The Trump Presidency

[Earthborn]

It is frightening to ponder how they will deal with an emergency that requires concise and well-measured responses. It's one thing when Trump is tripping over himself on domestic issues, but his lack of intellect could get lots of people killed if an international crisis erupts.

Considering how much influence the US has in the world, the Trump administration is an international crisis. I don't want to scare you any further, but even if Trump suddenly becomes incredibly smart and well-behaved, the US will still have great difficulty dealing with an emergency that requires concise and well-measured responses. That's because Tillerson has effectively gutted the State Department, which until the end of last year was probably the world's greatest powerhouse of international diplomacy.

When it comes to the whole Meddling Russia kerfuffle it is easy to focus on the all the things that still unknown and perhaps the result of a cover-up conspiracy, as that makes such juicy news. It is easy to forget to look at the things that actually happen entirely in the open; but are not less damning:

A guy who actually got a medal from Putin, is in charge of the organisation that until recently was effective in getting the US nearly everything it wanted in the world, to the dismay of Russia. And he managed to wreck it, which is for Putin awfully convenient. The same guy who made NATO (the organisation the US usually uses to bully other countries in being tougher on Russia) reschedule a summit because he said: "Nah, right now I'd rather be in Moscow" (not a direct quote).

Face it, America. There are Bolsheviks in the White House.

 

[acbytesla]

We've already seen it with Clinton and Obama. Both were much worse than Nixon or Trump.

Neither were remotely close. Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and what did Obama do? I must have missed that. Nixon OTOH. Committed burglaries to get access to the private documents of his political opponents and then paid hush money to the burglars and conspired with his staff to prevent prosecution.

Your false equivalency is pathetically transparent and disingenuous.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Face it, America. There are Bolsheviks in the White House.

Russians yes, but not Bolsheviks.

Why does this distinction matter? Because the Bolsheviks were leftists, intent on stealing our hard-earned fortunes and 'redistributing' wealth to 'the people' (ie. undeserving moochers). But modern Russians aren't leftists, they are crony capitalists and oligarchs just like us.

You know who the real Bolsheviks are in this country? Democrats.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

and what did Obama do?

Joined the Democratic Party - while Black.

 

[Trebuchet]

Neither were remotely close. Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and what did Obama do?

Had a funny name and dark skin.

 

[acbytesla]

Joined the Democratic Party - while Black.

Logger has listened to too much right wing hate talk radio. Actual reasoned thought goes out the window with them when it comes to them darkies. Especially any educated uppity ones. Theyll stomach the ones that know their place and say 'yas sir' and 'no sir'.

 

[Meadmaker]

Neither were remotely close. Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and what did Obama do? I must have missed that. Nixon OTOH. Committed burglaries to get access to the private documents of his political opponents and then paid hush money to the burglars and conspired with his staff to prevent prosecution.

Your false equivalency is pathetically transparent and disingenuous.

To be fair, it's not actually known whether he knew about the burglaries before they happened. Some things that came out after his death suggest that he did, but, as far as I know, there was never any direct evidence that he knew about the burglary until after it happened.


Unless I missed something......I'm not completely up on my Nixon era history.

 

[Earthborn]

RBecause the Bolsheviks were leftists, intent on stealing our hard-earned fortunes and 'redistributing' wealth to 'the people' (ie. undeserving moochers).

Sure, Bolsheviks love to pretend that they are the champions for the common worker *cough* Carrier Deal *cough*, but somehow their "redistributions" end up mainly benefitting already rich Party officials. Also they don't try to create a system in which everyone gets "according to their needs" -- that's just want they tell people is the inevitable result if they succeed -- but first they say they have to create a system in which everyone gets "according to their contribution" (ie 'undeserving moochers' get nothing).

But modern Russians aren't leftists, they are crony capitalists and oligarchs

Who think Stalin wasn't such a bad guy.

 

[logger]

Neither were remotely close. Clinton got a blow job and lied about it and what did Obama do? I must have missed that. Nixon OTOH. Committed burglaries to get access to the private documents of his political opponents and then paid hush money to the burglars and conspired with his staff to prevent prosecution.

Your false equivalency is pathetically transparent and disingenuous.

Lol
Nixon committed burglaries? That is hilarious!

 

[logger]

Joined the Democratic Party - while Black.

Had a funny name and dark skin.

Logger has listened to too much right wing hate talk radio. Actual reasoned thought goes out the window with them when it comes to them darkies. Especially any educated uppity ones. Theyll stomach the ones that know their place and say 'yas sir' and 'no sir'.

Its fascinating how many on the left are so consumed with race. More proof of a racist party.

 

[logger]

To be fair, it's not actually known whether he knew about the burglaries before they happened. Some things that came out after his death suggest that he did, but, as far as I know, there was never any direct evidence that he knew about the burglary until after it happened.


Unless I missed something......I'm not completely up on my Nixon era history.

So by him saying Nixon committed the burglaries, that is quite extreme, wouldn't you agree?

 

[acbytesla]

To be fair, it's not actually known whether he knew about the burglaries before they happened. Some things that came out after his death suggest that he did, but, as far as I know, there was never any direct evidence that he knew about the burglary until after it happened.


Unless I missed something......I'm not completely up on my Nixon era history.

I don't believe for a second that Nixon didn't know. We know for a fact that Haldeman his Chief of Staff knew. Just like I believe that Christie knew about Bridgegate. Nixon had a history of dirty tricks going back to college. But you're right it has never been proven that Nixon knew before. But he absolutely knew within days and tried to cover it up.

 

[logger]

I don't believe for a second that Nixon didn't know. We know for a fact that Haldeman his Chief of Staff knew. Just like I believe that Christie knew about Bridgegate. Nixon had a history of dirty tricks going back to college. But you're right it has never been proven that Nixon knew before. But he absolutely knew within days and tried to cover it up.

So You Were Wrong!

 

[varwoche]

Nixon ordered a different burglary (which didn't come to fruition) so it's hardly a stretch that he may have ordered watergate.

I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.

 

[acbytesla]

So You Were Wrong!

How am I wrong? Not having conclusive proof is not the same thing.

 

[Aridas]

There is a third option that would have made it look a lot less suspicious: firing without immediate termination.
"We need you to be gone in a month." says "You are not doing a very good job, we need to find someone else."
"We need you to be gone in a week" says "You are doing a pisspoor job and we need to get rid of you very quickly."

"You are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately" will just cause people to wonder "why does he need to go right now?" and justifying it with something that happened half a year earlier won't convince anyone that's the real reason. Even if it wasn't something they were cheering for at the time.

Yeah. Ignoring the incredibly bungled reasons part of it, this would have been the only decent way to do it to minimize the PR nightmare, alongside giving, say, at least a couple days of overlap with the successor. But then... this is Trump. Who knew that things would be so hard?

 

[Aridas]

Joined the Democratic Party - while Black.

He didn't figure out a way to break the Republicans' extreme obstructionism tactics and incredibly partisan news.

 

[Craig4]

Because elections matter? Your first clue?

And there are processes in place for if we elect someone unfit or becomes unfit. You need to decide where your loyalties are, to your party or the nation.

 

[Mumbles]

Yeah. Ignoring the incredibly bungled reasons part of it, this would have been the only decent way to do it to minimize the PR nightmare, alongside giving, say, at least a couple days of overlap with the successor. But then... this is Trump. Who knew that things would be so hard?

Really, there was already an investigation into Comey's breaking of long-standing traditions and directives. A good move would be to simply wait it out. But even if he's innocent, that's simply not his style, as we saw back when he demanded that the House pass the AHCA, and then suddenly bounced when negotiations weren't going his way.

 

[Meadmaker]

So You Were Wrong!

(The above was directed at abcytesla)

To be honest, I was too young to remember all but the key events. I was watching TV when they broke in to announce the Saturday Night Massacre. I remember Senator Sam and the hearings. I remember the resignation and pardon, and some trials, but, really, I didn't remember details. I was 10 when he resigned.

I went back and read about it today. In fourty years, I had never actually done that. I just remembered snippets about coverups, and tapes, and Rosemary Woods and the rather implausible accidental tape erasure. I knew that there was a breakin, and a coverup, and obstruction of justice, but I wouldn't have been able to tell you much about the incident at all, so I read about it.

That guy was a crook. A really, seriously, lawbreaking sort of dude.

So, it cannot be proven that he knew about the burglary before it happened, but given who did know, it begs credulity to believe that he had no knowledge. It is conceivable that he was sheltered from the specifics in order to preserve plausible deniability before the breakin, but it seems impossible that he had no knowledge that illegal activities were taking place, even if he didn't know exactly when or where. And after the breakin, he was committing illegal acts.

So is abcytesla "wrong"? Well, let's just say that there was more confirmed truth in his statement than there was speculation, and that his speculation seems very likely to be correct as well.

All right.....Trump. So far, we don't know anything he has done that puts him on par with Nixon. Let's give him time and see what comes out. Given his personality, I, personally, do not think he can have that level of power, but with that level of restriction, and manage to actually follow the law for four years. Maybe he'll surprise me.