Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

12425272930112

Comments

  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    Jane R wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Treason is an offense against the state, not the president. He’s not a king.

    If you look at the powers he has, rather than the name of the office, he looks remarkably like an eighteenth-century English king. The principle that the office of King of England was separate from the person currently holding that office was established when Charles I was tried and convicted of treason in 1649.

    Of course. As I learned fro a wise and learned expert i 18th century British political history many years ago, the US constitution was based explicitly how the "right-thinking" people of the day (whigs in England) believed the English constitution ought to work. THus the importance given to the separation of the executive from the legislature -- because it was believed by the radicals that having executive members in the legislature was fundamentally corrupt. At the time, upwards of 100 members of the House of COmmons might be considered members of the government, or in its pay, and the executive also included a goodly number of peers and their families. The powers of the US president perfectly reflect what was accepted as given for the head of the executive...in the late 18th century, by a bunch of radical aristocratic politicians who had been out of office fo decades.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A president is not the sovereign of the USA. The people are sovereign and the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. When the president takes the oath of office, s/he promises to defend the constitution to the best of his ability. So he can commit treason against the Constitution and against the people of the USA.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    He is the very model of a very stable genius.

    NSFW if work doesn’t like the mention of the Orange One’s penis.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    He is the very model of a very stable genius.
    NSFW if work doesn’t like the mention of the Orange One’s penis.
    Or, penius.
  • Thanks, Boogie - absolutely brilliant satire, of which Mr. Gilbert would be proud!

    It cheered me up after a shi**y few days...
    :grin:

    IJ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    He is the very model of a very stable genius.

    NSFW if work doesn’t like the mention of the Orange One’s penis.

    One of Randy's good ones, but I still prefer Putin and the Ritz. Over a year old and still relevant, which is either an achievement for Rainbow or an indictment of the American political system.
  • Yes indeed - more wonderful stuff, and I just love the thought of POTUS' face being shown as a Rit* Cracker...
    :grin:

    If the world in general survives long enough, the quality of the black humour and mordant satire resulting from this unbelievable saga will be worth savouring in the future, perhaps as an Awful Warning, if nothing else!

    IJ
  • Latest from BBC News:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44864739

    What is this Egregious Idiot up to? Does he even know what day of the week it is?
    :confounded:

    IJ
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Gaslighting.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    ISWYM, I think, but I had to look it up to be sure (perhaps I've been gaslit?):
    https://psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting

    All too true, alas - but does he really think everyone is fooled?

    IJ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Latest from BBC News:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44864739

    What is this Egregious Idiot up to? Does he even know what day of the week it is?
    :confounded:

    IJ

    It's the best his press team could come up with I guess, once they'd decided that "I had my fingers crossed but Putin said 'no backsies' so it didn't count" wasn't going to cut it.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    As others have pointed out, the President must be loyal to the Constitution and the institutions of government, so, yes, as a matter of legal doctrine, a President can be treasonous. It would be unprecedented, and seismic, to level such charges.

    Possibly, but as Dave W noted the possibility of a treasonous president was explicitly anticipated by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. That clause was put there for a reason.
    [/quote]

    I'm not certain whether you're actually disagreeing with me. In my comment, I explicitly recognise a treasonous president a possibility. I merely note that (a) it has not yet happened; (b) it would be legal havoc; (c) the implication would be potentially destructive. When I write (c), that is not to say that a charge of treason should not be pursued, but, if it were to be, to be pursued with extreme probity. This would be the equivalent, not of George III, but Charles I.

  • It would be a calamity I think if Trump were impeached. He needs to be hobbled and then chucked out on his ear by the electorate.

    I came on to whine about Trump's 'oh sorry I misspoke. Didn't you realise? You should have realised.' I reckon what happened is that Trump, Putin's biggest fanboy, was so overcome in the presence of his idol that he was tongue tied and said would instead of wouldn't. My tip for Trump when he is next in Putin's presence is to focus on his nose. If you look at his eyes or his lips you just go all gooey inside,
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I haven't been following this thread recently but can a President commit treason? Wouldn't that be an offence against himself?

    That sounds like something Trump might say.

    He's not a monarch. He's supposed to be a public servant
  • Simon Toad (and others who've said we shouldn't try to legally get T out now, it's unseemly, etc.)--
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I just saw someone - a right-winger on PBS Newshour - opine that NATO was seriously in trouble because of Trump, and that he expects NATO will not survive a second Trump term. The speaker was pro-Trump and looking forward to NATO going. I don't know why.

    I am seriously scared by that.

    GK, yeah it is, but if the Dems can get a better position in Congress Trump can be contained while you build for the final denouement of Fake News and its President in 2020. Trump will do damage, but if he is a one-term President basically spat out by the electorate things can be patched up I think. I know we have different perspectives and you are the one in the frying pan old mate. :)

    Simon Toad, thanks for the last sentence of that. :) If more Shipmates would show that kind of humility, these discussions would be much easier and fairer for the American Shipmates.

    This is a general discussive rant, not aimed at anyone in particular:

    --How many more immigrant kids will be put in cages? How many green-card folks will be deported?

    --How many international relationships will he break up?

    --How much will he push white supremacy?

    --How much more intransigent will Congress be about staying on the dark side of the Force?

    --How many social safety net programs will he disrupt?

    --How much preserved wilderness will he turn over to big business (e.g., oil exploration and drilling)?

    --How many more minority communities will he insult? Will he stop calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas"?

    --Will rich and/or powerful supporters (his real base) keep financially supporting him?

    --How long are we going to keep a perpetrator of multiple sexual assaults and peeping at underage beauty contestants in office?

    --How many illegal immigrants, their kids, their people back home will be driven to seriously consider terrorism because of that monster who's done so much harm?

    --How many "strong man" leaders will he cuddle up with, both wanting to be one of them and more powerful than them? How many of them will he excuse and/or cheer on?

    Etc.

    Legal and non-violent measures need to be taken to get him out of office. Period.

    BTW, I saw a suggestion online that Hillary might run in 2020...





  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Golden Key wrote: »

    BTW, I saw a suggestion online that Hillary might run in 2020...

    I'm not American, but I think she needs to accept defeat. She, to me, is part of the problem. She is, of course, nothing like Trump, but she was hardly considered an ideal candidate from my readings in 2016, so what would change in 2020?

    But I accept I may be wrong and I know she has support here. I just think she needs to let someone else have a go. Just my 2 c. I'm not meaning to preach. I do look forward to a woman in the White House; as I look forward to the day we vote in a woman to Prime Minister here (Julia Gillard dethroned the voted-in leader so I look forward to us voting a woman in).

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »

    This has made my evening. Thank you.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 2018
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Latest from BBC News:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44864739

    What is this Egregious Idiot up to? Does he even know what day of the week it is?
    :confounded:

    IJ

    It's the best his press team could come up with I guess, once they'd decided that "I had my fingers crossed but Putin said 'no backsies' so it didn't count" wasn't going to cut it.
    Well, yes. But it also looks as though he went off piste, even in this "clarification". Here is the quote from the above link.
    The US president added: "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. Could be other people also. A lot of people out there." (My italics)
    He leaves just a little bit of air there, about who did what, how much was initiated and controlled by Putin. Note this later comment in the BBC account.
    However, he did not respond when reporters asked him if he would condemn Mr Putin.

    Croesos is right to guess it was the best they could do and Trump made it an even worse "best" than it already was. Not in the BBC article, he also said this about his would/wouldn't clarification.
    ‘It should have been obvious, I thought it would have been obvious, but I would like to clarify just in case it wasn’t."

    I didn't see any apology there. More like "if you can't see what I really meant, you must be dumb".

    It was a graceless "clarification", lacking in credibility both by reference to both the original context and the way he delivered it. Given the loyalty of his core support base, as mentioned several times, I suppose Trump and his advisers think that any old crap will do for the support base.


  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    I just want to apologise for my response to GK. Thinking on it over dinner, it was not right to comment. The PotUS, as the world's superpower leader, is someone I wish I had a say in as their role and the person occupying that role, has an impact on my life in many ways given our desired relationship to the US. But I should know when to zip it and I didn't. Sorry.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Sorry if I missed someone posting this, but I just read McCain's response to Helsinki.

    https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/7/statement-by-sasc-chairman-john-mccain-on-trump-putin-meeting
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Opinion polls say that if the election was rerun tomorrow, Hillary Clinton would lose again.

    What the Democrats need is a credible candidate *under the age of fifty*. Quoth my SIL: she voted for Hillary but was not at all convinced by her or the Democrats because she doesn't feel they offer any kind of inspiring vision beyond the same old same old white Boomer establishment. She's not alone in this sentiment and this is a serious problem.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host

    What the Democrats need is a credible candidate *under the age of fifty*. Quoth my SIL: she voted for Hillary but was not at all convinced by her or the Democrats because she doesn't feel they offer any kind of inspiring vision beyond the same old same old white Boomer establishment. She's not alone in this sentiment and this is a serious problem.

    A credible candidate, regardless of age. But first, there are the mid terms. Denting the GOP in both House and Senate has to be the first stage. I like Simon Toad's "hobble first".

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Simon Toad (and others who've said we shouldn't try to legally get T out now, it's unseemly, etc.)--
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I just saw someone - a right-winger on PBS Newshour - opine that NATO was seriously in trouble because of Trump, and that he expects NATO will not survive a second Trump term. The speaker was pro-Trump and looking forward to NATO going. I don't know why.

    I am seriously scared by that.

    GK, yeah it is, but if the Dems can get a better position in Congress Trump can be contained while you build for the final denouement of Fake News and its President in 2020. Trump will do damage, but if he is a one-term President basically spat out by the electorate things can be patched up I think. I know we have different perspectives and you are the one in the frying pan old mate. :)

    Simon Toad, thanks for the last sentence of that. :) If more Shipmates would show that kind of humility, these discussions would be much easier and fairer for the American Shipmates.

    This is a general discussive rant, not aimed at anyone in particular:

    --How many more immigrant kids will be put in cages? How many green-card folks will be deported?

    --How many international relationships will he break up?

    --How much will he push white supremacy?

    --How much more intransigent will Congress be about staying on the dark side of the Force?

    --How many social safety net programs will he disrupt?

    --How much preserved wilderness will he turn over to big business (e.g., oil exploration and drilling)?

    --How many more minority communities will he insult? Will he stop calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas"?

    --Will rich and/or powerful supporters (his real base) keep financially supporting him?

    --How long are we going to keep a perpetrator of multiple sexual assaults and peeping at underage beauty contestants in office?

    --How many illegal immigrants, their kids, their people back home will be driven to seriously consider terrorism because of that monster who's done so much harm?

    --How many "strong man" leaders will he cuddle up with, both wanting to be one of them and more powerful than them? How many of them will he excuse and/or cheer on?

    Etc.

    Legal and non-violent measures need to be taken to get him out of office. Period.

    BTW, I saw a suggestion online that Hillary might run in 2020...





    It bloody hurts, huh. And I know you guys want Trump gone more than me. You must, when you live with and around people who suffer directly as a result of his policies.

    GK, do you think I am living in a fools paradise when I say that impeachment is likely to further divide America, but Trump losing in a Presidential election might just help get the country back to normal political discourse? I am well inclined to believe you if you really think that I'm wrong about that. I think the November election will help heaps in working out whether Americans are ready to get out of the trenches for a while.

    I love Hillary. I am a massive fan. I think she would make a great President. But I think she is too divisive in the USA. I think Fox's work is done. They have thoroughly blackened her name to the extent where in an election against the most obviously flawed candidate for President that I can think of, she lost. She SO should have won that election, but because many people in America were just not able to trust her, Comey's terrible quandary broke her campaign. I wish she would get herself a Senate seat where she can continue to apply her prodigious talents to the benefit of America. Mind you I like her mentoring young Democrat leaders too. She has so much to give (she can also retire from public life - God knows she has earned a period of rest and lazy happiness).
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    I do not think Hilary will run again. I do not think she, or Sanders or Biden will ever be President. What the Democrats need is several relatively young (under 50 would be nice), articulate, qualified possible candidates with clean noses. They also need a well-designed, sensible agreed-upon message. It is not enough to be opposed to the Republicans. The Republicans also lack such a message, but they have plenty of such candidates.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I would much rather see someone in their 50s than in their 40s. This is a capstone job -- the capstone job. I want someone with 25-plus years of experience at responsible positions in the Oval Office.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    The most experienced and canny political player I can think of already seems to be controlling America.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2017/02/24/15/vladimir-putin-2.jpg?w968h681

    A rather impish smile, no?

    IJ
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Actually, on reflection, I'd rather have him as Lord Of The World than the Rit* Cracker look-alike.

    I wonder how long it'll be before Uncle Xi and Cousin Kim invade America from the west, and Uncle Vlad invades from the east (having stomped over the remains of the EU meantime)?

    It'd make a good fillum...

    I'm not wishing ill on our beleagured US Shipmates, but I do have a lovely vision of a Big Hole somewhere in the middle of the US of A (a desert region, uninhabited by People Of Sense), into which POTUS and the 'Evangelical' Conservative Right are consigned, as into a circle of Hell.

    IJ
  • edited July 2018
    Don't trust anyone over 30. In Jesus' case perhaps 32.

    Hillary is establishment. So was Obama which is why perhaps he didn't do as well as expected. You've got a problem in that the USA is starting to look like a failed state. Or said Maclean's magazine in June.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    O, now I hadn't thought of an invasion from the north!

    Sorry, Canada, I thought you were above that sort of thing, but, in extremis, along with the concerted efforts of Uncle Xi, Cousin Kim, and Uncle Vlad, it might help Save The World...

    It's rather a long border, though. Any chance of a Big, Beautiful Wall, paid for by POTUS?

    No, I thought not....but the fillum just got more interesting...

    I realise I'm fantasising, but the WHISKY I'm taking as pain relief is speaking.

    IJ
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I reckon what happened is that Trump, Putin's biggest fanboy, was so overcome in the presence of his idol that he was tongue tied and said would instead of wouldn't.
    This is naïve. He said what he felt, and then was forced to walk it back by the weight of the opposition to it. There's no way in hell he could discourse about double negatives. That was fed to him, and I don't doubt he resents it, and we'll see the repercussions of it soon. Perhaps already in his smokescreen idea that Montenegro could take on Russia and launch WW3.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, do you think I am living in a fools paradise when I say that impeachment is likely to further divide America, but Trump losing in a Presidential election might just help get the country back to normal political discourse?

    In addition to the short-term downsides outlined by Golden Key, pretending that everything is normal and nothing is wrong has long term disadvantages as well. The practical implication of what you're suggesting is that no presidential wrongdoing, no matter how egregious, will ever be punished or sanctioned in any way. That the American president is effectively above the law. Using the power of your office to harass your political and personal enemies? No problem! Want to sell weapons to terrorist to fund a secret war in Central America? Go right ahead! Got an urge to start an unjustified war by subverting intelligence and lying to the American people? Be our guest! You say you're an agent of a hostile government? I don't see why there should be any objection to that!

    Seriously, the idea that presidential actions, no matter how egregiously criminal or traitorous, are beyond any kind of correction beyond the ballot box (a problematic corrective for presidents in their second term) is one of the factors that effectively created the Trump administration's contempt for the law. The past four decades have been the tale of the Republican party seeing how far it can push the limits of high crimes and misdemeanors. Nixon was pardoned because it would be too "divisive" to hold him accountable for his actions, so the guys in the Reagan administration decided that they could push a little further. And they were right! Not only did the top guy get off but, unlike Watergate, none of his lieutenants went to jail. Seeing this the Bush administration decided it could go even further, lying the country into war and setting up a global network of black-site torture camps! And it turns out they were right, too. Unlike Reagan's lieutenants none of Bush's top people (with the lone exception of Scooter Libby) was ever even charged with anything. "Look forward as opposed to looking backwards." Thanks, Obama! So now we come to a point where the Republican party has, to all appearances, decided that being an apparent Russian agent is not a bar to being president. As problematic as this is in the immediate term I shudder to think of what's next if that becomes acceptable presidential practice.

    So yes, you're living in a fool's paradise if you think treating the Trump administration as something within the normal boundaries of the American presidency is going to lead to "normal political discourse" in the future. Besides, wouldn't a Trump electoral defeat simply lead to all kinds of conspiracy theories about how the election was "rigged"? Trump kept going on about that for an election he won!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Don't trust anyone over 30. In Jesus' case perhaps 32.

    Hillary is establishment. So was Obama which is why perhaps he didn't do as well as expected.

    In what context are you saying Obama "did not do as well as expected"? It is not at all uncommon for presidents to get elected with only a plurality of the vote, yet Obama managed to get a majority in both 2008 and 2012(by way of comparison, George W. Bush got a majority in neither election he won, even counting Florida in his column in 2000).

    Unless people had been predicting an LBJ '64 or Reagan '84 style landslide for Obama(which I don't think many people were), I'd say he probably did about as well as expected, if not a little better.
  • Obama is said by many to have performed less well as a president than hoped. Not about the votes. I don't have a stick in the mud nor a oar in the ocean to understand what Obama was supposed to have accomplished or not. Dunno. Being president while black may be a thing.
  • How about judging Obama on the way he played the hand he was dealt - two messy and protracted wars and a broken economy.

    @mousethief , I saw an implication of my attempt at a joke was that Trump was telling the truth when he said he misspoke some time after I posted it. I reject that implication.

    @Crœsos, I think the practical implication of what I'm suggesting is that Presidential wrongdoing won't ever be punished without damaging the nation unless the President's party is prepared to acquiesce in the punishment. Nevertheless, I take your point that if Trump is defeated by a large majority, he will probably make damaging and divisive claims about election fraud. If he was disowned by Republican politicians, say after a big defeat in the midterms, would he be repudiated by many Republican voters, reducing the impact of his claims?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I take your point that if Trump is defeated by a large majority, he will probably make damaging and divisive claims about election fraud. If he was disowned by Republican politicians, say after a big defeat in the midterms, would he be repudiated by many Republican voters, reducing the impact of his claims?

    I doubt that he would. More to the point I'm not sure what it would take for Republican politicians to repudiate Trump at this point. Even those with no political future to worry about (e.g. Flake, Corker, McCain) don't do much more than hem and haw about how they're "concerned". I'm not sure a big midterm defeat would change that.
  • I reckon the only thing that will make Republican politicians repudiate Trump is a strong survival instinct.
  • Simon Toad--

    ISTM that, in the Star Wars movies, when Emperor Palpatine (of the dark-force empire) was...dethroned...the Sith Lords stayed on the dark side. And, IIRC, the empire more or less stuck around.

    Which, being interpreted, means "if the Congressional Republicans are this deep in the dark-force muck already, I don't hold out much hope for a mass de-mucking". It would be great if they did get out of the muck; and I think some are trying in *some* areas, like concern about the immigrant kids.

    I suspect their survival instincts--or, at least, common Congressional wisdom--say "you dance with the one what brought ya", and a personal Armageddon happens if they step out.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    @mousethief , I saw an implication of my attempt at a joke was that Trump was telling the truth when he said he misspoke some time after I posted it. I reject that implication.
    English please?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Obama is said by many to have performed less well as a president than hoped. Not about the votes. I don't have a stick in the mud nor a oar in the ocean to understand what Obama was supposed to have accomplished or not. Dunno. Being president while black may be a thing.

    Okay. gotcha.

    I think Obama was probably a disappointment to some progressives, if they were expecting him to introduce more radical policies(I remember it being seriously speculated, pre-election, that if he wins he might be assassinated, so radical were people thinking he would be).

    That said, I'd be curious to know how progressives who lamented Obama's being a "fake progressive" would stack him up against what they've got now. (And I do know some who are sticking to their guns and saying Trimp is no worse. Personally, I think you have to ignore a lot of stuff to continue with that line.)
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    That seems an odd line to me. Trump is not in the same universe as Obama.

    I have read, from dyed-in-the-wool socialists (as I tend to read such people), that they were hoping for more progressive policies. His increasing drone attacks and deportations from the US were also mentioned as things to not be proud of.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I think Obama was probably a disappointment to some progressives, if they were expecting him to introduce more radical policies(I remember it being seriously speculated, pre-election, that if he wins he might be assassinated, so radical were people thinking he would be).

    I think the criticism in retrospect is that in his first two years in office he acted in a spirit of bipartisanship in the hope that it would be reciprocated, and that it wasn't really because the Republicans post 2010 saw most attempt to compromise as evidence that they could move further to the right.

    [Ignoring to drone strikes, the extension of executive powers etc etc].
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 2018
    I'm with Croesos in observing the abnormalities of the Trump Presidency.

    It should be observed that Richard Nixon was placed in the early exit door primarily by a bipartisan investigation of wrongdoings and a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court over accessibility to tapes and the limit of executive privilege. Nixon was not supported by Republicans in the House, the Senate, or the Supreme Court, when push came to shove.

    It's different today. I'm not sure I could see a concerted effort to impeach happening today. Which makes the ballot box the best option in practical terms.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    Perhaps the Queen of England had Trump taped with her coded messages.
  • Yes, I heard about her wearing the brooch that the Obamas gave her, as a personal gift, when she was with T.
    (grin)

    When Madeleine Albright was US Secretary of State, she was known for sending messages with her jewelry. There's even a book about it!
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    It seems as though all the Top People can see what a fool POTUS is. He, of course, can't (or won't) see it himself.

    I love the idea of HM the Q making her feelings known through her jewellery/hat, etc. She's old, wise, and experienced enough to be perfectly capable of thinking it all out by herself!

    IJ
  • stetson wrote: »
    I remember it being seriously speculated, pre-election, that if he wins he might be assassinated, so radical were people thinking he would be.
    I can't speak for everybody, but I feared he would be assassinated because he was black, not because he was radical.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I understand the Queen punked the Trumps. During the review of the troops, it is said that she was wearing a brooch given to her by the Obamas. Then during tea she wore a snowflake brooch given to her by the Canadian people. Elizabeth 2, Trump 0
Sign In or Register to comment.