Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

IMO there isn't much point in trying to critique them. The people who already know they're unfounded BS don't need more convincing; those who already believe them aren't interested in contrary evidence.

[Hermit]

I'm sure there's a more elegant way to do this, but I'm feeling lazy and at least this way folks can see it.

 

 

Trump tells police to go ahead and rough up suspects, slam their heads into sidewalks, not worry about injuring them. Police cheer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/28/trump-tells-police-not-to-worry-about-injuring-suspects-during-arrests/

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

"You've never been a policeman, have you, Mr. President?"

 

"No, but I have seen a couple of Clint Eastwood movies."

 

Encouraging police brutality is  a terrible idea. It makes cops' jobs a lot harder when people they deal with know they can be roughed up or worse with impunity, and act accordingly to protect themselves. This, in turn, motivates police to resort to deadly force even more readily than they do now.

 

You don't want action movie heroes on the police force. Period. You want to have cops involved in prolonged chases and fights as little as possible. You want to keep your officers accountable for each bullet they fire, and not because ammunition is expensive (it's not). Donald Trump lives in a B-Movie fantasy when it comes to law enforcement.

 

This inability to distinguish the real world from a movie in which he is the star may cost the President dearly. It's certainly going to exact a severe cost on minority communities, who are already subject to major problems in their dealings with the police.

[Sociotard]

Just please don't let him take any lessons from Duterte.

[Lucius]

Donald Trump lives in a B-Movie fantasy when it comes to law enforcement.

 

This inability to distinguish the real world from a movie in which he is the star may cost the President dearly..

It's worked for at least one other president in recent memory.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks how well it works for everyone else

[Iuz the Evil]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/politics/trump-police-remarks-reaction/index.html

 

Police representatives didn't like it either...

[Lord Liaden]

It's worked for at least one other president in recent memory.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks how well it works for everyone else

 

But said president had trusted handlers who carefully vetted everything he said in public beforehand. Donald Trump has no handlers, nor any self-editorial function between his brain and his mouth.

 

His defenders' excuse for his latest remarks, as has often been the case, is, "It was a joke." He and they have to learn that every word out of the mouth of the President of the United States carries weight for everyone in the world, because everyone in the world is affected by him. His words will always be noted, scrutinized, and weighed, for clues to who he is and what he's going to do. Careless words will inflame passions and change people's course of action. And if we're supposed to treat everything provocative he says as a joke, the man himself will be treated as a joke.

[Nolgroth]

... the man himself will be treated as a joke.

 

Too late. 

[Tom]

But said president had trusted handlers who carefully vetted everything he said in public beforehand. Donald Trump has no handlers, nor any self-editorial function between his brain and his mouth.

 

His defenders' excuse for his latest remarks, as has often been the case, is, "It was a joke." He and they have to learn that every word out of the mouth of the President of the United States carries weight for everyone in the world, because everyone in the world is affected by him. His words will always be noted, scrutinized, and weighed, for clues to who he is and what he's going to do. Careless words will inflame passions and change people's course of action. And if we're supposed to treat everything provocative he says as a joke, the man himself will be treated as a joke.

  

Too late.

 

Maybe by the history books, though I'm thinking the comparison to someone's cranky grandpa that they're always having to apologize for will probably be most likely.

 

Right now he's more aptly compared to an unruly toddler turned loose in a room full of dangerous and/or fragile objects. It's funny in a cartoon. In the real world, not so much.

[Nolgroth]

Oh don't get me wrong, he's a joke but a very sick, cruel joke.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Oh don't get me wrong, he's a joke but a very sick, cruel joke.

With a nasty punchline.

 

Meanwhile, Putin is realizing just how bad his investment is. Congress approved severe sanctions on Russia, which the besieged Trump had no choice but to sign. He probably believes he can make up with the Russians at some point, but the Russian dictator is royally ticked off.

 

This cannot end well.

[DasBroot]

Oh, he had every choice - it's probably just the first time self-awareness has entered the picture.

 

The message is loud and clear, though - despite controlling both House and Senate he has no real power to push forward anything of his own that even a few sensible people disagree with.  Checks and balances are working - all he can really do is make the US look like fools on the international stage (Bad. Enough).

 

Quack quack, Mr President. Quack, quack.

[Hermit]

With a nasty punchline.

 

Meanwhile, Putin is realizing just how bad his investment is. Congress approved severe sanctions on Russia, which the besieged Trump had no choice but to sign. He probably believes he can make up with the Russians at some point, but the Russian dictator is royally ticked off.

 

This cannot end well.

 

Frankly, I hope Putin gets an ulcer. The wanna be Stalin 2.0 deserves it. 

[Joe Walsh]

The Donny and Tony Show has been cancelled.

[Sociotard]

And Anthony Scaramucci is out. Listen, if we're going to be serious about our country's energy policy, it is time to think about mounting a dynamo on the In/Out door to White House staff positions.

 

EDIT: Oh, that's what the Donny and Tony show meant. Sorry for the repeat.

[Doc Shadow]

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1655037197842203?pnref=story

[Old Man]

I've suspected for a while that the 25th was a more likely removal mechanism than impeachment, but this is the first hint of a real discussion about it that I've seen.

[Sociotard]

The thing is, the 25th is pretty vague about what counts as valid reasons for removal.  "Acting nutty and annoying" may not cut it.

 

 

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.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

 

So, what makes someone "unable"? Trump is active and lucid and cogent.  I don't think Congress can force him to pass a psych eval. There is a distinction between "an able person screwing the pooch" and "a person that is unable".

 

In the end this comes down to the same 2/3 majority as impeachment, except it also requires his hand-picked cabinet to turn on him as too. 

 

So, which is more difficult:

Option one: Prove the president is unable to be president, and convince most of his cabinet of the same.

Option two: Prove the president is guilty of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

I'm not seeing either of these as very likely.

[Iuz the Evil]

 

Fwd: https://gfycat.com/DamagedShowyEeve

 

 

For your amusement...

 

Spoilered for language.

[IndianaJoe3]

So, what makes someone "unable"? Trump is active and lucid and cogent.  I don't think Congress can force him to pass a psych eval. There is a distinction between "an able person screwing the pooch" and "a person that is unable".

 

That might be a distinction without a difference. If Trump is not discharging the duties of the office, it makes little difference whether he is doing it because he thinks they are unnecessary, is incapable of understanding them, or is ignoring them for the lulz. He can demonstrate his ability by doing the job. If he can't (or won't), then he is, "unable."

[DShomshak]

A few days ago, the Tacoma News Tribune published a letter suggesting that Trump is sliding into senile dementia. The writer remembered when this happened to his mother, and he says Trump shows similar symptoms. First, that when he speaks off the cuff he can't finish a sentence without it sliding into wacko word salad. (The writer suggested watching a YouTube video of Trump speaking in the late '90s, ironically at a function for Hillary Clinton. Supposedly, at the time Trump was articulate.) Second, one symptom of senile dementia is "perseveration" -- saying something over and over because your brain doesn't record that you already said it. Some repetition can be rhetorically useful, especially when dealing with simple minds, but Trump carries it to extremes.

 

This is perhaps grounds for a 25th Amendment removal. Or at least a plausible excuse.

 

Also, re: the question of whether Trump can pardon himself. I'm days and pages behind on the thread and doubt I'll have time to catch up, but I would *hope* the Supreme Court would say that no, the Constitution does not allow this. If it did, the Constitutional process for impeachment and removal becomes moot. I don't trust the three doctrinaire conservative justices one bit, but I suspect -- just as a layman -- that the other justices would not want to issue a ruling that makes part of the Constitution itself implode.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Nolgroth]

I don't think any of the SCOTUS justices want to deprive their parties of the ability to rid themselves of a problematic POTUS.

[Lectryk]

Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer - The Washington Post  Sigh.

 

I mean...  Drip, drip, drip...

[Old Man]

In my opinion the optics of a 25th removal are better than the optics of an impeachment, minimizing blowback to the removers. 

 

Of the 16 Cabinet + Pence members, I can see Pence, Tillerson, Mattis, and Sessions as solidly pro-removal.  We're already halfway there.*  I'd expect Perry, Chao, and Price to go along with the establishment if the establishment wanted Trump gone.  Mnuchin would likely by anti-removal.  I don't have any idea who the other freaks are or how they would vote.

 

 

* Part of the problem is that "senior cabinet officers" is kind of a meaningless term.  Even "official" cabinet positions change from one administration to another, let alone the other "cabinet-level" positions that includes surely pro-removal guys like Coats and Pompeo.  (Who knows how pro-wrestling CEO McMahon would vote?)  "Chief Strategist" Bannon would surely be anti-removal but technically occupies only a Rasputin-like favored-advisor position--I can't even tell if he's drawing a government paycheck.

[megaplayboy]

In my opinion the optics of a 25th removal are better than the optics of an impeachment, minimizing blowback to the removers. 

 

Of the 16 Cabinet + Pence members, I can see Pence, Tillerson, Mattis, and Sessions as solidly pro-removal.  We're already halfway there.*  I'd expect Perry, Chao, and Price to go along with the establishment if the establishment wanted Trump gone.  Mnuchin would likely by anti-removal.  I don't have any idea who the other freaks are or how they would vote.

 

 

* Part of the problem is that "senior cabinet officers" is kind of a meaningless term.  Even "official" cabinet positions change from one administration to another, let alone the other "cabinet-level" positions that includes surely pro-removal guys like Coats and Pompeo.  (Who knows how pro-wrestling CEO McMahon would vote?)  "Chief Strategist" Bannon would surely be anti-removal but technically occupies only a Rasputin-like favored-advisor position--I can't even tell if he's drawing a government paycheck.

The procedure for removal is substantially more difficult than that for impeachment.  I have read that some Republicans are privately hoping that Mueller finds a "smoking gun" to give them enough political cover to remove Trump.