Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

relax carry on

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is Bob Woodward we are talking about - the only people who would believe Trump over Woodward are the 27% who would vote for a turnip if it ran as a Republican.

But isn't that what's at the heart of this car crash of a presidency. There's a sizeable portion of the American voting public that will vote for and stick with their preferred party no matter what evidence is presented to them. The republicans could role out another conman next time around and their party supporters would go for it. WasTrump type of presidency inevitable eventually despite outside interference hastening the process?

Zubeneschamali

relax carry on wrote: »

But isn't that what's at the heart of this car crash of a presidency.

Nope.

No candidate can win with just the 27%. They backed Nixon to the end, but he resigned when he got down to those levels.

If Trump and the Rs are down to that core, the Rs lose the House and Senate and Trump loses in 2020.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not a healthy state of affairs. If someone cannot carry out their duties they should be removed and replaced, not simply used as a puppet for other non elected persons

Same could be said of Trump, his total inaction on Russian interference in elections etc is a blatant dereliction of duty but no one seems to care.

Dohnjoe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope.

No candidate can win with just the 27%. They backed Nixon to the end, but he resigned when he got down to those levels.

If Trump and the Rs are down to that core, the Rs lose the House and Senate and Trump loses in 2020.

I thought it was around 40% approval, what's the 27% figure

Zubeneschamali

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I thought it was around 40% approval, what's the 27% figure

27% is rock bottom for the Republicans - Zombie Hitler would get 27% if he ran with an R beside his name.

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying I disagree with it, but where do you draw the line?

Should the military then decide who to assassinate? Would this include US citizens? What if they don't agree with the what in Afghanistan any more, should they simply be allowed to refuse?

Like it or not POTUS is given this power. For Mattis to simply ignore his commands is unconstitutional.

Not if those commands are unlawful.

Dohnjoe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

27% is rock bottom for the Republicans - Zombie Hitler would get 27% if he ran with an R beside his name.

This is a man who is under investigation, has made countless sexist, racists, misogynistic statements, has had multiple affairs, an extraordinary turnover of staff, denies climate science, has insulted vets, insulted allies and world leaders, pathological liar, goes on twitter abuse tirades, has the mental understanding of a 11 yr old child according to several people who've worked closely with him now, has staff hiding decisions from him, defends felons and politicians charged with crimes.. it goes on and on

Yet he has a 40% approval rating. At this stage it seems the real issue isn't Trump.

everlast75

The idea that Mattis, or Kelly, or all of them combined can or should keep Trump in power, by not disclosing to the House/Senate the real danger here, is sheer unadulterated ego.

The President of the entire country by all accounts is more than unfit for office, and they think they know better, or that the Country is better served by them following him around with a figurative mop and bucket, to clean up after him?

It is absurd.

They were not elected. Their role is not to make those types of decisions. Their duty is to the American public, and if Trump is incapable or more worryingly utterly incompetent, then that fact should be brought to the attention of those who were elected and have a mandate to do something about it.

Leroy42

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not if those commands are unlawful.

True, but I fail to see how ordering the hit on Assad would be considered illegal (in the US).

The point I am trying to make, is that it is wholly unacceptable situation. If they believe that Trump really is such a person then they should be actively working to get him removed. They feel he is a clear and present danger to the US yet they opt to try to limit the damage rather than look to cut it out.

Now, Mattis can't get rid of POTUS, but is he imploring the GOP to do so? Is Kelly? An earlier post alluded to it apparently being more important to keep up appearances that to do the right thing.

Sessions, for example, knows that went on with Russia and the campaign. HE has taken the cowards way out by recusing himself and hoping Mueller will do the necessary, but why not stand up for the US.

Mattis, a career soldier and sworn to protect the US, when faced with a direct threat has taken to interviews in cafes and pretending to carry out orders and hoping Trump simply forgets about it!

Captain Obvious

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea that Mattis, or Kelly, or all of them combined can or should keep Trump in power, by not disclosing to the House/Senate the real danger here, is sheer unadulterated ego.

The President of the entire country by all accounts is more than unfit for office, and they think they know better, or that the Country is better served by them following him around with a figurative mop and bucket, to clean up after him?

It is absurd.

They were not elected. Their role is not to make those types of decisions. Their duty is to the American public, and if Trump is incapable or more worryingly utterly incompetent, then that fact should be brought to the attention of those who were elected and have a mandate to do something about it.

Except they have shown they won't do anything about it. Repeatedly.

everlast75

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Except they have shown they won't do anything about it. Repeatedly.

They may have told some of the reps, but I would strongly wager they did not appear privately before either of the joint committees

Captain Obvious

everlast75 wrote: »

They may have told some of the reps, but I would strongly wager they did not appear privately before either of the joint committees

But people before them have spoken of the same issues publicly. The POTUS tweets are enough to show how dangerous he is.

seamus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not if those commands are unlawful.

Isn't there some weird loophole in US Military law where all orders are presumed to be lawful and a soldier who disobeys can be punished even if it's later proven to be unlawful?

everlast75

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But people before them have spoken of the same issues publicly. The POTUS tweets are enough to show how dangerous he is.

His tweets are one thing, the words of Mattis or Kelly et al and their actions are something else, another level. The proof of this is how the book is being received publicly. Otherwise, the book would just be a blip.

But again - even if you are right, in that Mattis etc don't believe Congress would do something about it, are they not guilty again of making that decision which is not theirs to make.

I cannot think of a better analogy, so apologies, but if my boss was too drunk to drive, and wouldn't give over his keys, I would call the cops even if I didn't think they would get to him or catch him on his drive home.

Theirs is a stronger duty of care and their boss doesn't just have keys to a car, he has the nuke codes.

Water John

My understanding is a Majority of the Cabinet could remove Trump from office?
That's where Kelly's and Mattis's responsibility lies.

jjpep

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yet he has a 40% approval rating. At this stage it seems the real issue isn't Trump.

And this is the crux of the issue. Is democracy in America broken?

Zubeneschamali

jjpep wrote: »

Is democracy in America broken?

Reagan was senile, Dubya was not an actual idiot but the kind of incurious blockhead who doesn't think or learn, Ford was famously dim (if nice), Nixon was a crook and later, a paranoid crook.

America has survived Presidents who were unfit before.

Leroy42

jjpep wrote: »

And this is the crux of the issue. Is democracy in America broken?

Yes is the simple answer.

Lack of credible alternatives, power of money, adherence to parties despite policies or outcomes.

Voters feel totally disenfranchised, there is a severe problem with turnout.

Open voter supression, left to political parties to change to suit their whims.

Lack of understanding of voters of the actual issues. Too easily swayed by slogans and dogma.

Biased media and lack of reporting, although I lay this at the feet of the public as this is clearly what they want so why would the media not attempt to gain from that.

3 levels of executive branch not working as envisaged. The House & Senate are supposed to keep POTUS and each other in check. This is no longer the case (if it ever actually was).

Politicision of the SCOTUS. Job should not be for life. Should be run for longer than POTUS, maybe 20 years, but after that it must be freed up.

Get rid of the EC. It was designed at a time to deal with communciation and other issues. POTUS should be the person that convinces the majority to vote for them.

looksee

Was there ever truly democracy in America? In the sense that we strive towards in Europe? Are we allowing the fact that we all speak much the same language to fool us into thinking we think similarly? Evidently in a lot of cases, we don't. Is it possible to have a democracy in a country comprised of so many states, where a voting system can permit a wannabe despot to be elected? And can we identify with such large numbers of people who support a racist, dangerously ignorant, bigot?

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Go after Woodward and people will ignore what he is saying.

This is Bob Woodward we are talking about - the only people who would believe Trump over Woodward are the 27% who would vote for a turnip if it ran as a Republican.

Well they have ignored and forgot about the random accusations vs China, the lies, the harassment suits, the revolving door office, the corruption, the not actually being in the office that much, the unqualified staff, the epa chiefs with links to large coal/oil business and the f'in locking toddlers in cramped cages and managed to not care.

I imagine they won't care now. It is broken. The system does not work if people refuse to cross sides under any condition whatsoever. The Dems at this point need both the house and senate or to wait 2 years. The Republicans will never move on Trump. Trump won't resign.

I hope I am wrong but I am getting jaded by what people can ignore from this man.

Captain Obvious

North Carolina going ahead with electoral boundaries deemed unconstitutional. Despite being told to fix them in January, the Republican government are going ahead with the gerrymandered boundaries.

jjpep

For me it seems that having only two parties that are seen as contenders ( and treated as such by the media, a self fulfilling prophecy essentially). There is no true center party, as we would understand. You could argue there isn't a left party either. Anything new that does appear, tea party, occupy movement etc is always on the fringes ideologically speaking.

Its a very sad situation really.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not saying I disagree with it, but where do you draw the line?

Should the military then decide who to assassinate? Would this include US citizens? What if they don't agree with the what in Afghanistan any more, should they simply be allowed to refuse?

Like it or not POTUS is given this power. For Mattis to simply ignore his commands is unconstitutional.

It is not a healthy state of affairs. If someone cannot carry out their duties they should be removed and replaced, not simply used as a puppet for other non elected persons

In this case, Mattis, as a civilian member of Don's Admin Team, went along with the present policy of the US NOT committing a Regime-change act. In this case it seems Mattis feared that Trump would authorise a regime-change act and took a preventive step to ensure that the act went no further than being an idea in a document on a desktop. Mattis may have also taken into account what the Russian response might be in Syria. He didn't disobey any command. No, the military shouldn't decide who to assassinate, just advise.

Gbear

I keep seeing that the gerrymandering is some sort of intractable problem.

Much larger constituencies with preferential voting would surely eliminate it as a problem, while also going a ways to disrupt the duopoly.

irishash

jjpep wrote: »

For me it seems that having only two parties that are seen as contenders ( and treated as such by the media, a self fulfilling prophecy essentially). There is no true center party, as we would understand. You could argue there isn't a left party either. Anything new that does appear, tea party, occupy movement etc is always on the fringes ideologically speaking.

Its a very sad situation really.

I would equate the Democrats as being the center party, esp when you see genuine left leaning candidates like Gillum, Ocasio Cortez and Pressley winning primaries with policies that would be on a par with most European moderate socialist parties. These people are bucking the trend in the Democrat party and that brings its own problems on two fronts.

First of all the Democrat party are not exactly welcoming this progressive wing into the fold - Pelosi stated after Ocasio Cortez won that she did not represent the wider party and its policies. This means there could be a split in the way the party acts and operates.

Secondly "Socialist Policies" and "Socialism" are dirty words to the American public and the GOP are very quick to jump on the communist bandwagon in order to paint anybody as more red than Jessica Rabbit walking through a field of rose bushes while eating strawberries.

Center politics are not working in America because they do not motivate the voters in the way GOP policies can. Maybe it is time for the democrats to switch to a model more like a progressive European Socialist Party with liberal views. It could be the beginning of a new age for American politics or the destruction of the Democrat part forever.....there is no in-between, and that is why it will not happen.

Captain Obvious

Gbear wrote: »

I keep seeing that the gerrymandering is some sort of intractable problem.

Much larger constituencies with preferential voting would surely eliminate it as a problem, while also going a ways to disrupt the duopoly.

Yeah but the winning side is the one to make these decisions and they don't want to fix something that gives them an advantage.

spacecoyote

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yeah but the winning side is the one to make these decisions and they don't want to fix something that gives them an advantage.

Really they need to make a constitutional change that sets it out that all districts are drawn up by an independent 3rd party (it'd still be imperfect, but at least it should take any extreme bias out of the equation)

Pelvis

Kavanagh facing questions now, for anyone interested. Live on YT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZBOy6pLj-k

He's had numerous hecklers so far.

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not if those commands are unlawful.

Isn't there some weird loophole in US Military law where all orders are presumed to be lawful and a soldier who disobeys can be punished even if it's later proven to be unlawful?

There is, but it’s not weird. The verbiage is very similar to “it is a defense to any offense that the accused believed the orders to be lawful or if a person of reasonable sense and understanding would have believed the order to be lawful. Orders are presumed to be lawful and disobeyed by the subordinate at their peril”. You will find that most militaries have that sort of defense. The International Criminal Court in Rome states :

“The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;
(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.
2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.”

Thus, when it comes down to invading folks, line soldiers will have little reason to question the legality of an order to go invade, but the Combatant Commander level would be more culpable. On the other hand, an order to “shoot prisoners” is blatantly unlawful to anyone, regardless or rank or position.

See a Canadian federal court ruling in 2006.

“An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper”

On that topic, incidentally, Mattis put out a letter to the service chiefs last month encouraging them to use courts martial more, and administrative actions less.

Mattis is part of the civilian leadership of the military, not subject to military law any more. He can refuse orders from the President at no legal peril. (But can get fired). The first military person in the chain is a combatant commander (The Joint Chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are not in the military chain of command).

Rhineshark

There were ~70 protesters arrested this morning, 61 within the hearing, 9 outside. Mostly women protesting.