Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

And the campaign slogan of his opponent was Together Stronger.

 

And Trump's campaigns slogan was Make America Great Again.

 

I'm not impressed by either one....which is how I have always felt about the illusion of choice in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

 

I wasn't impressed by either candidate, either, but that still doesn't mean that when offered the choice between a bad hamburger and feces I should have trouble deciding where to eat.

[ldrews]

As a non-American, I have no shoe in the race to be partisan about. Your "joke" seems to be for no reason than to avoid addressing the latest Trump omission regarding Russia and as such deserved to be mocked. Much as do your positions in several areas but that is typical when dealing with an extremist like yourself.

 

My goodness! Lighten up!

[cherdano]

Speaking of "jokes" - now that you are back, ldrews, maybe now you could clarify your comment that "we" should provide [Trump] with pussy if it makes him a more effective president. Does that make you a

• tasteless troll,
  
• a despicable human being,
  
• a cranky misanthropic old guy who sometimes posts when he shouldn't (when he is too drunk), or
  
• all of the above?
  

 

It would be good to know to put your commentary in proper context.

[barmar]

Trump is calling the democrats "obstructionists" after Trumpcare failed. He keeps using that word but I don't think it means what he thinks it means. B-)

Inconceivable!

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/20/trump-new-york-times-jeff-sessions/494298001/

 

No one told Trump that Sessions was a bad choice....just review his work history. You can see that he was jockeying and lusting after a federal pension and position for a while.

 

Good luck with that.

[Winstonm]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/20/trump-new-york-times-jeff-sessions/494298001/

 

No one told Trump that Sessions was a bad choice....just review his work history. You can see that he was jockeying and lusting after a federal pension and position for a while.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Trump thinks like a mafia don.

[ldrews]

Speaking of "jokes" - now that you are back, ldrews, maybe now you could clarify your comment that "we" should provide [Trump] with pussy if it makes him a more effective president. Does that make you a

• tasteless troll,
  
• a despicable human being,
  
• a cranky misanthropic old guy who sometimes posts when he shouldn't (when he is too drunk), or
  
• all of the above?
  

 

It would be good to know to put your commentary in proper context.

 

Our very survival depends on how effectively our President makes decisions, particularly concerning military/defense decisions. How balanced is he, how relaxed is he, how rational is he in the midst of conflict.

 

For example, the president is currently considering options on handling North Korea, including military options. Most military experts concur that initiating military action against North Korea could easily cost millions of lives. Do you want an emotionally off-balance person making that decision?

 

So, how many lives are you willing to gamble by putting the President in a personally frustrating condition? If providing pussy to the President will save lives, then I say provide pussy. How about you, are you willing to potentially sacrifice those lives to uphold your sense of morality?

[Winstonm]

Our very survival depends on how effectively our President makes decisions, particularly concerning military/defense decisions. How balanced is he, how relaxed is he, how rational is he in the midst of conflict.

 

For example, the president is currently considering options on handling North Korea, including military options. Most military experts concur that initiating military action against North Korea could easily cost millions of lives. Do you want an emotionally off-balance person making that decision?

 

 

This is one of the reasons for the 25th Amendment.

[kenberg]

For those of us who cannot keep up with the dodging, I would like it very much if journalists or others who are in a position to push a bit would ask every Senator and every Representative, D, R, I, whatever, to answer some questions. I will not worry for the moment about the exact phrasing. The idea is that everyone would go on record answering something like the following:

 

If you could design and pass a bill exactly as you think best, who would receive Medicaid and what medical costs would it cover? One could supply specific choices such as

 

Everyone.

No one.

All children in famines with an annual income income of less than x

All members of a family with an income less than y

All people with an income less than z, but there would be a time limit

It would, or would not, cover birth control.

It would, or would not, cover medical needs arising from stupid behavior, with examples of what would not be covered. Breaking a leg while sky diving?

Etc.

 

I think it is fair, desirable even, to pin our representatives down to what they would consider ideal, even if this means that they have to then cooperate and compromise with others with different ideals.

 

On one day Trump said that the House plan was great, on another day he called it mean. Of course this need not be inconsistent, possibly he thinks it's great to be mean. Trying to make any sense at all of what Trump says is a fool's game. Some on this thread don't have a problem with that. I have a big problem with it, but I recognize reality. At least some Senators and some Representatives might be willing to express in a clear manner what they would see as a really good result. Something other than just "Anything, as long as we can call it repeal and replace". I hope that at least some have a higher standard.

[ldrews]

This is one of the reasons for the 25th Amendment.

 

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.

[RedSpawn]

For those of us who cannot keep up with the dodging, I would like it very much if journalists or others who are in a position to push a bit would ask every Senator and every Representative, D, R, I, whatever, to answer some questions. I will not worry for the moment about the exact phrasing. The idea is that everyone would go on record answering something like the following:

 

If you could design and pass a bill exactly as you think best, who would receive Medicaid and what medical costs would it cover? One could supply specific choices such as

 

Everyone.

No one.

All children in famines with an annual income income of less than x

All members of a family with an income less than y

All people with an income less than z, but there would be a time limit

It would, or would not, cover birth control.

It would, or would not, cover medical needs arising from stupid behavior, with examples of what would not be covered. Breaking a leg while sky diving?

Etc.

 

I think it is fair, desirable even, to pin our representatives down to what they would consider ideal, even if this means that they have to then cooperate and compromise with others with different ideals.

 

On one day Trump said that the House plan was great, on another day he called it mean. Of course this need not be inconsistent, possibly he thinks it's great to be mean. Trying to make any sense at all of what Trump says is a fool's game. Some on this thread don't have a problem with that. I have a big problem with it, but I recognize reality. At least some Senators and some Representatives might be willing to express in a clear manner what they would see as a really good result. Something other than just "Anything, as long as we can call it repeal and replace". I hope that at least some have a higher standard.

You do realize that some politicians would claim "entrapment" with such policy questions. Ambiguity is a politician's best friend.

 

We would hope politicians have a higher standard for health care in America but you see they tried to pivot with "Repeal" and "Replace Later". No deal!

[barmar]

So, how many lives are you willing to gamble by putting the President in a personally frustrating condition? If providing pussy to the President will save lives, then I say provide pussy. How about you, are you willing to potentially sacrifice those lives to uphold your sense of morality?

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

[barmar]

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

 

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

[RedSpawn]

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

 

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

Agreed. America is not in the business of removing disliked Presidents through Constitutional Amendments. Let the Trump/Russia collusion investigation continue and file charges or articles of impeachment when a solid case can be built.

[ldrews]

Exactly. There's virtually zero possibility that the 25th Amendment would ever be used to declare POTUS mentally or emotionally unfit. Its only practical use is during periods of physical infirmity, e.g. while undergoing surgery.

 

The exception might be if the President volunteered his unfitness. For instance, if their spouse or child died and they realized they were too emotional while grieving to govern properly. But both the scenario and such a reaction seem very unlikely in the case of Trump.

 

What he said.

[ldrews]

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

 

Yes, what is critically wrong is delegating so much power to government if the first place. And the world's history of leaders appears to be much the same, they all use their positions to gratify their personal desires. But are we even accusing Trump of such activity while he is President? Not to my knowledge. Do you have other information?

 

To me one of our greatest dangers is our moral arrogance that prevents us from finding pragmatic solutions to our problems. That moral arrogance is likely to kill us.

[awm]

To ask a somewhat speculative question, suppose that Mueller uncovers a smoking gun. Suppose the Trump campaign provided Russia with voter targeting data which they used to remove democratic voters from the registration rolls in key states, sufficient to swing the election. Suppose Trump has been laundering Russian money for decades, and has promised to end sanctions in exchange for the electoral help...

 

In this (perhaps far fetched) scenario -- do we think Trump will be impeached? Surely most Republicans won't believe the above story no matter how many mainstream news orgs report it. The Democrats are unlikely to control the Senate before 2020 and it only takes 35 senators to block removal from office (so even some moderate Republicans defecting won't be enough to remove).

 

I predict Trump stays in office through 2020 unless health issues happen or he voluntarily resigns (which seems not in his nature).

[Winstonm]

You must live in a fantasy world. The probability of the 25th Amendment being used to remove Trump from office is extremely remote. You would have to convince Pence and the Cabinet to initiate such an action. Pence seems very supportive of Trump. And it would be a very long, drawn out process, during which time Trump is still the one making the decisions. I suggest you look for a more practical solution to your angst.

 

You are not as informed as you think. There is the Pence bloodless coup provision in the 25th Amendment. From Time:

 

But there is another provision in the Amendment that has received much less popular attention — one that could allow Congress to play a role in removing the President. And no, it isn’t impeachment. Instead, a little-known provision in Section 4 empowers Congress to form its own body to evaluate the President’s fitness for office, eliminating the need for the Cabinet’s involvement in the process (emphasis ours):

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 

So, Pence and a Democratic Congress could remove Trump if Congress flips in 2018.

 

I doubt anything like that will happen.

[billw55]

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

 

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

[RedSpawn]

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

 

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

Are you serious?

 

If one of his children vies for the Presidential nomination in 2020, we might as well suggest that the White House has been co-opted.

[PassedOut]

It is virtually certain that Trump will serve out his term. He won't resign, and there is virtually nothing that he could do to get enough R congressman to do it.

 

What happens after that is less certain. I give about even odds for Donald Sr. to seek another term. If he does not, one of his children probably will seek nomination. If they do they probably win it. In which case the general election likely hinges on a credible D candidate.

Trump has already announced that he's running for reelection, and raised $10 million at his first fundraiser.

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't there something critically wrong with having to make a decision like this? How can we possibly have elected someone to such an austere office, then have to consider distracting them with prostitutes to avoid them doing something incredibly stupid?

Those that believe that because they disagree or don't like someone, then that someone must be evil, stupid, crooked or some other pejorative term to justify the rectitude of their own position. Most politicians end up coming around to the realization that they can only contribute so much to the discourse but the influence and control of their backers need take precedence to service to the people. Just the way it is. Trump may be despicable, dislikable and disagreeable but he was legally and formally elected to serve (certainly not THE PEOPLE, but HIS PEOPLE) so he will do whatever he can to further his "agenda" (Which appears to be whatever suits him at the moment...)

 

The Deep State runs things such that the Corporate Elite gains and supports their existence and proliferation. Just look at the US since the end of WWII. A security state in which no common man is as secure as he once was. Trump is a sort of aberration but not unlike many of his predecessors in that august position. The last one to try and shake that yoke caught a bullet.

[Winstonm]

Trump has already announced that he's running for reelection, and raised $10 million at his first fundraiser.

 

I think he has spent that already on lawyers' fees. B-)

[blackshoe]

Hm. In what way is the Starr Report "salacious"?

[Winstonm]

The rot starts: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-lawyers-seek-to-undercut-muellers-russia-investigation/2017/07/20/232ebf2c-6d71-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumplegal-925pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.eb58bf0a0feb

 

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.