US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Jimbuna]

Apologies for stating the obvious but if Trump is going to surround himself with 'Yes' people he is obviously prepared to take the risk that said advice from those he appoints may be of less value and use.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Trump aside for a moment.
I think you did it. You found the most blatant, stinking and desperate way of trying to sound oh-so-smart and sophisticated. Ugh.


Trump will get the full 8 years, because he is able to easily blind his followers with the most ridiculous bs. Just read this topic.

"No way this will happen!" kinda lost its value in my book. Everyone said no way he will become the Republicans choice. Then everybody said he will no way become POTUS. Now everyone's saying no way he'll make it past the first 4 years.

I say he will. Because those who support him are too easily fooled with even the most blatantly patriotic catchphrases and afterwards too proud to ever admit being wrong - so let's vote him again because freedom, or something like that.

My memory holds it that I think I was the first saying in clear words that - back then - now Trump seems to be the most likely Republican candidate. And I think I also was the first, at least one of the very first, who again used blatant open words to say that Trump is set to become president.

I also recently said that many black swan events have caught the Europeans and especially the Germans completely unprepared, Trump being one of these black swans (Brexit, Ukraine, Syria being other examples).

I also argued in the past that Trump will run office like an elephant in a china shop, and I did not rule out that he could survive for the full four years.

But I think he is overdoing it. When one cretaes oneself so many enemies and so fast, even own institutions one depends on to carry out one's own policies, then this proportionally reduces the chances that one could hold out. Viele Hunde sind des Hasen Tod. If ministries and federal offices simply switch to civil disobedience and boycott, then even Trump can no longer move on. He can fire staff and have one generaiton coming in and having it getting the boot two weeks later - it does not help. Bureaucracy is the prime tool for every dictatorship. If it cannot base on and trust in its bureaucracy, and if the bureaucracy works against the regime, in the hidden, this is the death sentence even for the regime.

Trump even pisses those institutions he depends on, not so much only by his goals, but by the rude way he wants to get his way. And that will break him his neck sooner or later, if he does not change this.

It will even become worse when the bill for his economic highflying debt-raising frenzy will be presented, and when his voters realise that in the long run they once again have been left behind. The great disillusionment. Then at the latest the curtain will fall for him.

Without messing around with election laws like Putin does, Trump will not win an election again like he did this time. This already now I say is certain. I do not need a full four years to see that. Some reason, and insight into how economy and its variables function, is enough.

You do not like my statement? Well, its describing the better of all the worse scenarios. If I am wrong and he even gets a second term - then you know that everything is lost and gone indeed.

That Trump is there now, can be explained. But it should not be excused.

[Skybird]

Bannon gets permanent seat in the NSC, director of intelligence and military chief-of-staff loosing them.

Competence and experience out, propaganda in.

This will hurt big time.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You do not like my statement? Well, its describing the better of all the worse scenarios. If I am wrong and he even gets a second term - then you know that everything is lost and gone indeed.

That Trump is there now, can be explained. But it should not be excused.

I even agree with it. The statement wasn't why I snapped, it was the delivery.

But yes, explained yet not excused, that's the nails head right there.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Trump has just fired his Attorney General for defying him, and calls her a "traitor".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/u...memo.html?_r=0

Have the heads of the various departments to obey him despite better knowledge, or if instructed to violate the constitution.. i mean can he really rule with decrees, without consulting anyone?

The newspapers here are full of all kinds of alleged violations against the US constitution, however those are european papers.. Nigel Farage of course supports the US president firing all staff.. i wonder.. ah whatever (*grabs popcorn*)

The executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law. When it comes to national security the judicial system in this country tends to side with the President.

FYI: the position of Attorney General is considered an "at will" position, which means they can be fired or resign at any time for any reason.

IMO Trump was right in firing her, Yates publicly stated she wasn't going to do her job. When she did that, she should have resigned, Trump had no choice but to fire her.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by MaDef

IMO Trump was right in firing her, Yates publicly stated she wasn't going to do her job. When she did that, she should have resigned, Trump had no choice but to fire her.

It sets a precedence.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Apologies for stating the obvious but if Trump is going to surround himself with 'Yes' people he is obviously prepared to take the risk that said advice from those he appoints may be of less value and use.

It is not always a matter of yes people. In this case of the AG firing, the individual fired appeared openly defiant and taking a stance on "feelings". The stance did not appear to be based on actual law and what is written in the Constitution.

[Mr Quatro]

Good news it's not too late for some of you complainers:https://www.yahoo.com/style/canadian...182109217.html

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted in solidarity with refugees, sending a message to those affected by the ban to let them know that there are still countries welcoming them with open arms.

"To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith," he wrote. "Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada"

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by MaDef

[...]When it comes to national security the judicial system in this country tends to side with the President.
FYI: the position of Attorney General is considered an "at will" position, which means they can be fired or resign at any time for any reason. [...0

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is not always a matter of yes people. In this case of the AG firing, the individual fired appeared openly defiant and taking a stance on "feelings". The stance did not appear to be based on actual law and what is written in the Constitution.

Rgr that but I was thinking in terms of the beginning of a slippery slope sort of.

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I say he will. Because those who support him are too easily fooled with even the most blatantly patriotic catchphrases and afterwards too proud to ever admit being wrong - so let's vote him again because freedom, or something like that.

Good thing that we have you to lecture us on our Provincial American failings. Because you know:

[Skybird]

Its not about the legality of Trump'S firing of the state attorney. He has any right to fire her, and honestly said - if I were in his seat and my just called in state attorney falls into my back and calls a ministry to boycott me, I would immediately fire that person, too.

What it is about however is that Trump is so rude and stupid to stampede around not like one but like a whole herd of elephants, in a fashion that raises resistance and hostility in spectacular ammounts and no time, almost necessarily. You can have the law on your side, and still be wrong. At least acting stupid while the law is on your side. His problem is that he bahves and decides in a way where he ends up needing to fire his people and sees his institutions he needs to support him, opposing him instead. Its not the What - its the How where he failed. And I think it will be not the last incident of this kind, nor has it been the first.

I do not necessarily disagree with some of Trump's goals. I do not oppose the wall against Mexican mass migration. I also do not oppose in principle to ban relations with and travel/trade from and to certain countries, on the basis of hostile ideologies. I have called for that myself in the past. However, i would understand that the way in which I impose these sanctions, need careful preparation of the public as well as of the institutions, and that I am ill-advised to enforce this against the majority's will with an iron fist, just because I have some paragraphs on my side. At least as long as I do not will to accept my rule bein a full-blown police state and dictatorship, with military on the street and secret police silencing my critics.

But as any sociopath, Trump finds it difficult to see that there is other life on this planet which may not fall in its appropriate place he has forseen for it. For sociopaths, other people simply are things they can handle and arrange at their will, without scruples, and without any serious expectation that they could resist or fight back, because they are just - things. Like you handle your book and rip it apart or lay it down or treat it well or throw it around wiothout bad conscience - its just a thing, and your belonging. It got to have no will of its own.

This way of policy-enforcing onto the American public could lead America to breaking point. And there is a certain chance that it could even blow it apart, if all and everything goes wrong.

Another problem with the ban from certain countries is that Trump is incvonsistent there, he allows travelling still from several known terrorist Muslim states. He contradicts himself there, seriously damaging his credibility. Delicously - it are countries where Trump has own business interests. To say he protects these interests probably is alternative fact and Trumpophobia only.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Rgr that but I was thinking in terms of the beginning of a slippery slope sort of.

I had to let it sink in. Yes, your are correct, some will simply become yes men. It is a slipper slope and mixed message.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It sets a precedence.

Not really, it's happened a few times, Mostly these things play out behind the scenes and the effected party "resigns". John Adams fired Timothy Pickering as Secretary of State in 1800. In 1981 Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Not really, it's happened a few times, Mostly these things play out behind the scenes and the effected party "resigns". John Adams fired Timothy Pickering as Secretary of State in 1800. In 1981 Reagan fired 11,000 air traffic controllers.

I meant in a sense that it set the precedence for Trump. He has shown his position when these things occur. But Jim pointed out it is a precedence that may create "yes men".