Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spindrift said:
I think it needs to get a lot worse as much as I think Trump is an idiot*. The first use of Section 4 will set a precedent, we don't want the bar set too low so it can be used to regularly overthrow the government.

*ETA: Dangerous idiot.
Click to expand...

Actually this would probably be the only case where Trump's behaviour could actually be seen as setting a very high bar for future presidents to be measure against.
 
Are we going to talk about how Melania may have a double doing the dirty work of being in the Cheeto Fart's presence?
 
Craig4 said:
I think they are too. If the VP was responsible and loyal to the country he would have already acted. Sadly, I think The Hair's episodes will have to get much worse before the cabinet takes it's duty seriously.
Click to expand...

If you are talking 25th Admendment, it does not have to be the Cabinent, it can also be "any body the congress may by law provide".

. 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
Click to expand...

I suspect if it reaches that point, there will first be a showdown in which Trump is given the option of resiging "for health reasons".
 
McCain is going after Trump on the Niger ambush demanding an investigation of the whole mess.

And his response to Trump's "I could get ugly" comment on McCain:

"I've faced far greater challenges than this."
Click to expand...

In other words, "I spent Six freaking years in the Hanoi Hilton, you don't scare me.fat boy".
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
McCain is going after Trump on the Niger ambush demanding an investigation of the whole mess.

And his response to Trump's "I could get ugly" comment on McCain:



In other words, "I spent Six freaking years in the Hanoi Hilton, you don't scare me.fat boy".
Click to expand...

Hopefully they will investigate Niger with the same zeal as Benghazi.
 
Pterodactyl said:
Not that he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but context might matter. If he said something along the lines of, "He is a hero. War is brutal. He knew what he signed up for and he sacrificed all for his country. He is a true patriot and will be missed"

Trump isn't very eloquent, so he might have been trying to imply something like that, and botched it.

He is terrible, but I am doubtful he meant it like, "**** happens. He knew the risks"
Click to expand...
Consider a different scenario from 'not very eloquent'. Consider how a socially inadequate person with a pathological absence of empathy might handle such a situation. He more than likely didn't know how bad that statement sounded. It's like a blind person not being aware they were wearing an FU tee shirt at a wedding.
 
Brief aside (interesting as hell to me but no one else, likely). Donnie Johnny's new BFF, our general PM evidently picked up the orange virus when he was at the White House.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/1344847/facebook-denies-pm-zuckerberg-meeting

On Tuesday the PM, with graphics, said that he was going to have a face-to-face with Mark Zuckerberg when he(Z) visits Thailand in the next few months. The graphics, without stating so, implied that FB has a huge interest in keeping the PTB in Thailand happy. This is largely face-saving because Twitter, FB, and Google refused to cooperate with the dictator's plans that they help rat people out for Lese Majeste violations.

Facebook commented yesterday that no such meeting is in the cards.

Right out of the Trump playbook!
 
quadraginta said:
....
The highlighted part is where there is an alternative. "Congress" as used in the Constitution means both the House and the Senate. Just as with the impeachment process it was the intent to have both chambers of the legislative branch participate in this process.

Exactly how that might be done is not described, and since it has never been done yet there is no precedent. But it is pretty clear that the "Congress" can do something, and that they get to decide what that something is.

So, no, the Senate alone can't remove the President, but they could certainly initiate such a process, at least in the limited sense that they could begin discussions with the House of Representatives and that subsequently the two chambers could jointly craft and apply a procedure which they agree upon.
Click to expand...

What might be significant is that such a body could likely be created by a simple majority vote of both houses, like most legislation, rather than the two-thirds required for impeachment and conviction. I could imagine even some Republicans agreeing to appoint some kind of "board of elders" -- maybe including the five former presidents -- who would relieve Congress of the duty to assess Trump.
 
Spindrift said:
.....

ETA: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was intended to be used when the President was mentally or physically incapacitated. Not when he's a moronic, embarrassing douche nozzle as is currently the case.
Click to expand...

Sure, it would all be uncharted ground. But we have actual senators publicly questioning his stability. I suspect a case could be made for mental incapacity based just on some of Trump's lies. If he believes what he says it's delusional thinking. It would be messy, but the language of the 25th is broad enough to include it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Consider a different scenario from 'not very eloquent'. Consider how a socially inadequate person with a pathological absence of empathy might handle such a situation. He more than likely didn't know how bad that statement sounded. It's like a blind person not being aware they were wearing an FU tee shirt at a wedding.
Click to expand...

Rachel Maddow makes an interesting point: Trump has a long history of saying or doing something outrageous to distract attention from a more important issue. She points out that while we are debating whether Trump was nasty to a Gold Star mother, nobody's demanding to know what American combat troops were doing in Niger, about which the White House has not released even the most basic statement.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
 
dudalb said:
In other words, "I spent Six freaking years in the Hanoi Hilton, you don't scare me.fat boy".
Click to expand...

Maybe yes, maybe no but we do know that even after being insulted by candidate Trump (e.g. "I prefer my war heroes not to be captured") McCain then actively campaigned for the man (not just the party, the man).

In other words there is frequently a gap between how "off message" McCain sounds and his eventual actions.


eta....

I think the bigger challenge to which he refers is fighting brain cancer
 
The Don said:
Maybe yes, maybe no but we do know that even after being insulted by candidate Trump (e.g. "I prefer my war heroes not to be captured") McCain then actively campaigned for the man (not just the party, the man).

In other words there is frequently a gap between how "off message" McCain sounds and his eventual actions.


eta....

I think the bigger challenge to which he refers is fighting brain cancer
Click to expand...

At the time he backed Trump he was in a tough re-election fight. He needed donations and votes. He could also argue, reasonably I think, that he was campaigning for the nominee of his party against the nominee of the other party. But now there is literally nothing anybody can do to him, and I suspect if he really unloads on Trump, he'll get a lot of support from other Republicans.
 
Bob001 said:
At the time he backed Trump he was in a tough re-election fight. He needed donations and votes. He could also argue, reasonably I think, that he was campaigning for the nominee of his party against the nominee of the other party. But now there is literally nothing anybody can do to him, and I suspect if he really unloads on Trump, he'll get a lot of support from other Republicans.
Click to expand...

I doubt that he'd get much support. For most Republicans, the biggest threat to their seat (and hence income and influence) is being "primaried". The GOP still absolutely love President Trump (approval rating still at nearly 80%) so anything negative said about Trump will increase their risk of being replaced by a Trumpist or Tea Party candidate.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

With regards to "campaigning for the party candidate", you can do that without being quite so effusive. I get that people like McCain because he often makes the right noises but I think it's a sign of dissatisfaction/desperation (a bit like saying that Kelly and Mattis are noble warriors protecting the country and haven't imbibed fully from the Kool-ade) with President Trump that they think anything material will come of it. :(
 
Bob001 said:
Rachel Maddow makes an interesting point: Trump has a long history of saying or doing something outrageous to distract attention from a more important issue. She points out that while we are debating whether Trump was nasty to a Gold Star mother, nobody's demanding to know what American combat troops were doing in Niger, about which the White House has not released even the most basic statement.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Click to expand...


In a CNN article on the same topic;
Washington (CNN)It's not clear why it took President Donald Trump 12 days to publicly comment on the deaths of US troops killed in an ambush in Niger, but it wasn't for lack of effort from some White House officials.

White House officials prepared and circulated internally a statement to be issued on the President's behalf the day after the attack. But the statement, obtained Wednesday by Politico and confirmed by CNN, was never officially released.

Instead, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders took to the briefing room that same day and said: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the fallen service members who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we hold so dear."

It wasn't until nearly two weeks later that the President, an avid Twitter user, mentioned the deaths when he asked about them during an impromptu news conference Monday in the White House Rose Garden.

Pressed Wednesday on why it took Trump so long to offer a public statement on the soldiers' deaths, Sanders pointed reporters to her remarks October 5, saying she made those remarks "at the direction of the President."

"I speak on his behalf and I did that on behalf of the President and the administration," Sanders said, though her initial statement made no specific mention of the President
Click to expand...
.​
But I find this even more interesting.

It sort of ranks with and even reinforces) the statement that Trump's tweets are official White House Presidential announcements.
A White House official said Wednesday the White House opted not to issue the written statement from the President, deciding instead it would be more powerful for Sanders to deliver remarks from the White House podium on the matter. The official said it was more important to elevate the message by issuing it from the White House podium.
Click to expand...
This adds considerably to the authority and stature of the White House Spokescritter's comments. No more discounting them as simply the mistaken explanations of a struggling mouthpiece to the press.

We shall have to bear that in mind in the future.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
In a CNN article on the same topic;
.​
But I find this even more interesting.

It sort of ranks with and even reinforces) the statement that Trump's tweets are official White House Presidential announcements.
​
This adds considerably to the authority and stature of the White House Spokescritter's comments. No more discounting them as simply the mistaken explanations of a struggling mouthpiece to the press.

We shall have to bear that in mind in the future.
Click to expand...

Except that next week Parseltongue Huckabee Sanders will be blowing off the next outrageous statement or misdeed with "It was a tweet. You people have no sense of humor?" Or, in response to a question will say that she can't put words in the president's mouth and that you'll have to ask him.

In short, whatever spin suits the latest boondoggle. They've spun so many versions of every conceivable denial that they are about at the point where they can go back to recycling excuses from January.
 
Trying to ignore the diversion here:

what do we actually know about how the soldiers died in Niger?
Official information seems to be sketchy to non-existent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom