President Trump

[The Don]

Watching this whole thing unfold, I am increasingly suspicious if Trump will remain President for the whole four years. Especially seeing how stressed out he is because the media said "his" crowd was smaller than "Obama's." How will a real crisis effect him?

I'm not sure that he gets stressed about things like this, he gets exercised but I'm not sure he gets stressed. Indeed, externalisiing things like this may be a way of avoiding stress.

I suspect that if it becomes apparent that he cant "win" this one, he will suddenly lose interest and it'll be something he was never interested in at all.....

I suspect the same will happen in a crisis, an enormous amount of bluster and noise followed by rejoicing (if he "wins") or an insistence that he was never interested in the first place (if he doesn't)

In earlier years he said in interviews that "getting" meant more to him than "having." That by the time he accomplished something he often lost interest in having it. I wouldn't give odds on Trump resigning but I think it's a possibility.

IMO the opportunity to line his pockets will be too great to pass up...

 

[The Great Zaganza]

One easy question to answer: would Republican supporters stand for this behaviour from Mike Pence? Would they defend him against all criticism?
Simple answer: no.

The GOP needs Trump because he is the only one giving them credibility.

 

[thaiboxerken]

One easy question to answer: would Republican supporters stand for this behaviour from Mike Pence? Would they defend him against all criticism?
Simple answer: no.

The GOP needs Trump because he is the only one giving them credibility.

Yep, and he's also the clown misdirecting the public's attention from what the Republicans are doing in congress and at the state level.

 

[The Don]

One easy question to answer: would Republican supporters stand for this behaviour from Mike Pence? Would they defend him against all criticism?
Simple answer: no.

I disagree, partisanship has got to such a level that IMO supporters of Party A would support "their" man against attacks from the media and supporters of Party B for pretty much anything.

Now you could argue that Mike Pence is sufficiently principled not to behave like Trump but then again if it's something he's passionate about maybe he would.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I disagree, partisanship has got to such a level that IMO supporters of Party A would support "their" man against attacks from the media and supporters of Party B for pretty much anything.

Now you could argue that Mike Pence is sufficiently principled not to behave like Trump but then again if it's something he's passionate about maybe he would.

Do you think that any of the other Republican candidates could have won against Clinton?
My view is:
Hardcore Republicans are not the same as hardcore Trump Supporters: the first want to use Trump, the latter want to use the GOP. It's a partnership of convenience, but it depends on Trump being president.

 

[The Don]

Do you think that any of the other Republican candidates could have won against Clinton? .

How is that relevant ?

Your question was:

would Republican supporters stand for this behaviour from Mike Pence? Would they defend him against all criticism?

My answer is yes, they would defend Mike Pence from all criticism. GOP criticism of Dubya's Presidency was very muted (and he lied bigly about WMD) and I'd expect the same of any GOP President.

My view is:
Hardcore Republicans are not the same as hardcore Trump Supporters: the first want to use Trump, the latter want to use the GOP. It's a partnership of convenience, but it depends on Trump being president.

That's as maybe, but I don't see prominent Republicans criticising a GOP President.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's as maybe, but I don't see prominent Republicans criticising a GOP President.

Paul Ryan is.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Paul Ryan is.

I would expect John McCain to take principled stands when appropriate.

 

[Marcus]

Nope, fewest of post-war two term presidents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

yes, if you want to look at only recent presidents, him and the two Bushes are lowest.

 

[The Don]

yes, if you want to look at only recent presidents, him and the two Bushes are lowest.

The first Bush only served 1 term so it stands to reason that he would have issued significantly fewer executive orders.

You claimed that Obama was "middle of the pack". He has the lowest number for a two-term President since Grover Cleveland. Given how much government and politics has changed since the late 19th century IMO that makes him a sparing user of executive orders.

The next lowest, Dubya, issued 5% more but I don't recall the GOP having the vapours about his "unconstitutional" use of EO's.

 

[The Don]

I would expect John McCain to take principled stands when appropriate.

This being the same John McCain whose response to being insulted by Trump was to meekly endorse Trump's candidacy ?

IMO McCain may or may not have been principled back when he started out but that ship sailed long, long ago.

 

[The Don]

Paul Ryan is.

He seems to be toeing the Trump line.

His previous enthusiasm for TPP has just evaporated and I haven't seen anything in the UK press since the election. Indeed HuffPo in November was surprised at his volte face:

WASHINGTON ― If you were counting on Speaker Paul Ryan and House Republicans to act as a check on President-elect Donald Trump, you might want to re-evaluate your saviors.

Tuesday morning began with the House Republican conference laying out Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” hats on the seat of every GOP House member. It continued with Ryan praising Trump and refusing to criticize his selection of former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon to serve as a senior adviser in the administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-steve-bannon_us_582b3331e4b0c4b63b0e8759

AFAIK it has continued in that vein....

IMO the GOP would do pretty much anything not to side with the Democratic Party on any issue, no matter what comes out of the White House (and vice versa).

 

[Firestone]

For now, McCain will be principled when it has no consequences, and follow the Trump line when it could matter.

About the TPP:

“President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a serious mistake that will have lasting consequences for America’s economy and our strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region.

“This decision will forfeit the opportunity to promote American exports, reduce trade barriers, open new markets, and protect American invention and innovation. It will create an opening for China to rewrite the economic rules of the road at the expense of American workers. And it will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it.

“Abandoning TPP is the wrong decision. Moving forward, it is imperative that America advances a positive trade agenda in the Asia-Pacific that will keep American workers and companies competitive in one of the most economically vibrant and fastest-growing regions in the world.”

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...o-withdraw-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership

About Tillerson:

"After careful consideration, and much discussion with Mr. Tillerson, we have decided to support his nomination to be Secretary of State. Though we still have concerns about his past dealings with the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin, we believe that Mr. Tillerson can be an effective advocate for U.S. interests.

"Now more than ever, with America's friends growing more discouraged and our enemies growing more emboldened, we need a Secretary of State who recognizes that our nation cannot succeed in the world by itself. We must strengthen our alliances and partnerships across the globe, and marshal them to defend our shared vision of world order. It is the American people more than anyone else who have benefited from this long tradition of U.S. global leadership. The views that Mr. Tillerson has expressed, both privately and publicly during the confirmation process, give us confidence that he will be a champion for a strong and engaged role for America in the world."

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...nt-by-senators-mccain-graham-on-rex-tillerson

Maybe he will become really principled if and when Trump's ratings take a nosedive.

 

[newyorkguy]

yes, if you want to look at only recent presidents, him and the two Bushes are lowest.

Yes, if you define recent as the last one hundred years.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Is this the group that filed the lawsuit against him on the grounds that his business holdings were unconstitutional? It will be interesting to follow. My guess is it will be dismissed on standing grounds. However, that is just a guess, or perhaps a tiny bit more. I like following cases like that one, though. I find it fascinating to read the legal reasoning employed.

Yes, they say him owning hotels and golf courses violates the emoluments clause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html

 

[Marcus]

The first Bush only served 1 term so it stands to reason that he would have issued significantly fewer executive orders.

You claimed that Obama was "middle of the pack". He has the lowest number for a two-term President since Grover Cleveland. Given how much government and politics has changed since the late 19th century IMO that makes him a sparing user of executive orders.

The next lowest, Dubya, issued 5% more but I don't recall the GOP having the vapours about his "unconstitutional" use of EO's.

Look at the EO's per year, that's the most objective measure.

As I said, Obama is in the middle of the pack historically. U.S. history does not began at WW2.

I don't have the vapors, I'm not a Republican, and I'm not even criticizing Obama for his number of EO's, you're just taking it that way.

 

[The Don]

Look at the EO's per year, that's the most objective measure.

As I said, Obama is in the middle of the pack historically. U.S. history does not began at WW2.

I don't have the vapors, I'm not a Republican, and I'm not even criticizing Obama for his number of EO's, you're just taking it that way.

And by that measure Obama has the lowest since the late 19th century...

I suppose you could compare him to politicians earlier than that but the United States was a very different place back then (smaller and less populous) and politics was very different.


Edited to add....

AFAIK I never claimed that you had the vapours or was a member of the GOP

 

[Bob001]

Trump claims to be an environmentalist. Not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ds-on-the-environment/?utm_term=.9964287bc002

 

[newyorkguy]

As I said, Obama is in the middle of the pack historically. U.S. history does not began at WW2...

You keep implying Obama issued fewer EOs only in comparison to recent presidents or since WW2. But the list that was linked shows he issued the fewest of any president for the past 100+ years. I am a registered Democrat and the context here is, Obama has repeatedly been accused of using EOs in a way few presidents have. Almost to the point where it became dictatorial. That Obama was trying to usurp the powers of Congress through the use of EOs. If that was true I would be greatly concerned and very disappointed in Barack Obama. Only it's not true yet some people -- and I don't mean you -- go on making that accusation anyway.

I think it needs to be refuted and clearly refuted. Not in comparison only with recent presidents or since WWII but since the late 19th century. Many fewer than G.W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft. Fewer than any two term president since Ulysses Grant, 1869-1877. That's 140 years and I don't think that can be considered recent.

 

[Spindrift]

Trump claims to be an environmentalist. Not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ds-on-the-environment/?utm_term=.9964287bc002

“I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment.”

It's really sad for Trump and even sadder for the USA. Trump can't seem to be in any situation where he isn't 'a very big person'.

When a military crisis arises I hope to the FSM that Mattis succeeds in leading, not Trump.

Here's my next prediction (which I'm terrible at, but it makes me feel good): Mattis is the first cabinet member fired, because he will speak truth to power, early and often.