Meanwhile, from the UK Guardian's Simon Tisdall's opinion piece today:
Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit. Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown. Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of this gaudy, gormless usurper and dethrone this would-be king – but do it fast. Spike his guns. Shut him down. Lock him up. Exorcise the monster.
Good advice. Can it be followed, please, pretty please?
Why is it “good advice”? It appears to me to be rather uninformed advice.
Even with my very limited knowledge of how things work (or, don't) in US politics and civil society can see massive holes in just that short extract which makes it a long way from "good advice", I'm not even sure it qualifies as "uninformed advice" given it reads like a call to do the impossible. You might as well ask the people of America to make circles square.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
Meanwhile, from the UK Guardian's Simon Tisdall's opinion piece today:
Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit. Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown. Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of this gaudy, gormless usurper and dethrone this would-be king – but do it fast. Spike his guns. Shut him down. Lock him up. Exorcise the monster.
Good advice. Can it be followed, please, pretty please?
Why is it “good advice”? It appears to me to be rather uninformed advice.
Even with my very limited knowledge of how things work (or, don't) in US politics and civil society can see massive holes in just that short extract which makes it a long way from "good advice", I'm not even sure it qualifies as "uninformed advice" given it reads like a call to do the impossible. You might as well ask the people of America to make circles square.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
There is only so much we can do legally or constitutionally. The ACLU and other legal organizations are fighting him in the courts as well as 23 state attorney generals plus several individuals and corporations. But it takes time. And even then, there s always the question what will happen if he refuses to abide by the decisions of the courts?
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years. Even if he gets impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors we would still have to deal with JD Vance and company.
The 25th amendment is very difficult as well. There are two ways the president can be removed. 1)Voluntarily which would likely be a short duration. 2) Involuntary. That is where the VP and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (i.e the Cabinet) send a written declaration to the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. But if the president contests this s/he would send a written declaration saying they are able to serve. If that happens, the VP and Cabinet has four days to reaffirm their clam of disability. If they do, Congress must assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. Congress will have 21 days to vote. It would take a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate to keep the VP as acting president. If that threshold is not met, the president resumes power. It is a very, very high bar.
About the only legal way to control the president is through the power of the purse. While the House has already passed the budget to fund ICE, it can still be jammed up in the Senate. Many Democratic Senators have said they cannot in good consciousness fund ICE. I would hope some Republicans feel the same way. But, then again, what would happen if ICE is defunded? Martial law?
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
I would hope, once this awful nightmare is over, we can pass new laws which will put the executive branch in its place; but, until then, better strap in and hang on to your seats, it is going to be a bumpy ride
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
The call-to-arms reads like a writer trying to make a deadline while on a caffeine buzz, and he thinks he's found some themes and imagery that are really gonna appeal to his target reader, and is just allowing himself to get swept up in his own self-perceived eloquence.
What's particularly odd about it is that normally when I hear George III mentioned by Brits in regards to the Revolutionary War, it's to correct supposedly ignorant Americans who think the king, rather than parliament, was the one making all the contested decisions during the events. But Tisdall splashes around the anti-monarchy stuff like he's writing a third-rate civics textbook for the Boy Scouts Of America.
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Yes, I thought that article in the Guardian was a load of rubbish too. It's not just Trump, it's all the people around him who are happily planning to invade an ally's sovereign territory, ignoring the ongoing genocide in Gaza, allowing Putin to pretend he's interested in peace talks while continuing to bombard Ukraine, and kidnapping and murdering their own citizens. And we're not in a position to sneer at the Americans. Half of us voted for Brexit and we have plenty of right-wing nutters over here as well, one of whom may (God forbid) be our next Prime Minister.
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Be careful - your country may be next in line in Trump's mad dream of world domination...
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Yes, that's my point. I was questioning the assertion that Australia would be a Chinese province without US backing. While Taiwan, like Tibet and Hong Kong, is undoubtedly in the sights of Beijing, it's not at all clear that broader territorial expansion is their goal. To be clear, I think the Taiwanese have every right to govern themselves if that's their desire, I just don't think you can infer from the PRC's One China policy that they intend to incorporate Australia any more than they do Vietnam.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Historically China has been an expansionist empire. For that matter, one of the Chinese dynasties was the Mongols. I don't know quite where present Chinese borders are in relation to past borders. I'd be surprised if the southern borders especially are currently at their maximum extent. I believe most SE Asian nations have national heroes who historically kicked out the Chinese. That's ignoring territory that has formerly been part of Chinese client states.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
More the case that the UK was part of Hannover!
Until 1837 when we had Queen Victoria who was a woman and as such unable to be Elector of Hannover, the Salic Law I believe
And I'm sure that Donald Duck has been meddling with the weather. One low pressure system after the other from west to east I
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
In turn, the entirety of the Republican Party has rolled over and shown Trump their bellies. Some of them are enthusiastic supporters of everything Trump is doing. Some of them are going along with it because Trump has threatened that his rich friends will fund a primary challenge to anyone who doesn't go along with him. I'm not sure it really matters whether a particular person is evil or just spineless - they still own the responsibility for their actions (and inactions).
So I don't think you can get away with explaining this away with "Trump somehow found a way". Half the people who voted voted for him. Every single one of those people owns the consequences of their choice. And they own the consequences of their continued choice.
You say, correctly, that "there is only so much that we can do legally". This is reasonably true of Democrats. It's not true of Republicans. Every single Republican voter with a Republican Senator or Representative has the opportunity to demand that their elected representatives oppose and reject Trump's fascism. They are, by and large, not taking this opportunity, which means they get to share in the blame.
So I don't think you get to claim that this is "just Trump". This is the Republican Party. They all own it.
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years.
But what the quoted part of the Guardian article said was: “Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit.”
The “citizens of the Republic” have no ability to impeach Trump; that belongs, as you say, the House of Representatives, and to them alone.
“Declare him unfit”? Many of us citizens have been doing that, but I’m not sure what exactly the writer of the article thinks the citizenry as a whole can do to declare an elected president unfit for office.
Just two examples of what I had in mind when I, with some understatement, said the article gave “rather uninformed advice.”
First, a correction. Roughly half of the voters did NOT say, "This is the man I want for president." Rather, they said, "Given a choice between these two people, I'm choosing this one." Quite different--if, for example, you get a person who simply cannot possibly stomach having a woman run the country, for whatever reasons... you see how this is shaping? That person doesn't have to love Trump. That person may loathe Trump. But something about the other option is pushing them to choose Trump. (And I'll note here that the U.S. has never yet managed to elect a woman president, and only managed a woman vice president on the last term--so there is a huge amount of resistance to overcome, just based on gender. We'll only know just how much when we finally manage to overcome it.
Please let's not turn this into a bunch of tangents on the subject of women in politics. I'm simply pointing out the most obvious reason quite a few voters went for Trump regardless of their feelings about him. There is a major difference between "I want this person for president" and "I feel like I have no choice but to choose this person for president." There's a whole spectrum of feelings between those two positions. And the way those people behave now, when Trump has proven himself even more unfit for office than they knew already--well, you may get a whole spectrum of behaviors, too. They aren't likely to all go the same way.
Another correction. You can't claim "All Republicans" because there are those lone hold-outs who have been fighting against him (many of whom have gone down in flames already). They exist. And I hold a lot of respect for them, as they are risking a great deal.
Third correction--any American can call / contact a senator etc. of any party and express their opinions on what that senator should do. You don't have to be a member of their party. In fact, they won't know if you are a member of their party unless you tell them. It helps to be able to say, "I live in your state," because that makes you a potential voter for them the next time round. But even residency is not required for you to call or email.
And a lot of us (including me) have been doing exactly that. It pains me to have to contact Josh Hawley. I do it anyway.
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place. Of the ones who voted for him the majority were older white people in spite of him making gains in Black, Hispanic and Asian populations. Also, men favored him more than woman by 11 points.
Remember, he is more of a salesman than anything else. He sold those who voted for him a bill of goods which he never intended to deliver. He did not have to convince a majority of people to vote for him, just enough of a minority to buy into what he was selling.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place.
By that logic, I think most administrations have been “minority administrations.” Since 1980 at least, no winning candidate has received votes equal to more than 34% of the voting eligible population.
Technically, Normandy and Aquitaine were always part of France. This led to certain diplomatic complications, since Henry II of England was the peer of the King of France in his capacity as King of England, and his "loyal" subject in his capacities as Duke of Normandy and Duke of Aquitaine.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that "historically part of" can be made to expand considerably in scope if someone wishes to expand it.
Both the Mughals in India and the Qing in China commissioned art depicting European monarchs as tributaries.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
William didn't conquer England. He asserted his claim to the throne against the usurper Harald Godwinson. All the lawyers and nobles afterwards agreed, at least if they wanted to keep their jobs.
There is always the option of not voting if none of the choices fit. Voting in big elections is easier here in the UK but many choose not to vote as a protest. Yes it is not the best idea, but if you truly cannot vote for any candidate then it is an option.
Having just got back from the US, including a trip to hospital, in Orlando at least Trump is not popular or so it seems.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Consider someone saying that UK doesn't want to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of the UK.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
You're forgetting Hanover.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
That is, of course, why I selected Germany as an example. There was a brief period where monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain continued to claim, albeit in name only, the crown of France.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
William didn't conquer England. He asserted his claim to the throne against the usurper Harald Godwinson. All the lawyers and nobles afterwards agreed, at least if they wanted to keep their jobs.
The result is the same, England a vassal state of Normandy.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Yes, and it's truly astonishing. The US is the hegemon, and Trump is on his way to reducing us to a regional power. But he's getting unbelievably rich doing it, and so are his buddies.
The early Hanoverian rulers of Britain had a number of titles in Germany. The second son of George the third was Duke of York,but also Herzog zu Braunschweig (Duke of Brunswick) and Fuerstbischof von Osnabruck (Prince bishop of Osnabruck) a position which he received at the age of one.
(It was decided after the 30 years war that the bishopric of Osnabruck would pass alternately from a Catholic bishopric to a Lutheran bishopric and then back to a Catholic bishopric and so on until Napoleon secularized all the independent prince bishoprics.)
Recently many of Trump supporters will accuse those who oppose him as having Trump Derangement Synodrome. After seeing three such people say that in the letters to the editor section of the paper, I decided to write a reply. Here it is:
In recent letters, I’ve noticed a troubling trend: when someone raises concerns about President Trump’s actions or rhetoric, the response is not engagement but dismissal. The label “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has become a convenient way to avoid discussing the substance of those concerns. It pathologizes disagreement instead of addressing it.
Reasonable people can differ on policies, leadership style, or the direction of the country. But disagreement is not derangement. Asking questions about the use of power, the treatment of democratic norms, or the consequences of political decisions is not evidence of emotional instability. It is the work of citizenship.
When someone uses a label like “TDS,” the conversation stops before it begins. It shifts attention away from facts and toward the supposed motives or mental state of the person raising the issue. That tactic may score points in an argument, but it does nothing to strengthen our public life. If anything, it weakens it by suggesting that criticism itself is illegitimate.
We can do better. If someone believes my concerns are unfounded, I welcome a discussion about the specifics—what facts are in dispute, what interpretations differ, what evidence they see differently. That is how democratic societies work through disagreement.
We don’t have to share the same conclusions. But we do need to share a commitment to honest conversation. Dismissing fellow citizens with a slogan is no substitute for that.
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Just a short article, more like simple remark. Notably. the study he is citing says conservatism is marked by death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem.
It is like saying liberalism is marked by tolerance of death, ambiguity, open-mindedness, being comfortable with uncertainty, low need for order, structure and closure, high integrative complexity, openness to threat and loss, high self-esteem.
Adler once said we all have our own belief systems which help us interpret a chaotic world. Some belief systems are dysfunctional jn that they produce negative results and are maladaptive to the world. Other belief systems allow for continued growth.
I actually see a continuum of negative belief to positive belief. I do not think one person is totally negative or totally positive. We are all somewhere in between.
To continue what Adler would say, the point of any interaction with another person is to try to understand how that person is experiencing the world and then for me to be able to convey how I am experiencing the same world. The goal is to reach a consensus on what we are experiencing together.
I have a friend who is very Trumpian. While he has yet to say anything about the Pretti incident, he and I have been going back and forth about the Good incident. He wants to put the Trump version of what happened in the best light possible, I have been countering with things like a frame by frame analysis the NY Times done. He knows I am more liberal than he. I know he is more conservative than I. But he has not said I am delusional and I have not called him blind. We continue to argue the different interpretations of what happened, but we can still go out for a beer together.
I did say he has yet to say anything about Pretti. I am thinking this incident has affected him differently. He is very much a gun rights guy. Many gun rights people are struggling with this incident. I am waiting to see what he is thinking now.
Comments
I wish there was something we could do to help, from this side of the Pond.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
There is only so much we can do legally or constitutionally. The ACLU and other legal organizations are fighting him in the courts as well as 23 state attorney generals plus several individuals and corporations. But it takes time. And even then, there s always the question what will happen if he refuses to abide by the decisions of the courts?
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years. Even if he gets impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors we would still have to deal with JD Vance and company.
The 25th amendment is very difficult as well. There are two ways the president can be removed. 1)Voluntarily which would likely be a short duration. 2) Involuntary. That is where the VP and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (i.e the Cabinet) send a written declaration to the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. But if the president contests this s/he would send a written declaration saying they are able to serve. If that happens, the VP and Cabinet has four days to reaffirm their clam of disability. If they do, Congress must assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. Congress will have 21 days to vote. It would take a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate to keep the VP as acting president. If that threshold is not met, the president resumes power. It is a very, very high bar.
About the only legal way to control the president is through the power of the purse. While the House has already passed the budget to fund ICE, it can still be jammed up in the Senate. Many Democratic Senators have said they cannot in good consciousness fund ICE. I would hope some Republicans feel the same way. But, then again, what would happen if ICE is defunded? Martial law?
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
I would hope, once this awful nightmare is over, we can pass new laws which will put the executive branch in its place; but, until then, better strap in and hang on to your seats, it is going to be a bumpy ride
The call-to-arms reads like a writer trying to make a deadline while on a caffeine buzz, and he thinks he's found some themes and imagery that are really gonna appeal to his target reader, and is just allowing himself to get swept up in his own self-perceived eloquence.
What's particularly odd about it is that normally when I hear George III mentioned by Brits in regards to the Revolutionary War, it's to correct supposedly ignorant Americans who think the king, rather than parliament, was the one making all the contested decisions during the events. But Tisdall splashes around the anti-monarchy stuff like he's writing a third-rate civics textbook for the Boy Scouts Of America.
Yes. I am an Australian.
Alas, Trump would have to get in line after China's mad dream of world domination. We have recently been threatened in no uncertain terms that if we don't support an invasion of Taiwan, our largest trading partner will hold us to economic ransom.
Our Defence Secretary of ten years has just been appointed as the new ambassador to the US. Why? Because we would have been a Chinese province long ago without US defence of the Indo Pacific region.
I feel for the Americans. I really do. It IS a civil war.
But the trouble is, when you're in the middle of a civil war or you're Europe and your big daddy protector no longer wants to protect you, you forget the bigger picture real threats: China, Russia and the rise of BRICS+ for world domination.
I believe ww3 will start with Taiwan, and we all need to be mindful of that.
Is there any evidence at all that China wants to expand its territory beyond what has historically been part of China?
Tbh I thought Taiwan historically had been part of China. Didn't the government pre Mao retreat to Taiwan and for a long time assert that IT was the real China and the communist mainland state not the real country?
Not so bothered about Trump’s supposed advances on Oz as I doubtas he even knows where Terra Australis is.
Yes, that's my point. I was questioning the assertion that Australia would be a Chinese province without US backing. While Taiwan, like Tibet and Hong Kong, is undoubtedly in the sights of Beijing, it's not at all clear that broader territorial expansion is their goal. To be clear, I think the Taiwanese have every right to govern themselves if that's their desire, I just don't think you can infer from the PRC's One China policy that they intend to incorporate Australia any more than they do Vietnam.
Historically China has been an expansionist empire. For that matter, one of the Chinese dynasties was the Mongols. I don't know quite where present Chinese borders are in relation to past borders. I'd be surprised if the southern borders especially are currently at their maximum extent. I believe most SE Asian nations have national heroes who historically kicked out the Chinese. That's ignoring territory that has formerly been part of Chinese client states.
Not that this makes Trump any more palatable.
Yes, exactly. Ireland would have something to fear from that but Germany would not.
I think though that my point was that places that have been part of Empires in the past didn't get that way because the Empire set limits to itself.
Hanover was never part of the UK.
Sounds like a bad airport novel.
Until 1837 when we had Queen Victoria who was a woman and as such unable to be Elector of Hannover, the Salic Law I believe
And I'm sure that Donald Duck has been meddling with the weather. One low pressure system after the other from west to east I
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
In turn, the entirety of the Republican Party has rolled over and shown Trump their bellies. Some of them are enthusiastic supporters of everything Trump is doing. Some of them are going along with it because Trump has threatened that his rich friends will fund a primary challenge to anyone who doesn't go along with him. I'm not sure it really matters whether a particular person is evil or just spineless - they still own the responsibility for their actions (and inactions).
So I don't think you can get away with explaining this away with "Trump somehow found a way". Half the people who voted voted for him. Every single one of those people owns the consequences of their choice. And they own the consequences of their continued choice.
You say, correctly, that "there is only so much that we can do legally". This is reasonably true of Democrats. It's not true of Republicans. Every single Republican voter with a Republican Senator or Representative has the opportunity to demand that their elected representatives oppose and reject Trump's fascism. They are, by and large, not taking this opportunity, which means they get to share in the blame.
So I don't think you get to claim that this is "just Trump". This is the Republican Party. They all own it.
The “citizens of the Republic” have no ability to impeach Trump; that belongs, as you say, the House of Representatives, and to them alone.
“Declare him unfit”? Many of us citizens have been doing that, but I’m not sure what exactly the writer of the article thinks the citizenry as a whole can do to declare an elected president unfit for office.
Just two examples of what I had in mind when I, with some understatement, said the article gave “rather uninformed advice.”
Please let's not turn this into a bunch of tangents on the subject of women in politics. I'm simply pointing out the most obvious reason quite a few voters went for Trump regardless of their feelings about him. There is a major difference between "I want this person for president" and "I feel like I have no choice but to choose this person for president." There's a whole spectrum of feelings between those two positions. And the way those people behave now, when Trump has proven himself even more unfit for office than they knew already--well, you may get a whole spectrum of behaviors, too. They aren't likely to all go the same way.
Another correction. You can't claim "All Republicans" because there are those lone hold-outs who have been fighting against him (many of whom have gone down in flames already). They exist. And I hold a lot of respect for them, as they are risking a great deal.
Third correction--any American can call / contact a senator etc. of any party and express their opinions on what that senator should do. You don't have to be a member of their party. In fact, they won't know if you are a member of their party unless you tell them. It helps to be able to say, "I live in your state," because that makes you a potential voter for them the next time round. But even residency is not required for you to call or email.
And a lot of us (including me) have been doing exactly that. It pains me to have to contact Josh Hawley. I do it anyway.
You said,
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place. Of the ones who voted for him the majority were older white people in spite of him making gains in Black, Hispanic and Asian populations. Also, men favored him more than woman by 11 points.
Remember, he is more of a salesman than anything else. He sold those who voted for him a bill of goods which he never intended to deliver. He did not have to convince a majority of people to vote for him, just enough of a minority to buy into what he was selling.
Calais, Normandy and Aquitaine used to be part of England. In fact, quite a lot of medieval English kings and queens are buried in Normandy...
Actually, if we're talking medieval boundaries, quite a lot of Northern England used to belong to Scotland.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that "historically part of" can be made to expand considerably in scope if someone wishes to expand it.
Both the Mughals in India and the Qing in China commissioned art depicting European monarchs as tributaries.
The Duke of Normandy conquered England. Didn't that make England a part of Normandy rather than the other way round? Hence the choice of burial place.
Having just got back from the US, including a trip to hospital, in Orlando at least Trump is not popular or so it seems.
That is, of course, why I selected Germany as an example. There was a brief period where monarchs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain continued to claim, albeit in name only, the crown of France.
The result is the same, England a vassal state of Normandy.
Yes, and it's truly astonishing. The US is the hegemon, and Trump is on his way to reducing us to a regional power. But he's getting unbelievably rich doing it, and so are his buddies.
(It was decided after the 30 years war that the bishopric of Osnabruck would pass alternately from a Catholic bishopric to a Lutheran bishopric and then back to a Catholic bishopric and so on until Napoleon secularized all the independent prince bishoprics.)
Well-spotted. But the words would be reversed: The Hanover Handover.
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Just a short article, more like simple remark. Notably. the study he is citing says conservatism is marked by death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem.
It is like saying liberalism is marked by tolerance of death, ambiguity, open-mindedness, being comfortable with uncertainty, low need for order, structure and closure, high integrative complexity, openness to threat and loss, high self-esteem.
Adler once said we all have our own belief systems which help us interpret a chaotic world. Some belief systems are dysfunctional jn that they produce negative results and are maladaptive to the world. Other belief systems allow for continued growth.
I actually see a continuum of negative belief to positive belief. I do not think one person is totally negative or totally positive. We are all somewhere in between.
To continue what Adler would say, the point of any interaction with another person is to try to understand how that person is experiencing the world and then for me to be able to convey how I am experiencing the same world. The goal is to reach a consensus on what we are experiencing together.
I have a friend who is very Trumpian. While he has yet to say anything about the Pretti incident, he and I have been going back and forth about the Good incident. He wants to put the Trump version of what happened in the best light possible, I have been countering with things like a frame by frame analysis the NY Times done. He knows I am more liberal than he. I know he is more conservative than I. But he has not said I am delusional and I have not called him blind. We continue to argue the different interpretations of what happened, but we can still go out for a beer together.
I did say he has yet to say anything about Pretti. I am thinking this incident has affected him differently. He is very much a gun rights guy. Many gun rights people are struggling with this incident. I am waiting to see what he is thinking now.