Today's news conference was odd. 45 comes out condemning China for intentionally releasing COVID 19 into the rest of the world--and, oh, BTW, we are withdrawing from the World Health Organization and will be using the monies earmarked for them through other unspecified avenues). Then he turns around and walks away without taking any questions about the pandemic, his argument with social media, or the riots in Minneapolis and across the country.
Frankly, I don't think he can withdraw from WHO. We are one of the charter members which was approved by Congress in 1946. Nor is there an exit clause in the WHO Charter. Moreover, the monies that were designated for WHO by Congress have to be used only for WHO. Congress has the power of the purse, and the SCOTUS has consistently said presidents cannot redirect such monies elsewhere without the approval of Congress--he will not get approval and he knows it
He's gone back and forth about who's responsible for the pandemic--particularly, ISTM, about how an epidemic in China turned into a pandemic everywhere else, especially in the United States. He's blamed China, the WHO, some other big thing (IIRC), the CDC (IIRC), Pres. Obama, and probably the cheese stolen by the mouse in the White House basement pantry.
Anything but take responsibility himself, 'cause election and personal incapability.
--
As to Congressional approval: the whole Congress, no. House, no. But the Senate? Have they been sufficiently de-programmed from their (self-)brainwashing? Do they have the guts to defend the country's health? Against T?
*Some* senators may well have been very clearly against T's handling from day 1. But as to the rest...
But the Senate? Have they been sufficiently de-programmed from their (self-)brainwashing? Do they have the guts to defend the country's health? Against T?
*Some* senators may well have been very clearly against T's handling from day 1. But as to the rest...
Too late. History will record they missed their chance in January. Subsequent events have demonstrated the folly of their short term self serving "loyalty".
If 45 wants to reallocate monies designated for WHO, he has to get approval from both the House and the Senate. Even if the Senate goes along with 45 wanting to use the monies elsewhere, but the House rejects it, 45 cannot move the money to other programs.
Trump has also decided to "punish" China by revoking Hong Kong's special status. Why exactly he thinks this punishes the PRC is anyone's guess, but mine is something along the lines of "he's an idiot who doesn't understand anything".
Sounds like the British government is going to allow Hong Kong residents to apply for British passports. That way, there can be legal access to members of the Commonwealth states.
Part of the Trump-and-Twitter question is that Trump will undoubtedly continue to use Twitter even after he is no longer President. He would be happy to cause trouble.
Part of the Trump-and-Twitter question is that Trump will undoubtedly continue to use Twitter even after he is no longer President. He would be happy to cause trouble.
Question: do you two mean his (God strenuously forbid!) inauguration for his second term? (In which case the arrest is likely a fantasy...for now.) Or when the next president is inaugurated? (Probably never, the way he sometimes talks.)
GK
If you have not figured it out, by now, he is not going to get re-elected. The latest ABC News Poll shows that Biden leads Trump 53-43, a ten-point spread which has widened over the past three months. CNN reports that 40 national polls are showing Biden with at least an eight-point lead.
He is certainly not winning points with his reaction to the protests.
Voters have a short memory. Election Day is five months away. Unfortunately, many people will have forgotten the protests and his reaction to them. If the economy improves, and/or if the Pandemic lessens, You-Know-Who will take full credit. (I heard that he was even taking credit for the successful SpaceX launch.) I desperately hope everyone remembers all of the horrors of the past 3 1/2 years, but I don't have that much faith in my fellow voters.
His reaction to the protests may perhaps play quite well withhis base. It'll all be Obama's fault anyway - gave the yppity n*****s Ideas above their station.
And if the hydroxy-Q doesn't work out as a med, they can surely find household uses: scrubbing toilet and floors, scrubbing that nasty "fake news!" out of their browser's cache...
I would love to see him clapped into handcuffs as he steps off the platform on Inauguration Day.
I will bet 4 to 3 that he will not attend the Inauguration--he is that venal.
According to Facebook (so it must be true) an ex-President gets his portrait painted and is invited to its unveiling at the White House. Apparently Obama has not been.
I was under the impression that neither Obama nor Trump would attend. Because of Covid, of course.
As long as we're entertaining various possible scenarios in our relentless nightmare, David Frum in an interview last week entertained the question of whether a president can pardon himself. It's a completely untested proposition, without scholarly consensus.
At 12:01 on 20 January 2021, 45's authority will cease. If he refuses to vacate the White House, rest assured other constitutional authorities will be there to evict him.
While there is no precedent for a president to pardon himself, he only has the power to pardon federal crimes. The state of New York will press on their investigations and, hopefully, issue indictments on the criminal gang with 45 at the top.
His reaction to the protests may perhaps play quite well withhis base. It'll all be Obama's fault anyway - gave the yppity n*****s Ideas above their station.
His base is loving it.
Gramps, I fear you are too hopeful about the potential for Trump to lose. I hope you are right though. If he is re-elected after this...
Mind boggling that protestors were dispersed with tear-gas and rubber bullets, so that Trump could stand outside a church holding a bible. This is like Mad Max gone down the rabbit hole. Journalist in the Guardian calls Trump the mad emperor.
Question: When King George III of England was mad (with porphyria or whatever), did he actually do bad/dangerous things? Or was he simply living at sort of a psychedelic tangent to reality?
Mind boggling that protestors were dispersed with tear-gas and rubber bullets, so that Trump could stand outside a church holding a bible. This is like Mad Max gone down the rabbit hole. Journalist in the Guardian calls Trump the mad emperor.
More mind-boggling is the people supporting him and denouncing the Bishop of the diocese for criticising him.
The Wikipedia page seems like a pretty good summary of the man's life. I haven't really studied him, but I understand that his illness came and went. My feeling is that by that stage, real power was in the hands of Parliament, and the power of the monarch was well into its slow decline.
I don't think George III did bad things whilst he was ill, though he might have been a danger to himself. The poor man suffered greatly, it seems, and must have been an object of pity and compassion.
Unlike Trump, who just causes others suffering...
And yet - maybe Trump really is sick, mentally as well as physically?
Thx, ST and BF. I'll check out the article, when I get a chance.
BF--Ummm, Y-E-S, IANAD, but I think T is very sick mentally, and I've been saying that since before the election. And there are professionals who've broken protocol to come out and say it. Individuals; and IIRC one of the big associations--maybe the American Psychological Association?
I'm sure others have commented before about the state of Trump's mental health (or lack of it).
The problem seems to be that it appears to be completely impossible to remove him from office, prior to the election, however desirable that might be for him, the US, and the world at large...
Talking about riding on the back of a tiger...
OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?
OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?
Two coups d'état are possible: 1. invoke the 25th amendment and have him removed as being incapacitated. This requires his staff and the Senate to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen. 2. Break the Constitution. That would be (of course) uncharted territory, and certainly the end of the United States as we know it.
OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?
Two coups d'état are possible: 1. invoke the 25th amendment and have him removed as being incapacitated. This requires his staff and the Senate to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen. 2. Break the Constitution. That would be (of course) uncharted territory, and certainly the end of the United States as we know it.
Not quite right. This deals with section four of the 25th Amendment.
Here is what I found:
When the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unable, power immediately transfers to the vice president. But in this case, the president cannot take power back unilaterally. If and when the president declares that “no inability exists,” the vice president and the Cabinet have four days to respond. In the absence of such a counter-declaration, the president retakes power at the end of the four days. If the Cabinet and the vice president reassert that the president is unable to discharge his duties, however, the dispute goes to Congress to resolve. Unless two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate vote within 21 days that the president is unable, he retakes power. If the president loses the vote in Congress, the vice president remains in charge, but the president can try repeatedly to return.
A social/political revolution could change structures of power, race, etc. But a very scary proposition in any country, and the human cost could be awful. The old mantra, when the rulers cannot go on in the old way, and the ruled cannot go on.
No fucking coups d'état here. What you do, even under massive provocation, will be done again in the future by somebody else, and they will cite you as precedent. And it will be much easier for them to do. Don't go there.
As for the 25th Amendment, that is no coup d'état. It is a perfectly proper if unusual procedure which is part of the Constitution, and it is what we should be using in these circumstances. Should have been using. I'm going to stop before I start frothing at the mouth.
Surely we can hold off on full blown revolution till November. And if he wins after that, well, one day at a time, sweet Jesus. The problem with a revolution or coup is that the right have all the guns.
I think revolutions tend to happen when everybody has reached their limit of endurance. This is not the case in the US. This excludes velvet revolutions, even more unlikely.
Question: When King George III of England was mad (with porphyria or whatever), did he actually do bad/dangerous things? Or was he simply living at sort of a psychedelic tangent to reality?
Here's a list of bad/dangerous things attributed to George III, though he did them before there was any sign of mental deterioration.
I'm very much an outsider in all this, but what I'm finding hard to get my head round is why everyone in the White House/Republican Party is allowing Donald Trump to have his own way. It seems he's gone way beyond the stage of turning a blind eye to what is going. What am I missing?
That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.
Question: When King George III of England was mad (with porphyria or whatever), did he actually do bad/dangerous things? Or was he simply living at sort of a psychedelic tangent to reality?
Here's a list of bad/dangerous things attributed to George III, though he did them before there was any sign of mental deterioration.
Ah, yes.
I've heard that his parliament was willing to let America go, without a war; but he wasn't for it. (Don't know if that was due to his illness or not.)
That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.
Some thought they could (easily) control him...
The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville. Similarly, saying "it's the power" doesn't cut it, because we have not seen a massive shift toward evilism on the part of the Democrats, and is anybody arguing that they were just born innately full of sweetness and light?
Surely we are all human beings here, and if some of us go Bad with a capital B, there are human motives behind it.
Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
My brother tells me that the explanation he's heard that makes the most sense is that any Republican contemplating opposition to Trump fears for the physical safety of family and self as targets of Trump's most rabid supporters. I tend to agree about it making the most sense.
why everyone in the White House/Republican Party is allowing Donald Trump to have his own way
Because they believe that their own political futures are in the hands of the same voters whom the devil has blinded into believing that you-know-who is their twin brother, but only in power whereas they themselves are not.
They don't realize that if they were to disavow you-know-who en masse, the majority of the party and their voters would breathe a deep sigh of relief and rally around them.
That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.
Some thought they could (easily) control him...
The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville. Similarly, saying "it's the power" doesn't cut it, because we have not seen a massive shift toward evilism on the part of the Democrats, and is anybody arguing that they were just born innately full of sweetness and light?
Surely we are all human beings here, and if some of us go Bad with a capital B, there are human motives behind it.
Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
I think there's a few possibilities. One is that they don't care enough to oppose him because they're getting the things they want (tax cuts, the courts packed with wingnuts: the two supreme court seats they've bagged for utter shit heels will be worth it for them in the long run). Two is that they've run the numbers and know that, for most of them, turning on Trump will result in them getting primaried faster than they can blink. Three, they're on the tiger and can't figure out a safe way to get off so they're just holding on until the tiger's done. Fourth, they're so partisan that the GOP winning is the only thing that matters because they've actually drunk the kool aid and think that the Democrats winning will lead to Communism.
Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
My brother tells me that the explanation he's heard that makes the most sense is that any Republican contemplating opposition to Trump fears for the physical safety of family and self as targets of Trump's most rabid supporters. I tend to agree about it making the most sense.
Comments
Frankly, I don't think he can withdraw from WHO. We are one of the charter members which was approved by Congress in 1946. Nor is there an exit clause in the WHO Charter. Moreover, the monies that were designated for WHO by Congress have to be used only for WHO. Congress has the power of the purse, and the SCOTUS has consistently said presidents cannot redirect such monies elsewhere without the approval of Congress--he will not get approval and he knows it
Anything but take responsibility himself, 'cause election and personal incapability.
--
As to Congressional approval: the whole Congress, no. House, no. But the Senate? Have they been sufficiently de-programmed from their (self-)brainwashing? Do they have the guts to defend the country's health? Against T?
*Some* senators may well have been very clearly against T's handling from day 1. But as to the rest...
Here's a piece on Trump's presidency which rings true, FWIW.
Hopefully, he will be going to jail.
I will bet 4 to 3 that he will not attend the Inauguration--he is that venal.
Thx.
If you have not figured it out, by now, he is not going to get re-elected. The latest ABC News Poll shows that Biden leads Trump 53-43, a ten-point spread which has widened over the past three months. CNN reports that 40 national polls are showing Biden with at least an eight-point lead.
He is certainly not winning points with his reaction to the protests.
Thx for the explanation. I'll believe it when it happens,
According to Facebook (so it must be true) an ex-President gets his portrait painted and is invited to its unveiling at the White House. Apparently Obama has not been.
As long as we're entertaining various possible scenarios in our relentless nightmare, David Frum in an interview last week entertained the question of whether a president can pardon himself. It's a completely untested proposition, without scholarly consensus.
"Former top Justice Department official warns Trump may 'not cede power'" (Yahoo).
While there is no precedent for a president to pardon himself, he only has the power to pardon federal crimes. The state of New York will press on their investigations and, hopefully, issue indictments on the criminal gang with 45 at the top.
His base is loving it.
Gramps, I fear you are too hopeful about the potential for Trump to lose. I hope you are right though. If he is re-elected after this...
Thx.
More mind-boggling is the people supporting him and denouncing the Bishop of the diocese for criticising him.
Unlike Trump, who just causes others suffering...
And yet - maybe Trump really is sick, mentally as well as physically?
https://washingtonpost.com/religion/bishop-budde-trump-church/2020/06/01/20ca70f8-a466-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
I think it's free to browse.
Thx, ST and BF. I'll check out the article, when I get a chance.
BF--Ummm, Y-E-S, IANAD, but I think T is very sick mentally, and I've been saying that since before the election. And there are professionals who've broken protocol to come out and say it. Individuals; and IIRC one of the big associations--maybe the American Psychological Association?
The problem seems to be that it appears to be completely impossible to remove him from office, prior to the election, however desirable that might be for him, the US, and the world at large...
Talking about riding on the back of a tiger...
OTOH (and I'm NOT advocating this) might some sort of coup d'état be possible, if (say) some sensible military leaders took forcible control?
Two coups d'état are possible: 1. invoke the 25th amendment and have him removed as being incapacitated. This requires his staff and the Senate to acquiesce. Ain't gonna happen. 2. Break the Constitution. That would be (of course) uncharted territory, and certainly the end of the United States as we know it.
Not quite right. This deals with section four of the 25th Amendment.
Here is what I found:
For a more detailed explanation, go to https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-25th-amendment-really
As for the 25th Amendment, that is no coup d'état. It is a perfectly proper if unusual procedure which is part of the Constitution, and it is what we should be using in these circumstances. Should have been using. I'm going to stop before I start frothing at the mouth.
Hell of a job, Donnie:
You brought back the 1918 Pandemic,
The 1929 Depression,
And the 1968 riots.
All at the same time.
Here's a list of bad/dangerous things attributed to George III, though he did them before there was any sign of mental deterioration.
That the Congressional Republicans (at least publicly and en masse) are power-mad, greedy ________ {fill in the noun of your choice} who don't give a damn about the country, its citizens, or the horribly disturbed old man who's running it.
Some thought they could (easily) control him...
Ah, yes.
I've heard that his parliament was willing to let America go, without a war; but he wasn't for it. (Don't know if that was due to his illness or not.)
The thing is, "Oh, they're all just evil, evil people" isn't an explanation. A whole huge party doesn't go evil for no reason. It's not like people woke up, thought, "I'm a bit bored, gonna evil today" and set forth on their voyage of evilling toward Evilsville. Similarly, saying "it's the power" doesn't cut it, because we have not seen a massive shift toward evilism on the part of the Democrats, and is anybody arguing that they were just born innately full of sweetness and light?
Surely we are all human beings here, and if some of us go Bad with a capital B, there are human motives behind it.
Which is why I'm wondering just how many bodies are buried where, and by whom, and who knows, and what has been threatened as a result.
My brother tells me that the explanation he's heard that makes the most sense is that any Republican contemplating opposition to Trump fears for the physical safety of family and self as targets of Trump's most rabid supporters. I tend to agree about it making the most sense.
Because they believe that their own political futures are in the hands of the same voters whom the devil has blinded into believing that you-know-who is their twin brother, but only in power whereas they themselves are not.
They don't realize that if they were to disavow you-know-who en masse, the majority of the party and their voters would breathe a deep sigh of relief and rally around them.
I think there's a few possibilities. One is that they don't care enough to oppose him because they're getting the things they want (tax cuts, the courts packed with wingnuts: the two supreme court seats they've bagged for utter shit heels will be worth it for them in the long run). Two is that they've run the numbers and know that, for most of them, turning on Trump will result in them getting primaried faster than they can blink. Three, they're on the tiger and can't figure out a safe way to get off so they're just holding on until the tiger's done. Fourth, they're so partisan that the GOP winning is the only thing that matters because they've actually drunk the kool aid and think that the Democrats winning will lead to Communism.
The ballot in November will be a secret vote, no?