Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1162163165167168

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    For the record, I am not thinking about the effect of impeachment on the cultists. I am thinking about the swing voters.

    And don't underestimate the psychological(and hence electoral) boost that could come from an acquital. The Time To Heal crowd won't think of it as a rigged verdict brought about by Republicans standing by their man; they'll think of it as proof that the Democrats have wasted everyone's time pursuing something that should best be forgotten.

    (And to be clear, I do NOT want it forgotten. But the best way to keep it in the public eye is to continue allowing the Republicans to hang themselves with their own rope.)
  • Of course impeachment is right, and of course Trump is going to portray himself as a victim, and many of the Trumpistas will hail him as a martyr. However, this second impeachment lays down an important line in the sand about the conduct of any future POTUS in particular, and should set a line about language for all future presidential candidates.

    The Trumpistas will, in time, either melt away or will start to question the behaviour of their erstwhile leader; in particular, his two most recent videos are likely to be interpreted by them as a betrayal, which should serve to undermine the crazed belief of at least some of them.

    In the meantime there must, as a matter of extreme urgency, be focused debate about self-proclaimed militias and the real threat that they pose. The events of last week show that these groups cannot be allowed to proliferate unchecked. I realise this is bound to spread over into discussion about the second Amendment, but that can only be a good, and long-overdue debate. It is well known that some of these groups have the sort of weaponry sufficient to progress a guerrilla war: that cannot be right and must be dealt with. Yes, it will mean taking on the NRA but even they cannot mount a credible argument to support the possession by civilians of RPGs and rapid fire automatic rifles.
  • You can't go on letting people "hang themselves" forever, when the behavior by which they are doing so (insurrection) is likely to hang a great many other people. And swing voters (of which I suppose I am classed as one) are not complete idiots. It would take a cultist or a fool to think that impeaching a man for inciting insurrection is somehow worse than actually inciting insurrection.
  • stetson wrote: »
    That's some pretty major stuff to be depriving an ex-POTUS of.
    I can think of no good reason why I should pay taxes to provide him with a $200K per year pension. Or for Secret Service protection, for that matter. And as for travel expenses -- doesn't he have his own jet?
  • It would take a cultist or a fool to think that impeaching a man for inciting insurrection is somehow worse than actually inciting insurrection.

    This assumes, of course, that all the swing voters continue in the belief that Trump incited an insurrection.

    Or, perhaps more precisely, that it continues to MATTER to them that he incited an insurrection.

    A lot of people seemed to think that GW Bush was beyond the pale after it became known that he had lied in order to start a war that led to many more deaths than happened during the Siege Of The Capitol. Now he pals around with Obama on stage at public events, and no one thinks it's strange.

  • stetson wrote: »
    That's some pretty major stuff to be depriving an ex-POTUS of.
    I can think of no good reason why I should pay taxes to provide him with a $200K per year pension. Or for Secret Service protection, for that matter. And as for travel expenses -- doesn't he have his own jet?

    In case it isn't clear, the issue for me isn't that Justice demands Trump get a six-figure pension, Secret Service detail, and travel expenses.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    I think the only thing he really believes in is himself.

    Trump is essentially a man who hates governance but loves power. He's got no idea what he's going to use that power for other than self-glorification, but stand in the way of that and he'll unleash upon you.

    Or as Anthony Trollope put it in 'The Way We Live'


    "There was one man who thoroughly believed that the thing at the present moment most essentially necessary to England’s glory was the return of Mr. Melmotte for Westminster. This man was undoubtedly a very ignorant man. He knew nothing of any one political question which had vexed England for the last half century,—nothing whatever of the political history which had made England what it was at the beginning of that half century … He had probably never read a book in his life. He knew nothing of the working of parliament, nothing of nationality,—had no preference whatever for one form of government over another, never having given his mind a moment’s trouble on the subject. He had not even reflected how a despotic monarch or a federal republic might affect himself, and possibly did not comprehend the meaning of those terms. But yet he was fully confident that England did demand and ought to demand that Mr. Melmotte should be returned for Westminster. This man was Mr. Melmotte himself."

    If Trollope had had Donald Trump before his eyes as he wrote this book he couldn't have painted a more accurate picture of the rise and fall of a self-aggrandising swindler who is raised to untenable heights by a foolish support base.

    That sounds fantastic - and worth reading, if only to stand a chance of sounding as erudite as you just have!

    I'm re-reading the book for the first time in donkeys years and I swear to God, it's as if Trollope had a Tardis and took a journey into 2016 onwards. He's so accurate - about Melmotte's character, his success in persuading otherwise fairly rational people to give him every benefit of the doubt even while they still privately acknowledge to themselves their lack of belief in his honesty; the effect of the media reporting Melmotte's doings - the divisions and splits caused in society and in the press over Melmotte's reputation. Also, Melmotte's own indifference to politics except insofar as it seems the most natural thing for him to aspire to as his hubris increases; his inability to take criticism, to communicate fluently - and yet still to dominate and brutalise those around him into submission because of his 'power'. Melmotte, in fact, seems like a pale foreshadowing compared to Trump. I have no doubt Trollope was accused of exaggeration when his novel first came out!
  • stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    Golden Key wrote: »
    LC--

    Faceblind as I am, I take a sinful pleasure in watching other people struggle right now.

    You wicked thing, you!
    ;)

    Living in a house with three people with varying degrees of prosopagnosia, LC's post gave me a good chuckle-cum-belly laugh.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    Anteater wrote: »
    I hope I am right in believing that acting as a deterrent to future Presidents is not required.

    I find this hopelessly naïve.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Anteater wrote: »
    I hope I am right in believing that acting as a deterrent to future Presidents is not required.

    I find this hopelessly naïve.

    Don't make me break out my rant on this subject, @Anteater! The whole underlying premise of American Constitutional government is that presidents (and other government officials) do require deterrents to keep them from abusing their powers. That's the reason for separation of powers, checks and balances, and a whole host of other American Constitutional structures.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    It is possible that a significant fraction of his support don't back people they think are losers.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.

    I think that's all down to perceived self-interest. They think it will be bad for their careers if they are seen to vote against Trump.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    It is possible that a significant fraction of his support don't back people they think are losers.

    That's been the case with past Republican presidents. Bushes Senior and Junior were quickly memory holed as soon as their terms ended. I'm not sure it's going to be the case with Trump. Everything he's done since losing the 2020 presidential election has been geared towards keeping his grip on the Republican party and its adherents.

    Case in point: Trump tried to get his followers to storm the U.S. Capitol and murder a bunch of Senators and Congresspeople. Despite this 96% of House Republicans couldn't bring themselves to vote in favor of impeaching a man who just tried to kill them. Trump is at this point the lamest of lame ducks and they're still unwilling to cross him.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.

    I think that's all down to perceived self-interest. They think it will be bad for their careers if they are seen to vote against Trump.

    Are you talking about politicians in congress? Because I was refering to voters.

  • Trump has been 'indicted' and is awaiting 'trial' Criminals awaiting trials are often kept in custody. He should be suspended from office.

    Later on he should be investigated for crimes
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Telford wrote: »
    Trump has been 'indicted' and is awaiting 'trial' Criminals awaiting trials are often kept in custody. He should be suspended from office.

    Later on he should be investigated for crimes

    Incorrect. Who has 'indicted' him?

    The House of Representatives is not a police department or a court.
  • Pence won’t 25th him and impeachment is the only other legal remedy (omitting a completely wild ass attempt at using a particular sedition law, which would take ages, probably fail, and still leave him in office till the 20th.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I will worry about swing voters and purple states after I'm sure the armed assholes and nutjobs on the far right have far less chance of murdering candidates than they did last week.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    What LC and Ruth said. Some posters seem to be ignoring the possibility likelihood that T will continue to do awful things, using his presidential powers, for the rest of the time he's in office.

    AIUI, he *still* hasn't conceded the election. He's said something like "it looks like the Biden administration will come in this month". But he still asserts that *he* won.

    This impeachment isn't primarily about a future election, or even justice. It's about curtailing his powers for the next 7-8 days, so that he can't do any more horrible things--or even *worse* ones.

    Respectfully: Any Shipmate thinking and/or posting "oh, but he'd never do THAT, it's over, and he knows it, and let's all hold hands and be happy" hasn't paid attention for the past *week*, let alone the last 4 years.
  • To be honest, I don't think the impeachment itself does anything to curtail his powers. But it preoccupies him, it warns off at least some evildoers who might otherwise be tempted to join forces with him on further nefarious deeds in these last days, and it stands as a signal to everybody that a reckoning will come, no matter how high or low you are, if you do evil.

    That will probably put a chill on at least a few people's enthusiasm to go criming. That, and the well-publicized arrests for last week's attack.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    More than the arrests, I think the prominent firings and no-fly listing. People think they can do great wickedness and not pay any price for it. Businesses don't need to wait for the legal system to grind its methodical gears.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Respectfully: Any Shipmate thinking and/or posting "oh, but he'd never do THAT, it's over, and he knows it, and let's all hold hands and be happy" hasn't paid attention for the past *week*, let alone the last 4 years.

    Does Trump lose his presidential powers during the period of time that the trial is taking place? (Serious question, not rhetorical.)
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    Trump was impeached, for the second time, yesterday, for (Hamilton's) political offense.

    For the second time, he will not be convicted and will suffer no loss of retirement benefits.

    He will run in 2024. What can possibly stop him?
  • To be honest, I don't think the impeachment itself does anything to curtail his powers. But it preoccupies him, it warns off at least some evildoers who might otherwise be tempted to join forces with him on further nefarious deeds in these last days, and it stands as a signal to everybody that a reckoning will come, no matter how high or low you are, if you do evil.

    That will probably put a chill on at least a few people's enthusiasm to go criming. That, and the well-publicized arrests for last week's attack.

    I think this is a bit of a non-sequitor. If I was someone planning, say, to go toss a Molotov Cocktail through the windows of an anti-Trump newspaper, and was not deterred by the threat of arrest, I don't see why the fact that he was being impeached would do the trick. It's not like I'm gonna be next on Congress' list of people to impeach.

    The arrests at Capitol Hill might have an effect, though the wannabe bomber could just decide to disguise his identity while commiting the crime, or do it at night.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Does Trump lose his presidential powers during the period of time that the trial is taking place?

    In theory no, but since the trial is not likely to start until after his term has expired, the question is moot.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.

    I'm skeptical of the idea the Democrats should feel it imperative to cater to the sensibilities of people who are less troubled by the notion of a president inciting violent insurrection against the government than they are by the idea that somebody might hold him accountable for doing so.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.

    I'm skeptical of the idea the Democrats should feel it imperative to cater to the sensibilities of people who are less troubled by the notion of a president inciting violent insurrection against the government than they are by the idea that somebody might hold him accountable for doing so.

    You are naive if you think that politicians of all stripes don't routinely compromise their policies in order to attract people from the other end of the spectrum with odious views.

    (And this isn't even really a matter of policy, so much as tactics.)
  • I think Trump is starting to think of himself as a modern day Aaron Burr.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Trump has been 'indicted' and is awaiting 'trial' Criminals awaiting trials are often kept in custody. He should be suspended from office.

    Later on he should be investigated for crimes

    Incorrect. Who has 'indicted' him?

    The House of Representatives is not a police department or a court.

    Did you notice that I typed it as 'indicted' rather than indicted ?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Re Dubya and Obama, Dubya's bad deeds, etc.:

    Yes, Dubya did horrible things, and I'm neither forgiving nor excusing him.

    and

    he's also made some good changes since leaving office, and is doing some good in the world. E.g. he and Bill Clinton got involved with gathering aid for Haiti after a disaster. Obama got involved with them after another disaster in Haiti during his term.

    Dubya has developed the interesting hobby of painting portraits of military members who died on his watch, working from photos.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    stetson wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    If Trump is left alone, but keeps on with his rantings, he comes off as a nutter.

    Assumes facts not in evidence. Trump has been noticeably unhinged since he first came down that golden escalator. Despite this he was able to get several thousand of his followers to attempt a violent coup on his behalf. Since he already comes off as a nutter to almost everyone else, why would his rantings not continue to be regarded as prophetic utterances by his followers?
    stetson wrote: »
    But if he's impeached, and keeps on with his rantings, the narrative becomes "Well, of course he's mad, those mean old Democrats won't just let him get on with his life. This is a time for the nation to come together and heal."

    "Healing" starts with answering a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" Anyone who answers anything other than "Joe Biden" is not interested in "healing" or "coming together" or "unity" or whatever other euphemism you want to use for being soft on sedition.

    I'm not talking about people who think Trump won the election. I'm talking about people who know that Biden won, might even have voted for him, but don't want Trump impeached.

    And I would think that I've made it clear that I don't really think their self-professed desire for "healing" is insincere, or is at least motivated to a large degree by partisan loyalties.

    I'm skeptical of the idea the Democrats should feel it imperative to cater to the sensibilities of people who are less troubled by the notion of a president inciting violent insurrection against the government than they are by the idea that somebody might hold him accountable for doing so.

    You are naive if you think that politicians of all stripes don't routinely compromise their policies in order to attract people from the other end of the spectrum with odious views.

    (And this isn't even really a matter of policy, so much as tactics.)

    My reply there was a little blunt, and I now regret not couching it in less personal terms, if only for the sake of civility. Apologies to Dave.

    The overall point still stands, though. And I'd also like to clarify that I have no problem whatsoever with anyone involved in the siege, including those in the White House, being arrested and prosecuted for any crimes they may have commited. In addition to the fact that no one can do anything to stop that, I think it's also less likely to be viewed by the floating middle as political interference.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    No problem, stetson.

    But I'm not just morally opposed to the notion - I think it's not necessarily politically wise, either. People who care more about treating Trump tenderly than holding him to account for inciting violent insurrection are hardly likely to be won over by Democrats declining to impeach him. And Democrats have to take care to maintain morale and enthusiasm among their own supporters too.

    I suspect they'd be more likely to gain votes in the middle by emphasizing the enormity of crimes, not soft-pedaling them. I think many Americans may not follow politics closely or care much about a lot of policies, but have an aversion to actions that disrespect national symbols and really dislike violence and disorder.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Anselima - thanks for mentioning The Way We Live. Although I enjoy Trollope it is one I haven't read. A trip to the library tomorrow will sort that out.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    No problem, stetson.

    But I'm not just morally opposed to the notion - I think it's not necessarily politically wise, either. People who care more about treating Trump tenderly than holding him to account for inciting violent insurrection are hardly likely to be won over by Democrats declining to impeach him. And Democrats have to take care to maintain morale and enthusiasm among their own supporters too.

    I suspect they'd be more likely to gain votes in the middle by emphasizing the enormity of crimes, not soft-pedaling them. I think many Americans may not follow politics closely or care much about a lot of policies, but have an aversion to actions that disrespect national symbols and really dislike violence and disorder.

    I think for a section of the middle, you're correct: Republicans especially tend to be put off by riots and looting. But I still think that will be somewhat balanced off by the instinct among some voters to "just put it all behind us".

    But something I was just thinking about on my way home...

    I wonder how many trials there will be ongoing as a result of all this, and how many of the defense-lawyers will try to argue that their clients were just helpless dupes, manipulated into their rsmpages by forces high up in the Republican party? That could be a little awkward for the GOP.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump was impeached, for the second time, yesterday, for (Hamilton's) political offense.

    For the second time, he will not be convicted and will suffer no loss of retirement benefits.

    He will run in 2024. What can possibly stop him?

    Being convicted of tax fraud in New York State.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump was impeached, for the second time, yesterday, for (Hamilton's) political offense.

    For the second time, he will not be convicted and will suffer no loss of retirement benefits.

    He will run in 2024. What can possibly stop him?

    Ill health. Death. He's in his mid-70s, has poor eating habits, and exercises only erratically.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    I suspect they'd be more likely to gain votes in the middle by emphasizing the enormity of crimes, not soft-pedaling them. I think many Americans may not follow politics closely or care much about a lot of policies, but have an aversion to actions that disrespect national symbols and really dislike violence and disorder.

    Exactly. The US Chamber of Commerce has announced it will not be donating any more money to lawmakers that supported the riot on the Capitol. Riots are bad for business. So are civil wars.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    Ohher wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Trump was impeached, for the second time, yesterday, for (Hamilton's) political offense.

    For the second time, he will not be convicted and will suffer no loss of retirement benefits.

    He will run in 2024. What can possibly stop him?

    Ill health. Death. He's in his mid-70s, has poor eating habits, and exercises only erratically.

    We shouldn't only hope.
  • He has prodigy.
  • Progeny?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    He's a fire starter?
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    I’m thinking they may never bring the impeachment case to the senate but simply disbar him from ever running again.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.
    I’m thinking they may never bring the impeachment case to the senate but simply disbar him from ever running again.

    Can't do that without trying the impeachment in the Senate.
  • I mentioned earlier that Trump can be disbarred from running again even if the Senate doesn't convict on the impeachment charge. Only a simple majority is required in the Senate.

    In the absence of Trump actually being convicted of something(which I think may very well happen, though likely not in the Senate), I don't think it would set a very good precedent to just ban a particular individual from running for office.

    Especially considering that this banning would be carried out not by an impartial court, but by a legislative chamber, whose partisan composition could very well have swung back to the Republicans by 2022.

    And anyway, there'd be nothing to stop a banned Trump from just getting Ivanka or some other obvious stand-in to run for him in 2024, with the understanding that that candidate would be a continuation of his policies.

    (Plus, I don't think it likely that Trump or a proxy would get the actual Republican nomination again, and a third-party MAGA ticket would be a heaven-sent gift for the Dems.)
  • With the possible exception of Barron (why can't his parents spell?) I think all the Trump children should be regarded as toxic in varying degrees.

    Ivanka and Donald Jr seem to be the most like DT Sr and are the brightest, but not so clever that they don't parrot their father on the validity of the elevtion, etc.

    If Forbes magazine got it right, Eric appears to have inherited his father's attitude towards the truth and financial probity - a sample of his methods can be found here.

    Before the 2016 campaign it was widely believed that Tiffany was the "normal" Trump child and that she was less involved with the Trump Organisation and her father's politics. However she's now grown up and seems to be a fully-fledged member of Team Trump if this is anything to go by.
  • stetson wrote: »
    In the absence of Trump actually being convicted of something(which I think may very well happen, though likely not in the Senate), I don't think it would set a very good precedent to just ban a particular individual from running for office.

    That precedent has already been set. It's in the Constitution. In two places.
    stetson wrote: »
    Especially considering that this banning would be carried out not by an impartial court, but by a legislative chamber, whose partisan composition could very well have swung back to the Republicans by 2022.

    As this is an inherently political question it seems appropriate to have the legislature (the body most representative of the people) address it. As a side note, the first person ever barred from future office by the U.S. Senate after being impeached was tried in absentia in a trial lasting a single day. The second person so barred established the precedent that while it takes a two-thirds supermajority to convict and remove someone from office in an impeachment, a simple majority will do to bar them from future officeholding. For the record, only three of the twenty-one impeachments in American history have resulted in the impeached individual being barred from future office . . . so far.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    On the spelling thing: perhaps Barron wasn't named after the rank of nobility so much as a weekly magazine owned by the Wall Street Journal.
This discussion has been closed.