Now that 45 has threatened to open up the country on his own authority (nowhere granted in the Constitution) and then backed down, to say nothing about adjourning the Congress (the Constitution does allow it but only if Congress is deadlocked) and has seemingly blinked on this, he comes out with a Opening up America Again document.
It is notable that nowhere in the document is there any provision for general testing. It seems to be written in such a way that it sets up the states for failure. If the provisions are followed and the virus has a resurgence in a state that is following the guidelines, 45 can come back and say, "You can't blame me."
That is his continued M.O. Blame China; blame Obama; blame W.H.O.; blame Congress; blame the states. Anyone but him.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It's a time honoured version of the three letter advice to an new head teacher from the one leaving office, in handling crisis.
First letter says - blame it on your predecessor
Second letter says - blame it on the governors
Third letter says - write three letters for your successor.
It's a time honoured version of the three letter advice to an new head teacher from the one leaving office, in handling crisis.
First letter says - blame it on your predecessor
Second letter says - blame it on the governors
Third letter says - write three letters for your successor.
It has been the custom for the outgoing president to leave a letter for the new incoming one. They are not usually shared with the public. I can not imagine what Trumps will be, that is if he would even write one. God willing he will be given the opportunity come November.
It's a time honoured version of the three letter advice to an new head teacher from the one leaving office, in handling crisis.
First letter says - blame it on your predecessor
Second letter says - blame it on the governors
Third letter says - write three letters for your successor.
It has been the custom for the outgoing president to leave a letter for the new incoming one. They are not usually shared with the public. I can not imagine what Trumps will be, that is if he would even write one. God willing he will be given the opportunity come November.
I SO much wish his successor would publish it. Bad Lamb, bad...
I thought that Clinton(?) has made some reference to the letter left him by GHWB - not publishing it, but referring to it, and in very positive terms... Or was it about their handover conversation.... Or am I hallucinating again?
--PG: I think there was something like that, but I'm not sure which presidents. Might have been who you said.
--LC: LOL, and yes, that would be great. Have you seen the "National Treasure" movies? One of them involves the "Book of the Presidents", in which each president writes to their successor. I've sometimes wondered if there's a real version, and what it might say.
I thought that Clinton(?) has made some reference to the letter left him by GHWB - not publishing it, but referring to it, and in very positive terms... Or was it about their handover conversation.... Or am I hallucinating again?
I think Trump said something like "He sent me a very nice letter."
I think Trump's actions on this are worthy of some kind of "wrongful death" charge for two reasons: 1) if shut-down states are "liberated" now, there will be more viral spread, and some people will die; and 2) he's encouraging people who are carting around automatic weapons--and one possible target is Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who he doesn't like.
Pence was interviewed on the PBS Newshour today. (04/17/20, starts around 7:23 and runs about 12 min.) I'm not sure whether he's clueless, utterly deluded, mindlessly sticking to campaign talking points...or flat-out lying. IMHO, Judy Woodruff did a mighty interviewing job, confronting him about the administration's delayed handling (which he deflected onto WHO); quoting from an ICU nurse in New York who told about having so few gowns that nurses had to pass them on to the next nurses at the end of their shifts (who P thanked very well, then said several times that the US health system isn't overwhelmed), etc.
I haven't yet found a transcript (probably too soon). But there is closed captioning.
A NY friend of T died of COVID-19 a few days ago. (T had previously mentioned him anonymously as being in a coma from it.) I wonder if that's gotten through T's muddled mind as being something to be prevented?
Demonstrations against stay-at-home orders, which have drawn elements of the far right, have been held in Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia. Some protesters have carried guns, waved Trump and confederate flags, and framed the protest as a defence of constitutional freedoms.
tRump said that protestors who gathered in groups “seem to be very responsible people”.
Freedom to die a horrible, lonely death and have their relatives do the same, I presume?
Well, at the Charlottesville protest/incident a couple years back, T said there were "nice" or "good" people on both sides...
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
He's done many foul things but inciting protests and civil disorder against the governors is pretty close to worst. He's flexing his muscles, saying to the governors that unless they move quickly to open up the economy he will set his trump-loyal storm troopers on them.
It's not quite inciting Civil War but it's moving into that territory.
Presumably, he thinks he can rely on 40% of the vote, even if he does something criminal. That more people may die, with a poorly executed lockdown, probably not important to him.
I'd forgotten all about this bozo. Oh, and there's a link to a Mother Jones article explaining connections between the Michigan protestors and Betsy DeVos, Education Secretary. (Nothing I saw connects her *directly*, though. I.e., I saw nothing that said she talked them into it.)
Presumably, he thinks he can rely on 40% of the vote, even if he does something criminal. That more people may die, with a poorly executed lockdown, probably not important to him.
I actually think the election in November is what's motivating his decision making.
Funny to see these guys waving Confederate flags while demanding that their own states submit to Washington's control. At least the people who brandished it against federally mandated integration understood what level of government it's supposed to represent.
So Trump is articulating the views of the libertarian alt-right, sometimes called a death cult, as they prefer the deaths of 1000s of people, as long as their rights are not infringed?
I've asked this before, but is there really NO WAY this demented apology for a 'president' can be removed from office immediately?
What about Article 25?
I know you'd end up with Pence, but surely even he would be less likely to incite possible rebellion, murder, and civil unrest - which is what it's looking like from this side of the Pond.
I've asked this before, but is there really NO WAY this demented apology for a 'president' can be removed from office immediately?
What about Article 25?
I know you'd end up with Pence, but surely even he would be less likely to incite possible rebellion, murder, and civil unrest - which is what it's looking like from this side of the Pond.
Assuming that Trump is actually the primary cause of this rebellion(and don't underestimate the American capacity for grassroots-driven wackadoodle individualism), by this point, were he to be removed, it might not make much of a difference, since his fans would regard it as an illegitimate coup, possibly even declaring Pence a RINO, and the Donald would still be able to incite the faithful via his tweets.
Pence too liberal? He doesn't even accept the scientific theory of evolution.
Frankly, I am at the point where if these Neo-Nazis want to appear at state capitals armed the governors should call out the National Guard and start making arrests. They may have the right of peaceful assembly; but, in my mind, they cross the line when they bring their guns to their protests.
Yes, but it's just the mere thought of your mad president seeming to almost encourage such ghastly behaviour (or potential behaviour) that sticks in the craw.
I've asked this before, but is there really NO WAY this demented apology for a 'president' can be removed from office immediately?
What about Article 25?
Several problems there. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment (there is no "Article 25" in the U.S. Constitution) only applies in cases where "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Situations like the President being in persistent coma, or insane, or suffering dementia. It doesn't cover arguably seditious or treasonous behavior. The remedy for that is supposed to be impeachment and removal, and that was already tried.
The second problem is that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment has to be invoked by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e. the Cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide". The chances of Pence and a majority of Trump's cabinet declaring him incompetent is vanishingly small. If nothing Trump has done so far has convinced them "this guy is nuts", I doubt a few intemperate tweets are going to do it.
The third problem is that the president can appeal the imposition of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, transmitting to Congress that he's not really [ comatose / insane / whatever ] and Congress then gets to decide the matter. Unless Congress "determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" Trump would resume the presidency*. Again, we've already had that vote in the Senate and if two-thirds of the Senate weren't willing to remove Trump for undermining American democracy I doubt two-thirds of them would do so over a couple of tweets.
When several hundred Second Amendment activists showed up to my state capitol with semi-automatic rifles in January, they were politely waved through the metal detectors and welcomed into the building by the security guards.
A number of public schoolteachers pointed out that when they came to protest the state employee pension cuts at the capitol building the previous year, they were subjected to multiple searches and ordered to leave their umbrellas and protest signs outside.
Pence too liberal? He doesn't even accept the scientific theory of evolution.
Yeah, but if you're someone for whom Trump is the be-all-and-end-all, and he gets tossed in favour of Pence, and you think(justifiably or otherwise) that Pence had something to do with it, then Pence might as well be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as far as you are concerned.
I've asked this before, but is there really NO WAY this demented apology for a 'president' can be removed from office immediately?
What about Article 25?
Several problems there. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment (there is no "Article 25" in the U.S. Constitution) only applies in cases where "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Situations like the President being in persistent coma, or insane, or suffering dementia. It doesn't cover arguably seditious or treasonous behavior. The remedy for that is supposed to be impeachment and removal, and that was already tried.
The second problem is that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment has to be invoked by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e. the Cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide". The chances of Pence and a majority of Trump's cabinet declaring him incompetent is vanishingly small. If nothing Trump has done so far has convinced them "this guy is nuts", I doubt a few intemperate tweets are going to do it.
The third problem is that the president can appeal the imposition of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, transmitting to Congress that he's not really [ comatose / insane / whatever ] and Congress then gets to decide the matter. Unless Congress "determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" Trump would resume the presidency*. Again, we've already had that vote in the Senate and if two-thirds of the Senate weren't willing to remove Trump for undermining American democracy I doubt two-thirds of them would do so over a couple of tweets.
Understood (sorry about misquoting 'Article' - I meant 'Amendment')
I saw a bit on an American station (Detroit, I think) in which a woman-on-the-street wanted to open the general retail economy because she had "to make a living". I get that (being in a similarly strapped situation), but she obviously didn't get the irony of not being alive to make a living, and that a Covid death is not a gentle passage. Somehow the money:death ratio just doesn't compute for some people.
I'm no expert, being Yankee born and bred, but I suspect the flag in question now symbolizes something approximating, "I'm a GD Murkan Citizen of the greatest GD nation on this here planet Earth and ain't nobody gonna tell ME what Ah can an' cannot do, so youse kin take yer GD rools & 'strictions & shove 'em up yer backside!"
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I'm no expert, being Yankee born and bred, but I suspect the flag in question now symbolizes something approximating, "I'm a GD Murkan Citizen of the greatest GD nation on this here planet Earth and ain't nobody gonna tell ME what Ah can an' cannot do, so youse kin take yer GD rools & 'strictions & shove 'em up yer backside!"
It always irritates me the way the Treason Flag isn't more widely recognized as an emblem established to destroy America. It's first incarnation was for use by the Confederate military, which made war on America and inflicted more military deaths on the nation than any other conflict in it's history. After its use to represent Treason in Defense of Slavery, it had a second career during the civil rights era as the banner of Terrorism in Support of Apartheid. To see it popping up in place like Michigan . . . Henry Morrow must be spinning in his grave.
I'd roughly concur as well, though I will also say that up until now, when it was displayed in defense of a particular political cause, it was always on the side that was backed by the state against the feds.
IOW it was more a symbol of decentralization than of libertarianism.
I am wondering why people who claim to be of the party of Lincoln can use the battle flag of the people that fought against him.
A follow up to this: I have a friend that proudly wears the battle flag of the confederacy. His reply was he idealizes the antebellum Southern Aristocracy. I pointed out that less than 10% of the South was aristocratic and that system was based on slavery. I asked if he really favored slavery. He has yet to get back with that, but if he does I will unfriend him in a heartbeat.
What astonishes me is how the "states' rights" issue (dressed up in the guise of patriotism) somehow seems to have eclipsed human rights in this mindset -- as though kidnapping, forced labor, imprisonment, loss of human rights, freedom of movement and association, self-determination, personal history, right of association, and on and on -- were mere interesting sidebars to "states' rights." The right (?!) to actually own -- and direct and control and even abuse -- another human bring? And this somehow gets overlooked and swept out of the way like so much insignificant trivia?
Flagrant and conscious white supremacy is the answer isn't it? Only whites have rights, because only whites are truly human. The others are, at best, the others.
What astonishes me is how the "states' rights" issue (dressed up in the guise of patriotism) somehow seems to have eclipsed human rights in this mindset -- as though kidnapping, forced labor, imprisonment, loss of human rights, freedom of movement and association, self-determination, personal history, right of association, and on and on -- were mere interesting sidebars to "states' rights." The right (?!) to actually own -- and direct and control and even abuse -- another human bring? And this somehow gets overlooked and swept out of the way like so much insignificant trivia?
It boggles the mind.
I believe the usual line of apologia is to say that the CSA wasn' t really fighting for slavery, it was all a tariff war or something, and that if the south had won they would have abolished it in short order.
I'll also read into the record that that whitewashed view of the south also had a following in the UK, among those seeking to rationalize Her Majesty's Government playing footsie with the CSA. Karl Marx actually wrote a lot of interesting journalism about the politics of the Civil War in both countries.
Comments
It is notable that nowhere in the document is there any provision for general testing. It seems to be written in such a way that it sets up the states for failure. If the provisions are followed and the virus has a resurgence in a state that is following the guidelines, 45 can come back and say, "You can't blame me."
That is his continued M.O. Blame China; blame Obama; blame W.H.O.; blame Congress; blame the states. Anyone but him.
First letter says - blame it on your predecessor
Second letter says - blame it on the governors
Third letter says - write three letters for your successor.
I SO much wish his successor would publish it. Bad Lamb, bad...
Still, I suppose one of his toadies or lickspittles would have to write the letter on his behalf.
And maybe he'll leave the order-out menus from McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken in the desk drawer.
From the Guardian
Whatever it is, someone does not have the governors' backs.
Though if someone were to put a sedative in Trump's Coca-Cola, it might help...
--PG: I think there was something like that, but I'm not sure which presidents. Might have been who you said.
--LC: LOL, and yes, that would be great. Have you seen the "National Treasure" movies? One of them involves the "Book of the Presidents", in which each president writes to their successor. I've sometimes wondered if there's a real version, and what it might say.
Adderall is the rumour. Please note that the Wall Street Rebel is not a website of record.
I think Trump said something like "He sent me a very nice letter."
Dear God.
I think Trump's actions on this are worthy of some kind of "wrongful death" charge for two reasons: 1) if shut-down states are "liberated" now, there will be more viral spread, and some people will die; and 2) he's encouraging people who are carting around automatic weapons--and one possible target is Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who he doesn't like.
Pence was interviewed on the PBS Newshour today. (04/17/20, starts around 7:23 and runs about 12 min.) I'm not sure whether he's clueless, utterly deluded, mindlessly sticking to campaign talking points...or flat-out lying. IMHO, Judy Woodruff did a mighty interviewing job, confronting him about the administration's delayed handling (which he deflected onto WHO); quoting from an ICU nurse in New York who told about having so few gowns that nurses had to pass them on to the next nurses at the end of their shifts (who P thanked very well, then said several times that the US health system isn't overwhelmed), etc.
I haven't yet found a transcript (probably too soon). But there is closed captioning.
Thank you for reading the linked story, Golden Key.
tRump said that protestors who gathered in groups “seem to be very responsible people”.
Freedom to die a horrible, lonely death and have their relatives do the same, I presume?
Does ‘responsible’ now mean ‘tRump supporter’?
It's not quite inciting Civil War but it's moving into that territory.
And it gets worse.
"COVID-19 Protesters Just Like 'Rosa Parks,' Says White House Adviser Stephen Moore" (HuffPost via Yahoo).
I'd forgotten all about this bozo. Oh, and there's a link to a Mother Jones article explaining connections between the Michigan protestors and Betsy DeVos, Education Secretary. (Nothing I saw connects her *directly*, though. I.e., I saw nothing that said she talked them into it.)
I actually think the election in November is what's motivating his decision making.
What about Article 25?
I know you'd end up with Pence, but surely even he would be less likely to incite possible rebellion, murder, and civil unrest - which is what it's looking like from this side of the Pond.
Assuming that Trump is actually the primary cause of this rebellion(and don't underestimate the American capacity for grassroots-driven wackadoodle individualism), by this point, were he to be removed, it might not make much of a difference, since his fans would regard it as an illegitimate coup, possibly even declaring Pence a RINO, and the Donald would still be able to incite the faithful via his tweets.
(What's a RINO, please?)
Republican In Name Only. A derogatory term for Republicans regarded as too liberal.
Frankly, I am at the point where if these Neo-Nazis want to appear at state capitals armed the governors should call out the National Guard and start making arrests. They may have the right of peaceful assembly; but, in my mind, they cross the line when they bring their guns to their protests.
Heaven forbid that it should come to shooting, though, despite what the mad president might be prepared to accept in return for votes...
IYSWIM.
Several problems there. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment (there is no "Article 25" in the U.S. Constitution) only applies in cases where "the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Situations like the President being in persistent coma, or insane, or suffering dementia. It doesn't cover arguably seditious or treasonous behavior. The remedy for that is supposed to be impeachment and removal, and that was already tried.
The second problem is that the Twenty-Fifth Amendment has to be invoked by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e. the Cabinet] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide". The chances of Pence and a majority of Trump's cabinet declaring him incompetent is vanishingly small. If nothing Trump has done so far has convinced them "this guy is nuts", I doubt a few intemperate tweets are going to do it.
The third problem is that the president can appeal the imposition of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, transmitting to Congress that he's not really [ comatose / insane / whatever ] and Congress then gets to decide the matter. Unless Congress "determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" Trump would resume the presidency*. Again, we've already had that vote in the Senate and if two-thirds of the Senate weren't willing to remove Trump for undermining American democracy I doubt two-thirds of them would do so over a couple of tweets.
A number of public schoolteachers pointed out that when they came to protest the state employee pension cuts at the capitol building the previous year, they were subjected to multiple searches and ordered to leave their umbrellas and protest signs outside.
Yeah, but if you're someone for whom Trump is the be-all-and-end-all, and he gets tossed in favour of Pence, and you think(justifiably or otherwise) that Pence had something to do with it, then Pence might as well be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as far as you are concerned.
Understood (sorry about misquoting 'Article' - I meant 'Amendment')
Thx.
Kyrie eleison, nevertheless...
Has the Confederate flag become a general symbol of grass roots libertarianism now, rather than having any historical content?
Yes, IMHO.
The Treason Flag is associated with white supremacy. To the extent white supremacy masquerades as "grass roots libertarianism", the answer is yes.
It always irritates me the way the Treason Flag isn't more widely recognized as an emblem established to destroy America. It's first incarnation was for use by the Confederate military, which made war on America and inflicted more military deaths on the nation than any other conflict in it's history. After its use to represent Treason in Defense of Slavery, it had a second career during the civil rights era as the banner of Terrorism in Support of Apartheid. To see it popping up in place like Michigan . . . Henry Morrow must be spinning in his grave.
I'd roughly concur as well, though I will also say that up until now, when it was displayed in defense of a particular political cause, it was always on the side that was backed by the state against the feds.
IOW it was more a symbol of decentralization than of libertarianism.
A follow up to this: I have a friend that proudly wears the battle flag of the confederacy. His reply was he idealizes the antebellum Southern Aristocracy. I pointed out that less than 10% of the South was aristocratic and that system was based on slavery. I asked if he really favored slavery. He has yet to get back with that, but if he does I will unfriend him in a heartbeat.
It boggles the mind.
I believe the usual line of apologia is to say that the CSA wasn' t really fighting for slavery, it was all a tariff war or something, and that if the south had won they would have abolished it in short order.
I'll also read into the record that that whitewashed view of the south also had a following in the UK, among those seeking to rationalize Her Majesty's Government playing footsie with the CSA. Karl Marx actually wrote a lot of interesting journalism about the politics of the Civil War in both countries.