Interesting though that most Western politicians refuse to name it as genocide, in fact, refuse to go beyond saying that Israel has the right to self-defence. Yes, against women and children. I wonder how this moral cowardice will look in the future, maybe like moral cowardice.
Moral cowardice, certainly - if there is a future.
Meanwhile, Israel is attacking the Fordow nuclear plant, but why? If it has been completely obliterated, as per the God-Emperor's bragging, why waste time and resources on it?
Well, it’s generally defined as the destruction of a people in whole or in part as such, so it’s possible that a particular genocidal act may involve fewer deaths than a particular war crime / crime against humanity and vice versa, even if in popular discourse it takes on a kind of superlative quality.
I have long ceased to be surprised at anything Mr Trump says or does, but his habit of returning military salutes when in civvies still irks me. The British practice, I understand, is to salute if one is in uniform, with appropriate headgear. If in mufti one salutes by raising one's hat (a bowler for preference). Churchill, as Former Naval Person and Minister of Defence, adopted a Royal Navy uniform on occasion in WWII. Trump does not have that option, not being a former anything. He could salute by taking off his hideous MAGA cap, which I notice a has now turned a rather grubby greyish-white.
Trump is by no means the first US president to return salutes - all presidents since Reagan have done this. You can make a sketchy case that, as the Commander in Chief of the US military, the President's civilian clothes are, functionally, a uniform.
ISTM that there is now far more to be irked about, as regards Trump, than salutes.
It really would be nice if people who live where Trump is not president—yes, I fully acknowledge that his actions have considerable and harmful impacts across the globe—would stop suggesting to those of us who do live where he is president what we should and shouldn’t be irked about.
I was actually referring to @Eirenist's earlier remarks, as quoted by @Leorning Cniht, about being *irked* by salutes. I should have made that clearer, perhaps. My bad.
Noted re Congress, and AIUI there are moves afoot to get Congress to decide the matter.
They announced they had nominated him before he bombed Iran. Why is unclear. The stated reason is supposedly some help in calming tensions between India and Pakistan. The actual reason is likely buttering up Trump who is known to want the Nobel peace prize possibly to lower US imposed tariffs, possibly to encourage Trump not to do what he has now done and bomb Iran. Pakistan does share a longish land boundary with Iran.
This article puts some perspective on it. Trump, bragging as he does, claimed to have mediated an India-Pakistan ceasefire. Pakistan, presumably to suck up, ran with it. But Trump's claim ruffled India's feathers, who were/are/will be dead set against such mediation.
"PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," Misri said.
"Prime Minister Modi emphasized that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will," Misri added.
The congress critters I've written to don't seem to be much concerned about the things I'm concerned with. The few who have emailed back have basically said that they need to take care of the 'people', and not the things I've shared with them.
Spinal-deficiency is sadly an epidemic in Congresses, Senates, Parliaments and similar chambers around the world. Far too few politicians who actually want to work for their constituents and nations, and far too many just interested in themselves and their financial backers.
Apparently, the attack on the American base in Qatar was maybe a one and done. Before the attack, Iran had given Qatar a heads up. Qatar closed its airspace just prior to the attack. The United States was also given a heads up and was able to spin up its defenses. The Iranian missiles were destroyed in flight.
Trump thanked Iran for the advanced warning and has now said Isreal and Iran will enter into a cease fire shortly.
Apparently, the attack on the American base in Qatar was maybe a one and done. Before the attack, Iran had given Qatar a heads up. Qatar closed its airspace just prior to the attack. The United States was also given a heads up and was able to spin up its defenses. The Iranian missiles were destroyed in flight.
Trump thanked Iran for the advanced warning and has now said Isreal and Iran will enter into a cease fire shortly.
Do we really trust him?
Latest news is that (according to Israel) Iran has violated the ceasefire, and will therefore receive a forceful response. No further details yet, but it does look as though Trump's braggadocio was a trifle premature.
Your question was, I guess, rhetorical, because the obvious answer is No.
Going back to the subject matter of this thread, newsmedia have reported this morning that T***p has proclaimed that both Israel and Iran have agreed his terms - with the subtext that his intervention has resolved everything - and it is all now sorted.
I am assuming this is as true as anything else that comes out of his mouth.
In the UK in recent years an awful lot of Prime Ministers have come and gone because they've been removed by their own party once they looked like their time had come or however you want to put it. Honest question based on total ignorance: is there any such mechanism whereby a US President could be persuaded/pushed/sort of forced to resign?
Sorry if that's been asked before - I'm sure it has somewhere.
In the UK in recent years an awful lot of Prime Ministers have come and gone because they've been removed by their own party once they looked like their time had come or however you want to put it. Honest question based on total ignorance: is there any such mechanism whereby a US President could be persuaded/pushed/sort of forced to resign?
Sorry if that's been asked before - I'm sure it has somewhere.
Two mechanisms:
- impeachment by the house and conviction by the senate for "high crimes and misdemeanours". This would need ⅔ of the senate to vote to convict.
- removal as unfit under the mechanism in the 25th amendment, which needs the VP, cabinet, and (if POTUS disputes it) ⅔ of both houses.
Basically, both require enough Republicans to want him gone, though there is ample evidence under either mechanism to support removal. Getting to that point would likely need some sort of event that broke the MAGA coalition, either splitting it or pulling it away from Trump. A large scale war with a draft might do it, if it were obviously Trump's fault, but whatever it is would need to be something pretty big.
In the UK in recent years an awful lot of Prime Ministers have come and gone because they've been removed by their own party once they looked like their time had come or however you want to put it. Honest question based on total ignorance: is there any such mechanism whereby a US President could be persuaded/pushed/sort of forced to resign?
Sorry if that's been asked before - I'm sure it has somewhere.
A president cannot be “removed” as such by his or her own party, no. But Nixon’s resignation is a good example of what a political party can do.
At the time of Watergate, Republicans were in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon and presented him with the reality that he had only two choices: he could either be impeached and convicted—it was made clear that both were all but certain and would have significant support from Republicans representatives and senators—or he could resign. He chose the latter, of course.
But to be clear, that’s generally not going to happen simply because “the time has come.” Unlike a prime minister, the president was elected by the country as a whole (yes, technically by the electoral college rather than by the popular vote), not by a legislative body electing the senior member of the party with the majority or a governing coalition. So it’s only going to happen (if it ever happens again) in really significant circumstances.
There is Watergate, but the last election also had the Democratic Party telling Biden his time was up after his poor performance at the first debate with Trump. While he withdrew from the campaign, he still remained president until Jan 20. 2025.
Then there is the 25th Amendment. Section 4: If the president is unable (or unwilling) to declare incapacity, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare the president unfit. If the president contests this, Congress must decide—with a two-thirds vote in both houses required to keep the VP as acting president.
A president cannot be “removed” as such by his or her own party, no. But Nixon’s resignation is a good example of what a political party can do.
At the time of Watergate, Republicans were in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon and presented him with the reality that he had only two choices: he could either be impeached and convicted—it was made clear that both were all but certain and would have significant support from Republicans representatives and senators—or he could resign. He chose the latter, of course.
That's the common and self-serving way that Republicans usually present that story, a Congressional delegation selflessly putting country ahead of party. The reality was that they pretty much told Nixon he was going to lose an impeachment trial no matter what but that it would help the party a great deal if he resigned so Republicans in Congress wouldn't have make what was likely to be an unpopular vote back home no matter which way they voted. Let's not forget that according to Gallup Nixon had majority approval among Republican voters up until the day he resigned.
A president cannot be “removed” as such by his or her own party, no. But Nixon’s resignation is a good example of what a political party can do.
At the time of Watergate, Republicans were in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon and presented him with the reality that he had only two choices: he could either be impeached and convicted—it was made clear that both were all but certain and would have significant support from Republicans representatives and senators—or he could resign. He chose the latter, of course.
That's the common and self-serving way that Republicans usually present that story, a Congressional delegation selflessly putting country ahead of party. The reality was that they pretty much told Nixon he was going to lose an impeachment trial no matter what but that it would help the party a great deal if he resigned so Republicans in Congress wouldn't have make what was likely to be an unpopular vote back home no matter which way they voted. Let's not forget that according to Gallup Nixon had majority approval among Republican voters up until the day he resigned.
I’m not sure I’d say it’s a self-serving version—especially since I didn’t characterize it as “selflessly”—except to the extent that’s an incomplete version. I operate with the assumption that party self-interest and self-preservation are always at work in things like this, whether Nixon and Watergate, or a British political party telling a PM that his or her time is up.
If today’s GOP would stand up to Trump, I wouldn’t fault that for being fueled by party self-interest or self-preservation. Of course, that so few Republicans do stand up to him reflects how they currently see the party’s (and their own) self-interest and self-preservation.
In the UK in recent years an awful lot of Prime Ministers have come and gone because they've been removed by their own party once they looked like their time had come or however you want to put it. Honest question based on total ignorance: is there any such mechanism whereby a US President could be persuaded/pushed/sort of forced to resign?
Sorry if that's been asked before - I'm sure it has somewhere.
Two mechanisms:
- impeachment by the house and conviction by the senate for "high crimes and misdemeanours". This would need ⅔ of the senate to vote to convict.
- removal as unfit under the mechanism in the 25th amendment, which needs the VP, cabinet, and (if POTUS disputes it) ⅔ of both houses.
Basically, both require enough Republicans to want him gone, though there is ample evidence under either mechanism to support removal. Getting to that point would likely need some sort of event that broke the MAGA coalition, either splitting it or pulling it away from Trump. A large scale war with a draft might do it, if it were obviously Trump's fault, but whatever it is would need to be something pretty big.
Thank you for this very helpful answer and others also. It sounds as though the bar for a President to be removed is incredibly high, but the possibility of doing it does exist. It's useful to understand these things because of course what I'm used to in the UK with the recent very rapid throughput of prime ministers has been quite different.
The MAGA crowd has too much control over the Republican party. The Republican congressmen and senators fear they will be primaried by MAGA fanatics.
Another example of when a president realized his time had come was during the 1968 Democratic Primary. The Tet Offensive along with the McCarthy winning the New Hampshire primary convinced Johnson he would not win the primaries, so he withdrew.
I would say the US primary system is about the only way a party can remove a sitting president.
@HelenEva, the possibility exists, yes. But no US president has been removed via impeachment trial or by section 4 of the 25th amendment. And as @Arethosemyfeet points put, Republicans would have to do this, as they're the majority in both houses of Congress and of course the entirety of the Cabinet. Congressional Republicans have abdicated virtually all of their responsibilities, and the Cabinet members were chosen for loyalty to Trump rather than their abilities. So the only realistic chance comes if the Democrats win both houses of Congress in 2026.
At that point, they'd need to think long and hard about whether they'd want to put JD Vance into office, not just because he's an asshole but also because he would then be running as the incumbent in the 2028 presidential election.
The MAGA crowd has too much control over the Republican party. The Republican congressmen and senators fear they will be primaried by MAGA fanatics.
Another example of when a president realized his time had come was during the 1968 Democratic Primary. The Tet Offensive along with the McCarthy winning the New Hampshire primary convinced Johnson he would not win the primaries, so he withdrew.
I would say the US primary system is about the only way a party can remove a sitting president.
It should be noted that the presidential primary system as it exists today was just barely formed when Johnson announced his withdrawal from the race. There have been three* serious primary challenges to sitting presidents who were eligible to run for re-election under the current primary system. In 1976 Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in the Republican primary. In 1980 Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. In 1992 Pat Buchanan challenged George H.W. Bush. In all cases the challenger failed to unseat the incumbent and the incumbent would later lose the general election.
There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that the infighting of the primary weakened the sitting president so that he lost his re-election bid. The other is that the sitting president was already perceived (correctly) as a weak candidate, inviting the primary challenge. At any rate, given that history very few politicians with long-term ambitions seem willing to launch what they see as a doomed primary to unseat an incumbent of their own party.
* Biden is a special case because he had no serious primary challengers, won the primaries handily, but withdrew from the race before the convention.
At that point, they'd need to think long and hard about whether they'd want to put JD Vance into office, not just because he's an asshole but also because he would then be running as the incumbent in the 2028 presidential election.
I'd say that's a factor in favor of Democrats removing Trump. Vance is a pretty bad candidate. In 2022 he won his Senate election by 6.1 percentage points. By comparison, Mike DeWine won the Ohio gubernatorial election that year by 25.0 points, Ohio Attorney General David Yost won re-election by 20.3 points, and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose won by 19.6 points. Three state supreme court justices were elected in Ohio in 2022 and Republicans won all those races by between 12.2 and 13.8 points. Vance did the worst out of any Ohio Republican running for statewide office that year, which means a lot of Ohio voters who otherwise voted a straight Republican ticket in 2022 either voted for one of Vance's opponents or left that space on their ballot blank.
The Orange Braggart speaks:
Both Israel and Iran wanted to stop the War, equally! It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!
(From today's UK Guardian, quoting Truth (sic) Social)
You really could not make it up. If you are of a mind to pray, put in a word for the unfortunate NATO leaders about to have to cope with this idiot at their summit.
Prime Ministers get to be that because they are the leaders of their party, (Though it doesn’t have to be so) That means members of the party can get rid of them.
The same doesn’t relate to a President (please can a US ship mate clarify).
Prime Ministers get to be that because they are the leaders of their party, (Though it doesn’t have to be so) That means members of the party can get rid of them.
The same doesn’t relate to a President (please can a US ship mate clarify).
That is correct. And American political parties generally do not have “members” in the sense that UK political parties do.
Comments
Meanwhile, Israel is attacking the Fordow nuclear plant, but why? If it has been completely obliterated, as per the God-Emperor's bragging, why waste time and resources on it?
Well, it’s generally defined as the destruction of a people in whole or in part as such, so it’s possible that a particular genocidal act may involve fewer deaths than a particular war crime / crime against humanity and vice versa, even if in popular discourse it takes on a kind of superlative quality.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk
(That link is to the live blog, so will be updated frequently).
Trump is *in the situation room*. Presumably the US is now officially at war with Iran?
Trump is by no means the first US president to return salutes - all presidents since Reagan have done this. You can make a sketchy case that, as the Commander in Chief of the US military, the President's civilian clothes are, functionally, a uniform.
Still, latest photos show him in what appears to be a nice new bright red MAGA cap.
It really would be nice if people who live where Trump is not president—yes, I fully acknowledge that his actions have considerable and harmful impacts across the globe—would stop suggesting to those of us who do live where he is president what we should and shouldn’t be irked about.
Noted re Congress, and AIUI there are moves afoot to get Congress to decide the matter.
That point has, in a way, been mentioned in the UK media.
This article puts some perspective on it. Trump, bragging as he does, claimed to have mediated an India-Pakistan ceasefire. Pakistan, presumably to suck up, ran with it. But Trump's claim ruffled India's feathers, who were/are/will be dead set against such mediation.
Please God.
The congress critters I've written to don't seem to be much concerned about the things I'm concerned with. The few who have emailed back have basically said that they need to take care of the 'people', and not the things I've shared with them.
Aren't I a 'people'?
Trump thanked Iran for the advanced warning and has now said Isreal and Iran will enter into a cease fire shortly.
Do we really trust him?
As much as we were at war with Korea, Vietnam, or Grenada. (or less)
Did we bomb there?
Latest news is that (according to Israel) Iran has violated the ceasefire, and will therefore receive a forceful response. No further details yet, but it does look as though Trump's braggadocio was a trifle premature.
Your question was, I guess, rhetorical, because the obvious answer is No.
I am assuming this is as true as anything else that comes out of his mouth.
When I worked in Texas in the 1980s I had colleagues who referred to the Vietnam war as a 'police action'.
Sorry if that's been asked before - I'm sure it has somewhere.
Trump needs to be reminded of the old adage about people who live in glass houses not throwing stones...
ISTM that it's the Boaster-In-Chief who is out of his depth, though perhaps he can be forgiven for using sweary-words.
Two mechanisms:
- impeachment by the house and conviction by the senate for "high crimes and misdemeanours". This would need ⅔ of the senate to vote to convict.
- removal as unfit under the mechanism in the 25th amendment, which needs the VP, cabinet, and (if POTUS disputes it) ⅔ of both houses.
Basically, both require enough Republicans to want him gone, though there is ample evidence under either mechanism to support removal. Getting to that point would likely need some sort of event that broke the MAGA coalition, either splitting it or pulling it away from Trump. A large scale war with a draft might do it, if it were obviously Trump's fault, but whatever it is would need to be something pretty big.
At the time of Watergate, Republicans were in the minority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott, Senator Barry Goldwater, and House Minority Leader John Jacob Rhodes met with Nixon and presented him with the reality that he had only two choices: he could either be impeached and convicted—it was made clear that both were all but certain and would have significant support from Republicans representatives and senators—or he could resign. He chose the latter, of course.
But to be clear, that’s generally not going to happen simply because “the time has come.” Unlike a prime minister, the president was elected by the country as a whole (yes, technically by the electoral college rather than by the popular vote), not by a legislative body electing the senior member of the party with the majority or a governing coalition. So it’s only going to happen (if it ever happens again) in really significant circumstances.
Then there is the 25th Amendment. Section 4: If the president is unable (or unwilling) to declare incapacity, the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet can declare the president unfit. If the president contests this, Congress must decide—with a two-thirds vote in both houses required to keep the VP as acting president.
Nope, still unofficially at war with Iran until Congress weighs in on the matter.
That's the common and self-serving way that Republicans usually present that story, a Congressional delegation selflessly putting country ahead of party. The reality was that they pretty much told Nixon he was going to lose an impeachment trial no matter what but that it would help the party a great deal if he resigned so Republicans in Congress wouldn't have make what was likely to be an unpopular vote back home no matter which way they voted. Let's not forget that according to Gallup Nixon had majority approval among Republican voters up until the day he resigned.
I was duly corrected, and informed that it was up to Congress, as you say.
If today’s GOP would stand up to Trump, I wouldn’t fault that for being fueled by party self-interest or self-preservation. Of course, that so few Republicans do stand up to him reflects how they currently see the party’s (and their own) self-interest and self-preservation.
Thank you for this very helpful answer and others also. It sounds as though the bar for a President to be removed is incredibly high, but the possibility of doing it does exist. It's useful to understand these things because of course what I'm used to in the UK with the recent very rapid throughput of prime ministers has been quite different.
Another example of when a president realized his time had come was during the 1968 Democratic Primary. The Tet Offensive along with the McCarthy winning the New Hampshire primary convinced Johnson he would not win the primaries, so he withdrew.
I would say the US primary system is about the only way a party can remove a sitting president.
At that point, they'd need to think long and hard about whether they'd want to put JD Vance into office, not just because he's an asshole but also because he would then be running as the incumbent in the 2028 presidential election.
It should be noted that the presidential primary system as it exists today was just barely formed when Johnson announced his withdrawal from the race. There have been three* serious primary challenges to sitting presidents who were eligible to run for re-election under the current primary system. In 1976 Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in the Republican primary. In 1980 Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. In 1992 Pat Buchanan challenged George H.W. Bush. In all cases the challenger failed to unseat the incumbent and the incumbent would later lose the general election.
There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that the infighting of the primary weakened the sitting president so that he lost his re-election bid. The other is that the sitting president was already perceived (correctly) as a weak candidate, inviting the primary challenge. At any rate, given that history very few politicians with long-term ambitions seem willing to launch what they see as a doomed primary to unseat an incumbent of their own party.
* Biden is a special case because he had no serious primary challengers, won the primaries handily, but withdrew from the race before the convention.
I'd say that's a factor in favor of Democrats removing Trump. Vance is a pretty bad candidate. In 2022 he won his Senate election by 6.1 percentage points. By comparison, Mike DeWine won the Ohio gubernatorial election that year by 25.0 points, Ohio Attorney General David Yost won re-election by 20.3 points, and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose won by 19.6 points. Three state supreme court justices were elected in Ohio in 2022 and Republicans won all those races by between 12.2 and 13.8 points. Vance did the worst out of any Ohio Republican running for statewide office that year, which means a lot of Ohio voters who otherwise voted a straight Republican ticket in 2022 either voted for one of Vance's opponents or left that space on their ballot blank.
Both Israel and Iran wanted to stop the War, equally! It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!
(From today's UK Guardian, quoting Truth (sic) Social)
You really could not make it up. If you are of a mind to pray, put in a word for the unfortunate NATO leaders about to have to cope with this idiot at their summit.
The same doesn’t relate to a President (please can a US ship mate clarify).