Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

BuilderPlumber

aloyisious wrote: »

Kelly-Anne Conway's remarks about Mike's abilities might not be liked elsewhere in the W/House.... "Vice President Pence is a very loyal, very dutiful, but also incredibly effective vice president, and active vice president, with this president,

Every time I see Don in speaker/leadership roles at ceremonies and functions, Mel Brooks as the Governor in the film [Blazing Saddles] comes to mind "work, work, work" - "I didn't get a harrumph outta that guy".

The jury is out on Mike Pence. The election needs to be run again in 2018 and a proper US government elected and not this hardline regime at the moment that is also incompetent. The Republican party and the government needs to be disbanded as soon as possible. Donald Trump can either be Bannons punchbag or a hero. His choice. Republican party needs to be replaced by 2 other parties and any racist, hatred-spewing people should be banned from US politics. A change in aggressive US foreign policy needs to happen. Steve Bannon should have no role whatsoever in any future US government. It is time to disband this farce in 2017 and put in Obama again as provisional president until the new election can be held next year.

Peregrinus

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The jury is out on Mike Pence. The election needs to be run again in 2018 and a proper US government elected and not this hardline regime at the moment that is also incompetent. The Republican party and the government needs to be disbanded as soon as possible. Donald Trump can either be Bannons punchbag or a hero. His choice. Republican party needs to be replaced by 2 other parties and any racist, hatred-spewing people should be banned from US politics. A change in aggressive US foreign policy needs to happen. Steve Bannon should have no role whatsoever in any future US government. It is time to disband this farce in 2017 and put in Obama again as provisional president until the new election can be held next year.

That's great, BuilderPlumber; thanks so much! None of this is ever going to happen.

BuilderPlumber

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's great, BuilderPlumber; thanks so much! None of this is ever going to happen.

A lot of things happen and very suddenly. America is a deeply flawed nation and the Republican party especially is full of hardliners who make no apologies for their racist rhetoric against certain countries and religions. Rather than better, it is worse these types are getting and the vast majority of Americans I know do not want this drivel done in their name. Most Americans want better and they deserve better.

Sadly, the 2 party system in America is deeply flawed. The Democrats are the better of the 2 parties but are also far from perfect. The Republicans are filled to the brim with vile racists who barely disguise it. Donald Trump is a fool to associate himself with this and he will live to regret it after this current regime is dead and buried. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Steve Bannon and others like him have no place in any country that considers itself a democracy and Trump is a fool to front for these types.

While the disbanding of the government and Republican party is very welcome, it won't happen any time soon I agree. Longterm, it is inevitable that the US system will collapse as it is in freefall. Some states like California have thought of leaving the federation. A lot of Americans complain that their government works for corporations, the arms industry and the oil industry and not for America or its people. Most Americans have become weary of all the recent wars and have lost faith with the system. The choice between a vile Republican party and a lesser of the 2 evils Democrat party is Hobson's choice really. I'd vote Democrat but not because I love them but because they are less evil than the other side.

Sonics2k

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The jury is out on Mike Pence. The election needs to be run again in 2018 and a proper US government elected and not this hardline regime at the moment that is also incompetent. The Republican party and the government needs to be disbanded as soon as possible. Donald Trump can either be Bannons punchbag or a hero. His choice. Republican party needs to be replaced by 2 other parties and any racist, hatred-spewing people should be banned from US politics. A change in aggressive US foreign policy needs to happen. Steve Bannon should have no role whatsoever in any future US government. It is time to disband this farce in 2017 and put in Obama again as provisional president until the new election can be held next year.

Ah c'mere, would you cop on a bit.

I can't abide Trump, but there is no chance in hell that something like this would happen.

Trump is an idiot and a fool, barely classifiable as a jester, but to date he hasn't done anything truly evil or all out bad.

He's made some vague threats against the LGBTQ community, which for the most part have been ignored by most States, and his plan to remove Trans people from the military is being ignored by the military itself.

Even if Trump quit tomorrow, they have so many backups in place that it totally eliminates the chances of Obama ever getting back in.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure it's unconstitutional for Obama to put back in. Plus the Right would have a field day.

Igotadose

Stopping the TPP is scaring US farmers; yet another place where Trump is indeed having impacts. Of course there's no replacement in place nor any deals coming soon, these take years, which the tGOP admin doesn't have I hope.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/07/trump-tpp-deal-withdrawal-trade-effects-215459

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's great, BuilderPlumber; thanks so much! None of this is ever going to happen.

For all the talk of a robust political system in America, the chain of command should a president resign or be impeached is to hand power to the next in command in the ruling party.

It goes Pence, Trump's running mate, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the house, then the 'President pro tempore of the Senate' followed by members of the Trump Cabinet.

So if the president is corrupt enough to be impeached, and removed from office, the next 10 people in line for office are people who would have been appointed by him (apart from the speaker of the house)

There should be a re-election if a president is impeached or loses a no confidence vote like there is en every other democracy.

If the entire republican leadership is compromised, then the only way to take back control from the GOP would be a military coup

Samaris

Looks to me that Trump is toast. Not because of x, y or , but because the real powers who helped get him there are turning against him as he just isn't that useful.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/peter-thiel-donald-trump-disaster-a7881606.html

The conversations took place (at least one of them did, the "50:50" comment) in January, around the time of the Inauguration. I highly doubt those were accidental leaks -now-; too many sources from "close/personal friends", from friend-parties rather than business meetings. That suggests that it would be very easy to narrow down who was speaking out of turn - unless they weren't.

Thiel didn't want Trump, he wanted Cruz. Pence will do though, and will be a far better bet for the Murdochs and Thiels of America than Trump and his vaccillating and rabble-rousing is. I strongly suspect support is going to divebomb amongst his wealthier backers and this set of leaks is unlikely to be the last. Trump out, Pence in.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory and maybe it is, but honestly, this entire business is conspiracy theory central.

Also, I agree that the White House needs a good clear-out, possibly with pesticide, but I don't think it will happen. American democracy has its weak points and they're being shown up at the moment. 2018 isn't a shoo-in for the Democrats, even if they win the majorities in their states; gerrymandering already puts them at a major disadvantage. The Supreme Court will be hearing the case on partisan gerrymandering in early October so we'll see if that improves or if it's going to get worse. Absolutely nuts that partisan gerrymandering is even allowed in a democracy though.

Quin_Dub

This is the current order of succession list .

I can't find anything that indicates what happens if all of the below were deemed unsuitable for whatever reason - For example Elaine Chao can't take the office of President as she was not born in the US.

The Vice President Mike Pence
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin
Secretary of Defense James Mattis
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross
Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta
Secretary of Health and Human Services Thomas E. Price
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson
Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao
Secretary of Energy Rick Perry
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
Secretary of Veterans Affairs David J. Shulkin
Secretary of Homeland Security TBD (Was John Kelly)

MadYaker

I think you guys are jumping the gun a bit. Trump still has a large grass roots support base of voters who voted for him and don't deal in facts so they still think he's doing a great job. As far as they are concerned all the Russia stuff is a construct by the left and the MSM. Around 35% of the electorate falls into this category. On top of that he still has the support of the GOP and Congress.

Mueller's investigation resulting in Congress moving to impeach is what's most likely going to oust Trump but progress on that is slow, and even then Trump will resign before impeachment can happen. I'd say we're stuck with him for a year at least maybe 2 and if the day does come he won't go quietly and neither will his supporters.

listermint

MadYaker wrote: »

I think you guys are jumping the gun a bit. Trump still has a large grass roots support base of voters who voted for him and don't deal in facts so they still think he's doing a great job. As far as they are concerned all the Russia stuff is a construct by the left and the MSM. Around 35% of the electorate falls into this category. On top of that he still has the support of the GOP and Congress.

Mueller's investigation resulting in Congress moving to impeach is what's most likely going to oust Trump but progress on that is slow, and even then Trump will resign before impeachment can happen. I'd say we're stuck with him for a year at least maybe 2 and if the day does come he won't go quietly and neither will his supporters.

There is not 35% of the electorate that fall into that sorry but that's not very factual

keane2097

That list reminds me of the first episode of Battlestar Galactica :pac:

Would be easy to imagine Trump trying to drag Pence down with him if he thinks he's being cut loose I think.

MadYaker

Is the VP normally as invisible as Pence has been? Or is it just because Trump is hogging all the attention. I remember Biden being a much bigger presence in the Obama admin than Pence has been in this one. Maybe he can see what's on the horizon and is keen to keep his distance.

listermint wrote: »

There is not 35% of the electorate that fall into that sorry but that's not very factual

His approval ratings are in the mid to high 30s aren't they?

Nody

MadYaker wrote: »

I think you guys are jumping the gun a bit. Trump still has a large grass roots support base of voters who voted for him and don't deal in facts so they still think he's doing a great job. As far as they are concerned all the Russia stuff is a construct by the left and the MSM. Around 35% of the electorate falls into this category. On top of that he still has the support of the GOP and Congress.

No, the 35% will support anyone with a GOP sign behind their back no matter if Jesus returned and ran as a Democrat; that's not Trump's doing. The support from GOP will also disappear from one day to the other if they feel the need to dump him; currently all Trump is for them is someone who'll sign their legislation. When he gets to difficult/costs to much he'll be replaced by Pence instead and they will simply list all the things Trump has failed to do from the border wall, to healthcare to lacking new trade deals to no new jobs coming back etc. as the reason why he had to go.

Itssoeasy

Donald trump has said that North Korea "will be meet with fire and fury like the world has never seen." This is due to reports that North Korea is close to getting nuclear weapons.

I'd say the citizens of Seoul, South Korea are delighted by that.

Does he just say this stuff for fun ? I mean if he made a crater out of North Korea then the north would do the same to the south. So by the actions of two madmen the Korean Peninsula would look a bit different after

Leroy42

There is no doubt that, probably a large, portion of the 35% support for Trump in the polls relates to the GOP rather than Trump but there is also a sizeable amount of those supporters who are totally behind Trump.

Remember that he gained very big victories during the primaries, which has nothing to do with GOP preference as any of the other candidates would achieve that. The GOP were very against Trump during the primaries and even in the build up to the conference there was talk of the GOP finding a way to get someone else on the ticket.

I think that was the the reason why Trump went with Pence, to shore up the christian right portion in case they actually took their morals seriously and didn't vote.

The thing that the GOP have to work out is what % of the support is for Trump rather than the GOP. What impact will them turning on Trump have on the GOP support.

Until the GOP can be sure of no collateral damage they will attempt to control but not actually move on Trump

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Donald trump has said that North Korea "will be meet with fire and fury like the world has never seen." This is due to reports that North Korea is close to getting nuclear weapons.

I'd say the citizens of Seoul, South Korea are delighted by that.

Does he just say this stuff for fun ? I mean if he made a crater out of North Korea then the north would do the same to the south. So by the actions of two madmen the Korean Peninsula would look a bit different after

There really is nothing else he can say though. Trump has backed himself, and the US, into a corner and there is little way out of it.

Of course opening discussions is the only real way to resolve this, but Trump won't even consider that option. Obama showed with the deal with Iran that seemingly intractable situations can be worked through (of course you can argue about the long term effectiveness of the deal but at the very least it bought the US time).

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

There really is nothing else he can say though. Trump has backed himself, and the US, into a corner and there is little way out of it.

If course opening discussions is the only real way to resolve this, but Trump won't even consider that option. Obama showed with the deal with Iran that seemingly intractable situations can be worked through (of course you can argue about the long term effectiveness of the deal but at the very least it bought the US time).

He could engaged his brain before talking Leroy. I know that's a foreign concept to the 45th president of the United States. I've given up listening to him or any of the administration speak on camera. I just can't handle the constant stream of utter lies.

MadYaker

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is no doubt that, probably a large, portion of the 35% support for Trump in the polls relates to the GOP rather than Trump but there is also a sizeable amount of those supporters who are totally behind Trump.

Remember that he gained very big victories during the primaries, which has nothing to do with GOP preference as any of the other candidates would achieve that. The GOP were very against Trump during the primaries and even in the build up to the conference there was talk of the GOP finding a way to get someone else on the ticket.

I think that was the the reason why Trump went with Pence, to shore up the christian right portion in case they actually took their morals seriously and didn't vote.

The thing that the GOP have to work out is what % of the support is for Trump rather than the GOP. What impact will them turning on Trump have on the GOP support.

This is what I was getting at. I think there are a lot of people who voted for Trump and still support him but aren't supporters of the Republican Party and wouldn't just support a candidate because he's the GOP candidate. These are the people who could easily decide to vote democrat in 2018 mid terms or in 2020 if the Republicans impeach Trump now or soon when he still has a fairly substantial grass roots support of his own.

Basically his approval ratings although low, would need to take a nose dive before anything will happen imo.

Leroy42

I agree but is anyone surprised? That is what I meant saying he has backed himself into a corner.

He has basically said from day 1 that NK are on notice. I doubt he even knows that diplomacy is always the better option.

Unfortunately it is the rest of thevworld that it seems is going to pay the price

Professor Moriarty

Fire and fury isn't as cool as shock and awe.

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fire and fury isn't as cool as shock and awe.

Trump had to squeeze a bit of his catch phrase in there.

Seriously though. He's backing himself into a corner here. If kim makes another statement or does another missile test he has already promised he will respond.

20Cent

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump had to squeeze a bit of his catch phrase in there.

Seriously though. He's backing himself into a corner here. If kim makes another statement or does another missile test he has already promised he will respond.

Trumps promises mean nothing to him or his followers. He'll have forgotten all about it in 12 hours time and will be tweeting whatever tv show he's watching.

Samaris

Leroy42 wrote: »

There really is nothing else he can say though. Trump has backed himself, and the US, into a corner and there is little way out of it.

Of course opening discussions is the only real way to resolve this, but Trump won't even consider that option. Obama showed with the deal with Iran that seemingly intractable situations can be worked through (of course you can argue about the long term effectiveness of the deal but at the very least it bought the US time).

Thing is, so have the Kims. America has been held up as North Korea's enemy to the people since the sort-of-end of the Korean War. It is drilled in that the war is not over, that America started it (NK invaded SK), that America could bomb them at any time and only the glorious leader can defend them etcetera. That worked fine when it was the previous GLs striving towards nuclear weapons (rather than having to decide what to actually do with them) and crucially, when the US presidents were inclined to ignore them (not least because they didn't have nuclear weapons). Worked out well for the Kims - keep the people distracted by the ever-present outside threat and the rest of the world mostly ignored the country.

Three generations later and now the nuclear weapons look like being a reality - and at the same time, there's a US president who is not only not going to take NK's posturing, but doesn't have the nous to know when it's posturing, when it's trouble and how to get the world onside, especially China, to deal with it. It's an international dick-waving contest, but neither side can afford to back down. Kim has been ratcheting up the anti-America propaganda and how much of a threat it is, so now that he has nukes and provocation, how long can he tell his people that he's totally nuking the US next week? The overall plan of distraction-by-outside-enemy is starting to fail by success and his back is coming fairly close to a wall.

I'm not sure though that talking it out would work either. Three generations of propaganda machine and god only knows what Kim Jong Un actually believes - does he believe their own mythos or is he a cornered conman that might have to now back up his talk? Full props to Obama for his work on Iran, but North Korea is diplomacy hard mode even when the president isn't a nitwit.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump had to squeeze a bit of his catch phrase in there.

Seriously though. He's backing himself into a corner here. If kim makes another statement or does another missile test he has already promised he will respond.

Wiser heads will prevail. This might be the catalyst to finally bring Trump down. There are too many generals and mandarins with hard won experience to let Trump start a conflict based on a narcissistic, tough guy shoot out with Kim. He'll be told to shut up. If he doesn't, and it looks like he will provoke a war, something will be done.

Rjd2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wiser heads will prevail. This might be the catalyst to finally bring Trump down. There are too many generals and mandarins with hard won experience to let Trump start a conflict based on a narcissistic, tough guy shoot out with Kim. He'll be told to shut up. If he doesn't, and it looks like he will provoke a war, something will be done.

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/895011353961922565

I think so, the problem with Trump he only speaks in superlatives so its understandable when people get alarmed with this sort of bollocks.

I dunno if there is much appetite for this sort of a stand off with Korea whether in his hardcore base who many would be isolationists and the more moderate republicans are probably thinking wtf.

I would be more concerned if I was Assad or Iran at the moment tbh.

BuilderPlumber

Leroy42 wrote: »

There really is nothing else he can say though. Trump has backed himself, and the US, into a corner and there is little way out of it.

Of course opening discussions is the only real way to resolve this, but Trump won't even consider that option. Obama showed with the deal with Iran that seemingly intractable situations can be worked through (of course you can argue about the long term effectiveness of the deal but at the very least it bought the US time).

There is only one proper way to resolve issues and that is to talk. At least 50% of the reason why countries like North Korea are isolated and hardline is because of hardline American policy. Trump if he is to salvage his very poor presidency needs to ditch a lot of these idiots like Steve Bannon and set up a moderate government that can actually leave a proper legacy. This can be done. Reagan started off extremely POOR POOR in the early 1980s with his evil empire nonsense but by 1987, he was able to make peace with the nation he dubbed that and he helped end wars too. Reagan saved his reputation but no one would have rated him in 1983 as anything but a poor president. He showed he had a very moderate and intelligent side to him in his second term and chose a better team.

The Iran deal was the proper way to go. Poor governance in that country was again at least 50% caused by American poor governance. Leaders like Mohammed Khatami and Hassan Rouhani have shown a desire to change Iran for the better and the West should support that. Better relations mean more moderate governments and that is something that America should realise. Let's just hope Trump can see through the negative racists who are dictating policy and something resembling a government can form. Poor American policy does need to be SERIOUSLY put on the map as a cause of world pain.

Ludo

So Guam eh... Bluff called. Ball in Trumps court. Absolutely no idea what he feel do. I am reading "to kill the president" by Sam Bourne at the moment. The first chapter is basically today. Eek.

Peregrinus

MadYaker wrote: »

Is the VP normally as invisible as Pence has been?

Frequently, yes.

It's down to the President of the day. Constitutionally, the VP's only duty is to preside over the Senate, which most of the time is a role that attracts no attention whatsoever. He's the Ceann Comhairle, basically, and nobody pays any attention to what he does except in the rare case of a tied vote in the Senate.

Beyond that, the VP has whatever policy role the President of the day chooses to give him, which may be no role at all.

Typically, the only Vice-Presidents that most people can remember are those who subsequently became President - Truman, Nixon, Johnson, etc. And those are remembered for what they did as President; can you think of anything at all that any of those three did as Vice-President? No, me neither. Do you even recognise the names of Alban W. Barkley and Henry W. Wallace? Barkley was Truman's VP, and Wallace was FDR's second VP.

Billy86

Peregrinus wrote: »

Do you even recognise the names of Alban W. Barkley and Henry W. Wallace? Barkley was Truman's VP, and Wallace was FDR's second VP.

What a different world we might be living in had Wallace not been robbed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection,_1944 - fascinating character.

Really quick video about him.

wonderfullife

I can guarantee Trump's thinking is:

"To hell with them, nuke them".

I think we'd be relatively innoculated from the whole mess if it gets Trumpocalyptic, I mean he can preemptively nuke Pyongyang, they will in turn nuke or gas Seoul, then they'll fire whatever ICBM's they can at L.A.. but we should be grand in western Europe.

That'd be the "clean" side of things. Lots of death but it'll be relatively precise.

It will only get messy when the ground wars begin because the North Koreans have an unholy amount of chemical weapons and not afraid to use them. That'll be the ugly phase to the whole thing.

Trump doesn't give a monkeys, he'd gladly nuke them tomorrow. He's been banging on about using nuclear weapons since the early 1980's, he's a sociopath and detached from reality.

Obviously the saving grace for everyone involved is that both Trump and Kim Jong Un are absolute spoofers so nothing will happen for a while, if at all.

The smart money is on nothing at all ever happening over this.

Igotadose

I expect something Russia related is happening and the NK madness another distraction. Perhaps the indictments are ready to be announced. This has been how its worked so far in this laziest presidency in history: http://www.newsweek.com/2017/08/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-gop-white-house-potus-bannon-643996.html

The contrast between the early days of the Obama administration and Trump's is well done. Lest we forget, economy was in tatters due to Bush when Obama first was in office, and he left it growing and hiring. Trump inherited this, has done nothing except loudly pander to his base, try and look presidential, and pose for photo ops. The article says, he loves rallies, and watches TV 5 hours a day. The NK thing is a great news op, but I think the Mueller investigation's soon to announce something.

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wiser heads will prevail. This might be the catalyst to finally bring Trump down. There are too many generals and mandarins with hard won experience to let Trump start a conflict based on a narcissistic, tough guy shoot out with Kim. He'll be told to shut up. If he doesn't, and it looks like he will provoke a war, something will be done.

I don't know about the mandarins, I expect they would split about the middle. But the military sure as heck won't bring him down, for several reasons.

1) I'm not sure the US military is constitutionally (as in able to consider, not legally) capable of conducting a coup. We have had a good amount of past history to draw on as American soldiers are drawn from one side to the other, sometimes even on the same day. We follow the orders of the duly appointed authority.

2) The ultimate obligation of the US military leadership is to the US people, not the Koreans. If fighting a war against North Korea is the cost of removing an unpredictable, nuclear threat to the US people, I suspect bookies would not give long odds on the military's preference. I'm not sure, for example, the Japanese would object much either.

3) Those of us who get to actually fight the war are usually amongst the last to want a war. For obvious reasons. However, that does not mean that we are against war, at all cost. We are one of the four tools of national power (DIME: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic), and if achieving the national interest reasonably requires the expenditure of military force, then so be it. The British military puts it rather well in their covenant: They are willing to risk their lives for the nation, but in return, the nation must only ever risk it with good cause. To this, see point 2 above.

4) Military options do not go from 0 to "World War III" without a couple of steps in between. Something which may allow Kim to save face, such as a deniable airborne raid, could achieve the US goal without requiring a re-start of the Korean War. Of course, intent and what actually transpires need not bear resemblance, but again, see point 2 and what folks are willing to risk.

VinLieger

His numbers are dropping so to bolster them hes decided to rely on the only thing thats always been guranteed to raise a republican presidents poll numbers - find an enemy and make them out to be the bad guy. Im not trying to say NK isnt a bad guy but trump is hardly a goodie either.

I honestly dont think he realises the full implications of what hes said or threatened to do, hes just a child pushing all the buttons in an attempt to fix the problem he is most worried about ie his poll numbers

aloyisious

MadYaker wrote: »

Is the VP normally as invisible as Pence has been? Or is it just because Trump is hogging all the attention. I remember Biden being a much bigger presence in the Obama admin than Pence has been in this one. Maybe he can see what's on the horizon and is keen to keep his distance.



His approval ratings are in the mid to high 30s aren't they?

It might be part of Mike's game-plan, let Don take all the flak while he beavers away quietly in the background, not trying to irritate Don by publicly upstaging him. All the leaks coincidentally keep Don busy and tweeting in the limelight.

Drumpot

Can Trump Unilaterally decide to start a war without the support of the republicans ? I don't get the impression that the president can just nuke N.Korea on his own.

The cynic in me thinks he's simply saying anything public to take the focus off how incompetent and neutered he has been as President. The concern would be that N.Korea takes him literally and reacts.

He is blessed the Democrats are so pathetically poor at exposing his deficiencies. They have had more then enough time to paint him as the clown he is and yet . .

Captain_Crash

Quin_Dub wrote: »

For example Elaine Chao can't take the office of President as she was not born in the US.

This is not strictly true. You don't have to be born in the US to be president, you have to be a natural born US citizen. For example, if you are born in Puerto Rico, you are a natural born US citizen and thus, can be president.

Other examples of people who ran for president but were born outside the US include Ted Cruz and John McCain. Born in Calgary and Panama respectively.

Also, several of the early US presidents including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not born in the US but this is because the US didn't exist when they were born.

You are correct that Elaine Chao cannot run, but it is not because she was not born in the US, its because she's not a natural born US citizen

Akrasia

Igotadose wrote: »

I expect something Russia related is happening and the NK madness another distraction. Perhaps the indictments are ready to be announced. This has been how its worked so far in this laziest presidency in history: http://www.newsweek.com/2017/08/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-gop-white-house-potus-bannon-643996.html

The contrast between the early days of the Obama administration and Trump's is well done. Lest we forget, economy was in tatters due to Bush when Obama first was in office, and he left it growing and hiring. Trump inherited this, has done nothing except loudly pander to his base, try and look presidential, and pose for photo ops. The article says, he loves rallies, and watches TV 5 hours a day. The NK thing is a great news op, but I think the Mueller investigation's soon to announce something.

The problem is threatening North Korea will use up part of one news cycle, and Trump's problems will be right back on the headlines, but actually attacking North Korea could rally his base the same way it does every other time a republican president has started a war. Presidential popularity tends to increase when there is a war for some daft bunch of reasons.

Peregrinus

Drumpot wrote: »

Can Trump Unilaterally decide to start a war without the support of the republicans ? I don't get the impression that the president can just nuke N.Korea on his own.

In theory he can. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He issues the orders; the missiles get fired. That's how it works.

In theory, of course, you hope that if a President who is bat**** insane issues such a order, the military will find a way of not implementing it. But the basis for that will not be lack of congressional authority; it will be bat**** insanity.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't know about the mandarins, I expect they would split about the middle. But the military sure as heck won't bring him down, for several reasons.

1) I'm not sure the US military is constitutionally (as in able to consider, not legally) capable of conducting a coup. We have had a good amount of past history to draw on as American soldiers are drawn from one side to the other, sometimes even on the same day. We follow the orders of the duly appointed authority.

2) The ultimate obligation of the US military leadership is to the US people, not the Koreans. If fighting a war against North Korea is the cost of removing an unpredictable, nuclear threat to the US people, I suspect bookies would not give long odds on the military's preference. I'm not sure, for example, the Japanese would object much either.

3) Those of us who get to actually fight the war are usually amongst the last to want a war. For obvious reasons. However, that does not mean that we are against war, at all cost. We are one of the four tools of national power (DIME: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic), and if achieving the national interest reasonably requires the expenditure of military force, then so be it. The British military puts it rather well in their covenant: They are willing to risk their lives for the nation, but in return, the nation must only ever risk it with good cause. To this, see point 2 above.

4) Military options do not go from 0 to "World War III" without a couple of steps in between. Something which may allow Kim to save face, such as a deniable airborne raid, could achieve the US goal without requiring a re-start of the Korean War. Of course, intent and what actually transpires need not bear resemblance, but again, see point 2 and what folks are willing to risk.

Point 4 is what is most dangerous.

If the generals genuinely think that they can launch an air strike against North Korea and the North Koreans will pretend it never happened then that's a recipe for disaster.

Imagine if Kim thought a small air strike against Guam would be ignored by Trump for the same reasons?

I know that there are regular low level violence between NK and SK and sometimes third party assets get mixed up, but tensions are stupidly high at the moment, and both Kim and Trump have threatened to attack first, so if they're already talking about pre-emptive attacks, any attack by either side is potentially the start of a war

Akrasia

Drumpot wrote: »

Can Trump Unilaterally decide to start a war without the support of the republicans ? I don't get the impression that the president can just nuke N.Korea on his own.

The cynic in me thinks he's simply saying anything public to take the focus off how incompetent and neutered he has been as President. The concern would be that N.Korea takes him literally and reacts.

He is blessed the Democrats are so pathetically poor at exposing his deficiencies. They have had more then enough time to paint him as the clown he is and yet . .

Trump has the authority to launch strikes aganst NK without any input from congress. America is still at war with NK, No declaration is needed

Trump would need to ask Congress to fund a prolonged military engagement, but they're hardly going to refuse when NK are already attacking South Korea and threatening to Nuke Washington DC

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

In theory he can. The President is the Commander-in-Chief. He issues the orders; the missiles get fired. That's how it works.

In theory, of course, you hope that if a President who is bat**** insane issues such a order, the military will find a way of not implementing it. But the basis for that will not be lack of congressional authority; it will be bat**** insanity.

If Trump orders a strike on NK, the military won't disobey his order and there will be no shortage of talking heads on Fox and CNN saying he did the right thing because Kim was only minutes away from launching a Nuke against the US.

Leroy42

I don't think the military can refuse an order. They can look to delay implementation, but cannot outright refuse.

In terms of something like the transgender ban, it is fairly easy to tie it up in bureaucracy, instigate a few reviews etc. But in the end that will only delay it if POTUS is of the mind to fight for it.

However, military strike is different. The whole process is designed to be fast. Delays are deliberately removed from the system. THe recent airstrike against Syria being an example. Trump only informed congress after the orders were given.

The military have no authority to refuse to carry out the order, and in reality on what grounds would they? They are an army, their job is to fight, and NK is a direct threat so it makes perfect sense (from that perspective) to launch an attack.

In terms of the threat, I think people are underestimating the potential for disaster here. It is clear that NK is determined to act tough in order to stave off what they believe to be imminent threat from the US. They clearly distrust the US and think that only direct threatening actions can deter the inevitable. In truth, the power that NK has is tiny compared to the US. That is not to say that they aren't a threat, but they are very unlikely to be a direct threat to the US. Certainly I would think that countries such as SK & Japan have more to fear than US simply due to distance.

On the other hand we have Trump. This is a man that asked 3 times during a meeting why the US shouldn't use nukes. A man that is clearly a narcissist and a bully. He is a man that clearly has used his power (mostly in terms of money) to get his own way and is more than happy to bend rules to suit himself. He shows scant regard for others. Unlike many previous POTUS, he has no experience of military life. He has no understanding of the terror of war or felt the direct impact of war, even in terms of lack of resources. At best this is nothing more than a game to him, which will be played out miles away from the US and have no direct impact on him or anyone he knows.

By surrounding himself with generals it clearly tells us that he sees the military as a source of power and prestige and now that he has control of that power, why would he not use it? The decision will be made based on a personal need rather than a military necessity. Will this make Trump look presidential? Will it give him the kudos he so clearly requires? The effects on NK, the world etc will be secondary to his goals.

Can you imagine the possibility that he will be the 1st president to push the red button. Imagine the feeling of power and importance that that will give him. He will equate himself with Churchill, Eisenhower etc.

I think we are entering into very dangerous times. US currently has no ability to deal with this diplomatically. Tillerson is completely out of his depth, and seems more intent on gutting the department that expanding diplomatic efforts. The WH is in chaos. Trump is under hugh pressure from both the MSM and increasingly the GOP. And Kim is clearly hell bent on either getting what he wants or taking everyone else with him.

Peregrinus

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump has the authority to launch strikes aganst NK without any input from congress. America is still at war with NK, No declaration is needed

Trump would need to ask Congress to fund a prolonged military engagement, but they're hardly going to refuse when NK are already attacking South Korea and threatening to Nuke Washington DC

Nitpick: the US is not at war with North Korea, and it never has been.

The 1950-53 war was fought on the authority of UN Security Council resolutions, recommending member states to provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. The US was the largest (by far) of a coalition of countries that sent forces to fight.

Congress wasn't asked to declare war, and indeed wasn't consulted at all until about two months into the fighting, when they were asked to pass a financial resolution appropriate funds for the war, which they did. In US official-speak it wasn't a war at all; it was a "police action".

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think the military can refuse an order. They can look to delay implementation, but cannot outright refuse.

In terms of something like the transgender ban, it is fairly easy to tie it up in bureaucracy, instigate a few reviews etc. But in the end that will only delay it is POTUS is of the mind to fight for it.

However, military strike is different. The whole process is designed to be fast. Delays are deliberately removed from the system. THe recent airstrike against Syria being an example. Trump only informed congress after the orders were given.

The military have no authority to refuse to carry out the order, and in reality on what grounds would they? They are an army, their job is to fight, and NK is a direct threat so it makes perfect sense (from that perspective) to launch an attack.

In terms of the threat, I think people are underestimating the potential for disaster here. It is clear that NK is determined to act tough in order to stave off what they believe to be imminent threat from the US. They clearly distrust the US and think that only direct threatening actions can deter the inevitable. In truth, the power that NK has is tiny compared to the US. That is not to say that they aren't a threat, but they are very unlikely to be a direct threat to the US. Certainly I would think that countries such as SK & Japan have more to fear than US simply due to distance.

On the other hand we have Trump. This is a man that asked 3 times during a meeting why the US shouldn't use nukes. A man that is clearly a narcissist and a bully. He is a man that clearly has used his power (mostly in terms of money) to get his own way and is more than happy to bend rules to suit himself. He shows scant regard for others. Unlike many previous POTUS, he has no experience of military life. He has no understanding of the terror of war or felt the direct impact of war, even in terms of lack of resources. At best this is nothing more than a game to him, which will be played out miles away from the US and have no direct impact on him or anyone he knows.

By surrounding himself with generals it clearly tells us that he sees the military as a source of power and prestige and now that he has control of that power, hwy would he not use it. The decision will be made based on a personal need rather than a military necessity. Will this make Trump look presidential. Will it give him the kudos he so clearly requires.

Can you imagine the possibility that he will be the 1st president to push the red button. Imagine the feeling of power and importance that that will give him. He will equate himself with Churchill, Patton etc.

I think we are entering into very dangerous times. US currently has no ability to deal with this diplomatically. Tillerson is completely out of his depth, and seems more intent on gutting the department that expanding diplomatic efforts. The WH is in chaos. Trump is under hugh pressure from both the MSM and increasingly the GOP. A Kim is clearly hell bent on either getting what he wants or taking everyone else with him.

Hopefully he will see them as a source of influence too. I would imagine their advice would be to explore other options before pressing the button.

This is completely different than Iraq, Afghanistan. The arms dealers influencing the generals made money from boots on the ground, military hardware and of course... there was the oil.

One thing is for sure. The world was a safer place with Obama in control, much more so than with this this tango coloured, tiny handed snake oil salesman in the hot seat.

Christy42

Aside from just giving the orders he can also build up the tensions as he is doing. He is using exceptionally aggressive to build up tensions and make war more likely. Maybe not in purpose. He is an idiot after all- he could think this is all part of some hand measuring contest.

Everyone knew NK would threaten the US after Trump threatened them. This is getting dangerous. I have no idea who will end making the first strike. Both sides are led by nut jobs but there at least more level heads in the American civil service used to arguing over dear leaders orders but Kim has to know he would lose any war horrifically.

You can see the difference between Trump and the US that is working in the UN (which seems to be a different organisation nearly).

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think the military can refuse an order. They can look to delay implementation, but cannot outright refuse.

I agree. Refusal would be insurbordination or mutiny. The commanders would at best query the order, or attempt to delay implementing it so that the question of the President's incapacity could be considered.

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of something like the transgender ban, it is fairly easy to tie it up in bureaucracy, instigate a few reviews etc. But in the end that will only delay it if POTUS is of the mind to fight for it.

In terms of the transgender ban, there is as yet no order, SFAIK. There is only a tweet. Not everything the President says will be taken by the forces as an order; still less everything he tweets. If Trump wants to order the military to discharge transgender members, or whatever, he can do so, but so far he hasn't.

However, military strike is different. The whole process is designed to be fast. Delays are deliberately removed from the system. THe recent airstrike against Syria being an example. Trump only informed congress after the orders were given.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can you imagine the possibility that he will be the 1st president to push the red button.

The second. Truman was the first.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think the military can refuse an order. They can look to delay implementation, but cannot outright refuse.

The military have no authority to refuse to carry out the order, and in reality on what grounds would they? They are an army, their job is to fight, and NK is a direct threat so it makes perfect sense (from that perspective) to launch an attack.

Nuremberg trials says hi to you.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The second. Truman was the first.

But that was in a war setting and was atomic. Nitpicking I know and its my own fault for not making it clear.

Nody wrote: »

Nuremberg trials says hi to you.

Not sure what the point is that you are making. I am talking about the military refusing to carry out orders. While there may be times that morals should come into it, this would not be one of them.

The US military spends millions (probably billions) every year to maintain their nuclear arsenal and to be ready to activate it if required. Do you really think they will suddenly start to question the sanity of nuclear weapons at this stage? Trump will have broken no laws, will be operating within the rules of the WH and military so there would simply be no reason not to follow the orders.

In terms of the generals holding Trump back. Well they didn't do a very good job in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not sure what the point is that you are making. I am talking about the military refusing to carry out orders. While there may be times that morals should come into it, this would not be one of them.

You claimed there were no circumstances that the military could refuse an order; the answer is that they can and should as an unlawful order is not a valid defense against charges of war crimes:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Peregrinus

I think the point of the Nuremburg reference is that "following orders" is no defence if the orders themselves are illegal.

And, for what it's worth, the US Code of Military Justice say exactly the same thing. Under US law, a serviceman is not only entitled but obliged to refuse to comply with an illegal order.

"Would Trump's order be illegal?" is a question that can't be answered without knowing exactly what order Trump is giving, and in what circumstances. And even then it's a question that may not have a clear answer, since there are plenty of opinions about the legality of the use of weapons of mass destruction, the legality of targetting noncombatants, etc, etc., but not so much hard law.