being provided by the government, then by default you're in favor of it being provided by a corporation. For some commodities this just isn't practical. For example, space travel. If space exploration were up to the private sector we still wouldn't be past the sound barrier. Communications also suffer from this, both the cell phone and the internet... the two major forms of communication today came from government funded research.

Private sector research only happens when the margins are larger and the chance of success is higher.

State governments I already stated my position on, but I'll reiterate. State governments simply aren't transparent enough to be trusted with anything.
DC has never bankrupted itself. States like California have.
DC pushed the mafia out of gambling. Illinois bankrupted it's lottery.
DC has helped people go to school, Kansas "misplaced" education dollars and closed it's schools weeks early.
DC eliminated the Medicaid gap. The states kept it in place anyways so they could punish the poor for being poor.

The states cannot be trusted. The only benefit to giving states power, is that you move control over an issue to a local population, so that people in Nevada don't partially dictate what happens in Indiana. I'm not convinced that's actually a benefit though because the states exist as this odd mid tier government. If you believe in local control you should be against the state government because people in Indianapolis get to dictate what happens in Evansville. Which means you need to break everything down to the city level.

City and county level governments don't have the tax revenues to sustain large projects though. For example, I live in a small town... there's no way we could own a fleet of helicopters to use fighting a forest fire if necessary. It could only be done through joint ownership with our surrounding counties. But that just adds bureaucracy to a system that could exist under state control. Which brings about the paradox, what gives the people in Columbus (since I'm in Ohio) the right to decide what sort of fire fighting protection my town needs?

DC has the advantage that with centralized power, they can gather more information, make more optimal choices, and ultimately save everyone money. And it helps that it's just one government that needs serious attention for transparency.




posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

That is all speculation...
However, there are people in the right places
that could start this impeachment process, even
if it looks impossible from the start.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I do not think it is speculation at all. It is a matter of numbers, and the reality is that the Republicans do not have the required to achieve a guilty vote at all. It requires 67 senators to vote guilty. And based off of the last impeachment, it was pretty much along party lines, the republicans voting guilty and the democrats voting not guilty, ending up in an acquittal of the president and not his removal. And it also closed the legal books on any further pursuit of any of the charges against him. It was a legal trial.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: burntheships

I do not think it is speculation at all. It is a matter of numbers, and the reality is that the Republicans do not have the required to achieve a guilty vote at all. It requires 67 senators to vote guilty.


As I responded posts ago, it is a process that may need to happen,
regardless of the "outcome".



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
So you think that they are willing to be forced to put all of this to rest and in short make her immune from being prosecuted in the future from all of this? That means no more investigations, no more committees, no more anything that the impeachment would cover, only to be made fools of, and potentially ruin what ever chance the Republican party had to try to regain any sort of potential for being a viable political party in the future, ensuring that the Democrats continue to make headway into states that have long been the bastion of political strength of them for years.

If you look at the current polls, the republicans are losing, badly, very badly in states that were never even questioned and were often the base for the Republican party, all thanks to the current candidate for president. There is a good chance that the republicans may not have that opportunity to do such, and it may very well be tabled and put on hold until after the swearing in ceremony, and if the Democrats take the house, it will not see the light of day for a few years.

Pretty big gambit for a political witch hunt, that so far is back firing every step of the way.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I do not pretend to know what options Congress has in dealing
with her, nor do I think "polls" should enter into it.

Either we are a country of laws, or we are not.
Obviously, it is teetering at the moment....

Imo, Hillary has thought all of this through, being
a fan of Alinsky this is all right out of his playbook.

Just look at Bill Ayers, he bombed the Pentagon
and came out smelling like a rose after a period
of time. Hillary can do the same.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There's enough to rite a book, honestly.

I think DC interjects itself into things best left to the individual or even state government just to justify it's continued growth.


Give me a specific example. With the possible exception of the Department of Education, I can't think of anything going on in DC right now that's an example of federal overreach. I certainly can't think of anything that I feel would be improved by dividing it up to states and cities, resulting in even less input on decisions being made.

There's no such thing as something being left to the individual. If it's a commodity it either belongs to the private or public sector. If you're not in favor of it being provided by the government, then by default you're in favor of it being provided by a corporation. For some commodities this just isn't practical. For example, space travel. If space exploration were up to the private sector we still wouldn't be past the sound barrier. Communications also suffer from this, both the cell phone and the internet... the two major forms of communication today came from government funded research.

Private sector research only happens when the margins are larger and the chance of success is higher.

State governments I already stated my position on, but I'll reiterate. State governments simply aren't transparent enough to be trusted with anything.
DC has never bankrupted itself. States like California have.
DC pushed the mafia out of gambling. Illinois bankrupted it's lottery.
DC has helped people go to school, Kansas "misplaced" education dollars and closed it's schools weeks early.
DC eliminated the Medicaid gap. The states kept it in place anyways so they could punish the poor for being poor.

The states cannot be trusted. The only benefit to giving states power, is that you move control over an issue to a local population, so that people in Nevada don't partially dictate what happens in Indiana. I'm not convinced that's actually a benefit though because the states exist as this odd mid tier government. If you believe in local control you should be against the state government because people in Indianapolis get to dictate what happens in Evansville. Which means you need to break everything down to the city level.

City and county level governments don't have the tax revenues to sustain large projects though. For example, I live in a small town... there's no way we could own a fleet of helicopters to use fighting a forest fire if necessary. It could only be done through joint ownership with our surrounding counties. But that just adds bureaucracy to a system that could exist under state control. Which brings about the paradox, what gives the people in Columbus (since I'm in Ohio) the right to decide what sort of fire fighting protection my town needs?

DC has the advantage that with centralized power, they can gather more information, make more optimal choices, and ultimately save everyone money. And it helps that it's just one government that needs serious attention for transparency.


This is one of the scariest posts I have ever read. Centralize power is NEVER a good thing. Centralized power leads to less transparency and more corruption. It consolidates the power of a nation to a few. The most oppressive regimes in human history have had their core, centralized power.

"I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth." - Thomas Jefferson

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied." - Thomas Jefferson

"Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering direction impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States...it would become the most corrupt government on the earth..." - Thomas Jefferson

"(S)hould look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.
My idea is that we should be made one nation in every case involving foreign affairs, and separate ones in whatever is merely domestic..." - Thomas Jefferson

"It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government." - Alexander Hamilton



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Chomper76

So then provide some examples of current federal overreach.

In the time of the people you quoted it was also a different world. Due to improvements in communications technology you're closer to the feds today than they were to city governments.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Chomper76

So then provide some examples of current federal overreach.

In the time of the people you quoted it was also a different world. Due to improvements in communications technology you're closer to the feds today than they were to city governments.


EPA using its regulatory authority to enact policies not authorized by Congress.
The NLRB being ruled unconstitutional because power was centralized to one person.
The FBI interfering in local / state law enforcement activities.
The misinterpretation of the elastic clause / commerce clause.
This administration handing over the internet in violation of federal law.
The push to federalize all locals / state law enforcement.
The illegal executive order granting the president authority over state national guard units.
The FCC push to outlaw conservative media outlets.
The federal government suing border states over immigration while refusing to enforce immigration laws.

want me to continue or are you getting the idea?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Most of your politicians holding power on a federal level got their big break on the local and state level. If you are seeing a great deal of corruption from a politician on the local level, just imagine the amount of corruption from the politician once they get power on a federal level. You see politicians failing upwards all the time, too. It is basically the peter principle. Many of these guys get elected because either no-one else is running against them, they are not as bad as the other guy, or they received votes simply by being a member of a particular party.

The only way you can really stop it is by citizens participating more in the electoral process at the ground level. It is important to hold the mayor, sheriff's office, and/or city council to the fire in the same manner in which you would hold the president accountable. Heck, they are even small towns in this country who would rather self-govern by electing a dog, cat, or goat in office simply because they feel like the local leadership is either incredibly incompetent and/or corrupt.

When you talk about more centralization of power, you are unwittingly inviting a hegemony - fueled by the population's fear, ignorance, and indifference - into your life. It is alot easier for a town to kick out an idiot politician from office than for a Nation to give another Hitler the boot.

My attitude toward the private sector is similar to how I might choose a partner. I like having lots of choices from which to choose. If I don't like their product or I think their pay sucks, I don't have to buy what their selling or work for them. If I feel like I can offer more than the choices that are given to me, I can come up with something else if I am willing (or have the means) to make the investment. If I want to go public, I have to accept the fact that I have to be transparent with my shareholders. I have to ensure my financial documents are in good order.

The thing that poses an obstacle to this is when the government allows lobbyists from mega-corporations to influence legislation that hinders my ability to choose or to even create another product that can compete. It is an indicator that the politicians elected to office are not working on behalf of their electorate. But once again, these red flags from politicians tend to appear at the local level, so I guess in a way, it is the citizen's fault.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
EPA using its regulatory authority to enact policies not authorized by Congress.


Like what, how is the EPA out of control? If anything we've seen the opposite such as when the EPA can't prevent lead poisoning in the water.



The NLRB being ruled unconstitutional because power was centralized to one person.


If it was ruled unconstitutional it's no longer in effect, which is how it's supposed to work. Illegal actions happen but they get shut down.



The FBI interfering in local / state law enforcement activities.


I don't know anything about this, can you expand on it?


The misinterpretation of the elastic clause / commerce clause.


Misinterpretations are still constitutional if the courts go along with it.


This administration handing over the internet in violation of federal law.


They didn't hand over the internet, and it wasn't in violation of federal law. Besides, on the theory that the government was even involved here... isn't this what you want? Taking power out of the hands of the feds?


The push to federalize all locals / state law enforcement.


Again, I don't know much about this one. As a rough guess, I assume this has to do with the fact that crime statistics have shown certain police departments to be more corrupt than others, especially as it related to who they target, and how much they use asset forfeiture.


The illegal executive order granting the president authority over state national guard units.


This is something to fight through the courts, not through the Executive.



The FCC push to outlaw conservative media outlets.


This one is ridiculous. I do think it brings up an interesting debate on the limits of free speech/free press though. RT and some of the alternative sites that repeat what RT says are little more than foreign propaganda... just how much of that should we be allowing? Other press like the Enquirer or Infowars have zero journalistic integrity and poison peoples minds, part of government is that it's supposed to protect the individual. Letting these "media" outlets prey on people who don't have a very good grasp on reality isn't protecting them. I'm not saying we should shut them down, but I do find it an interesting question.



The federal government suing border states over immigration while refusing to enforce immigration laws.


The federal government is at record numbers of deportations, how are they not enforcing immigration laws?


want me to continue or are you getting the idea?


Almost none of what you mentioned are through federal departments that the right is saying they want to shut down in order to trim government.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllinThisTogether16
Most of your politicians holding power on a federal level got their big break on the local and state level. If you are seeing a great deal of corruption from a politician on the local level, just imagine the amount of corruption from the politician once they get power on a federal level. You see politicians failing upwards all the time, too. It is basically the peter principle. Many of these guys get elected because either no-one else is running against them, they are not as bad as the other guy, or they received votes simply by being a member of a particular party.


Higher government has more people involved, it also has much more transparency and watchdog groups, at least on the federal level.

It's my opinion that state governments are the most corrupt governments in our day to day lives. They're large, all powerful, and no one pays any attention to them.


When you talk about more centralization of power, you are unwittingly inviting a hegemony - fueled by the population's fear, ignorance, and indifference - into your life. It is alot easier for a town to kick out an idiot politician from office than for a Nation to give another Hitler the boot.


Centralization of power also creates a centralization of watchdog groups. Another Hitler can take power regardless of citizen involvement but a Sheriff Arpaio can only exist at a local level where there isn't any real money in opposing them.


The thing that poses an obstacle to this is when the government allows lobbyists from mega-corporations to influence legislation that hinders my ability to choose or to even create another product that can compete. It is an indicator that the politicians elected to office are not working on behalf of their electorate. But once again, these red flags from politicians tend to appear at the local level, so I guess in a way, it is the citizen's fault.


Where is the government preventing you from competing?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I think Trumps failure is almost complete. 15 more days till Dems take, win everything. No impeachment, no more obstructionist politics, RIP GOP, you have your voting base and trump to blame.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: burntheships

I think Trumps failure is almost complete. 15 more days till Dems take, win everything. No impeachment, no more obstructionist politics, RIP GOP, you have your voting base and trump to blame.


The last time the Democrats controlled the white house, senate and the house we got obama care. I doubt the dems will win control of the house or the senate.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Corruption at the federal level is prevalent it just does not get media attention except during elections... Not to mention investigation / prosecution at the state level is easier than at the federal level.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Corruption at the federal level is prevalent it just does not get media attention except during elections... Not to mention investigation / prosecution at the state level is easier than at the federal level.


I'm not saying that corruption doesn't occur, just that it's reduced at the federal level. There's a bunch of watchdog groups focused on the feds. It's not perfect but it's better than handing the power to state governments that no one is paying attention to.

I've just seen too many examples of the states being utterly incompetent to support handing more power to them. People pay more attention to federal level ballots when they vote, people watch what they do. Federal failures, while they happen, haven't been as severe as the state level failures either.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Reference the ballot comment -
The states are responsible for the ballots and voting, including overseeing the federal elections portion. The constitution gave that function to the states.

I dont think corruption is less at the federal level. I actually think there is more and it doesnt get reported. This is supported by the way the media protects clinton and her corruption.

If anything the Feds have usurped power from state governments via overreach.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I am looking at how divided the parties are, where the Republicans will back a republican president no matter what and vice versa.

If you take a look at 2 things, then it becomes very obvious, the first is the budget. The republicans and the democrats can not agree, it gets stalled out, then comes the fear mongering and rhetoric, possibly a short shut down and then low and behold, at the 12th hour, what happens? A miracle, where a budget is suggested, reconciled and then approved, and seems to be as if both sides can claim victory, the only losers are the people who watch this stuff and where it matters.

The same can be stated with the Supreme court vacancy. The Republicans have put forth a fight over it, to where they are blocking and not even giving a hearing, or a vote on a valid candidate, and this is a person that the Republicans several years earlier found nothing objectionable, but cause a Democratic president nominated the person and they are hoping that a republican will get elected, they are not wanting to do their jobs.

The bottom line is that the person in the White House, their party is going to back 100% and or protect no matter what, and the other party is left with out a means. And when it comes to Hillary, it has been stated and shown that it has been a political witch hunt.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Sorry for taking so long to respond!

First off, you mention watchdog groups, but who watches the watchdogs? The FDA was supposed to function as a watchdog at first, but they ended up getting overrun by special interests. Example: Look into G.D. Searle's involvement in getting aspartame approved in 1981. Rumsfeld's involvement in getting aspartame approved

G.D. Searle president, Donald Rumsfeld's connections to the Republican party were also thought to play a part in Searle's decision to reapply for aspartame's approval on the day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987).


Also, look into the current FDA head honcho's Robert M. Califf's connections to big pharma. If you want to go deeper, look at how the DEA actively lobbies against the legalization of marijuana. One of the reasons why they actively go against it is because it has an effect on the amount of funding they receive.

Considering the many things you can do with the cannabinoid, there is no reason why it can't used medicinally at least. There are people who are struggling who can't afford to see a psychiatrist. Marijuana can be specially cultivated in a manner to help people with anxiety issues, who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford pharmaceutical meds. FDA, because it is in the pocket of big pharma, doesn't see it as being in their best interests to explore marijuana for its medicinal use. I am no pot head. I tried it twice in my life and had mixed experiences. I was told the different experiences were due to the different strains. When I tried it the first time, I didn't like the peak of the high, but since I was having extreme back pain, the analgesic effects were incredibly impressive. Unlike what would happen with alcohol (consuming enough amounts to equal the high), I was able to remember every moment the next day. My anxiety was reduced and the effects lasted a whole week. My thoughts, afterwards, were immediately of, "why the heck are we not exploring this more for treatment?".

That is not the only issue though. If you remove the stigma of marijuana, you open the borders for farmers to grow hemp as a cash crop. Hemp has taken off in Colorado recently, which had everything to do with state legislation. I think there has been alot of work in Ky about getting farmers' rights to grow hemp. As of now, you need to pay out for a license. I think this is absurd. You can use hemp for oil, paper, rope, textiles, plastics, insulation, biofuel.... There are so many uses and the dang crop grows like a weed (forgive the pun) with little soil impact. I think it was Ford who once dreamed of being able to grow cars from the ground up (the soybean car).

You mentioned that you grew up in a small town. I grew up in the inner city in a very bad neighborhood. I literally saw drug addled prostitutes sitting on my front porch. I would see guys coming in from the surrounding "better neighborhoods" to get their dope. The experience could only be equivocated to watching vultures feasting upon a dying carcass. The superintendent of the public schools, at the time, fled the city because they couldn't come up with the missing 20 mil during a state audit. There was another time where there was an issue that prompted my parents to contact the state attorney general, and lo and behold, the issue was soon settled. The point I am making is that these issues can and do get addressed with citizen involvement. Politicians are not bad people, per se, but they are also always looking for a "righteous campaign" they can hook onto. They have vested interests, of course, but they are sometimes also thirsty to make a name for themselves as leaders of a disenfranchised group. They don't know everything, but I think they go into it with good intentions. Sometimes they get into a bubble themselves, but it is up to the citizens to make them aware of our issues in a respectful/persuasive manner and to also let them know that we are watching.

There are definitely trade offs you have to make when choosing to live in a small town vs. major city. It was enlightening when I discovered that I had to pay the same property taxes when compared to the surrounding cities. Jobs were not as available and industry left for the "nicer" surrounding cities who could afford greater tax breaks. They were able to afford greater tax breaks, because the city, in which I lived, had to front the cost for much of the infrastructure, high crime rate, and poor school systems. It is difficult for me to resonate with your views of a more centralized government, because I think the needs of a small town compared to a large city are a little bit different. Both areas require a specialized kind of governance reflective of the attitudes of their constituents. If you think it is a good idea for your town to be treated in the same manner in which they'd treat the city in which I grew up in, you are asking for a world of hurt, imo. If so, get used to eminent domain and tax hikes. The rights of small towns would get eaten up by a centralized government as if it were a game of Pac-Man. You think you have no voice now, just wait.

edit: typos


edit on 28-10-2016 by AllinThisTogether16 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-10-2016 by AllinThisTogether16 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AllinThisTogether16
First off, you mention watchdog groups, but who watches the watchdogs?


I think of watchdog groups as people like the ACLU or Judicial Watch. The people who force government disclosures and sue the government. I don't think of a government apparatus like the FDA as being a watchdog. The FDA performs what in my opinion is an essential service for public health and ultimately everyone oversees each other. The public watches what the government is doing and forces them to comply with the law, while the government watches what the people are doing and forces compliance with the law. I think it's a good system.

Special interests in the government regulatory industries is a problem, but I honestly don't know what a fair and balanced solution to that is. Some people think the solution is to just cut back on the regulations, but I don't agree with that. It's the regulations that keep us safe and healthy. The problem as I see it is that an effective regulator is someone who has been in the business for decades. To switch industries to banking, since it's the easiest example: I want a banking regulator who understands the banking system and can tell the difference between a company saying they can't do something because it would cost them money and a company saying they can't do something because it runs counter to industry best practices.

There are some brilliant banking regulators out there today, but the problem is that they're powerless. These people are appointed to the position through Presidential decree and usually cycle with Presidential terms, if not sooner than that. Ultimately though, this means that a regulator will have a career in their industry, regulate it for a couple years, and then go back to their industry. If they don't play ball with the corporations during those regulation years, they won't have a job waiting for them when it's time to go back to the private sector. This is the main failure of regulation today I believe.

The fix would be to make career paths for regulators, but I think that carries with it the risk that the reality the regulators live in, isn't the same reality as the industry they regulate. Basically, regulators would ultimately propose theories and be the academics of the professional world while the company would know how things are rather than how they should be.

It's a complicated issue.




top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join