US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[mapuc]

According to a Danish journalist who works for a news program

Said that USA is in a constitutional crisis that has not been seen since the Watergate case.

Know that there are people in the White House who oppose Trump.
Can you call that constitutional crisis?

Markus

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

I tend to think the story has more truth than fiction: it would be suicidal for the NYT to run such a piece without being extremely cautious and circumspect about the source. For such a high-profile news outlet to take such an extraordinary step without the most thorough of vetting is inconceivable...

I have no doubt it is true. In fact I would say we will know who the "senior Trump administration official" is shortly. How that person expected to remain anonymous is hard to understand.

If Trump and others believe that there is a deep state at work in the US Government I can't help but wonder if this will deepen the paranoia or lessen it.

Any member of the administration legitimately concerned about reigning in the president’s outbursts—and doubtlessly there are a number of them—would never have sent an article guaranteed to generate more White House chaos and paranoia.

It would make no sense. Trump, after all, is already dealing with interminable leaks. The piece will only further confirm his suspicions that a Fifth Column is undercutting the presidency, which will make him less likely to listen to advisors.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/06/...oral-sabotage/

Then there is this from David Frum in the Atlantic. Frum by the way is a fervent never Trumper.

Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.

What would be better?

Speak in your own name. Resign in a way that will count. Present the evidence that will justify an invocation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or an impeachment, or at the very least, the first necessary step toward either outcome, a Democratic Congress after the November elections.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...crisis/569443/

Guess some people value that Government paycheck more than the fate of their nation.

[Skybird]

The mere fact that somebody thinks the situaiton is so desperate that he must go this way with the editorial, and that workers in the WH must cheat on a so-called president in order to save the country from bigger harm, means that these persons do not have the trust anymore that the established mechanisms that should safeguard against something like a Trumpnami and provide prtection to country, people and the constitutional order. Its a system meltdown, like I said just yesterday. The system has failed.


Technically, this kind of cheating can be seen as treason, and Trump's Pretorians will play this card as their argument, Trump himself already has done so. But then, technically the plots to assassinate Hitler, a democratically elected leader who raised by fully obeying the rules of the constitution and made sure his actions were in conformity with the laws, were treason as well, and still both the attempts and the possible success were morally legitimate.



To oppose, disobey and confront the Trumps of this world, no matter their names and nationality, should be seen as a moral imperative for every thinking man of mental sanity and reasonability. When you face evil and stupidity themselves, indifference and arranging yourself with them and aiming at compromises, are no longer morally upright options. It may secure your survival for some time - but you better don't look in the mirror anymore.

[August]

Originally Posted by u crank

Guess some people value that Government paycheck more than the fate of their nation.

Or else the whole story is just more fake news like EM just said.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by August

Or else the whole story is just more fake news like EM just said.

When large sums of money are involved there will always be suspected and suspicious reasons.

I strongly believe that if you can have debates on who should run for POTUS and debates on who should be the POTUS ...

Then they should allow debates on if the person that won the nomination should stay the POTUS like they do with other countries that allow a vote of confidence even submarine captains are being recalled due to a lack of confidence in their ability to perform their assigned duties ... why not the POTUS?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I have no doubt it is true. In fact I would say we will know who the "senior Trump administration official" is shortly. How that person expected to remain anonymous is hard to understand.

If Trump and others believe that there is a deep state at work in the US Government I can't help but wonder if this will deepen the paranoia or lessen it.



http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/06/...oral-sabotage/

Then there is this from David Frum in the Atlantic. Frum by the way is a fervent never Trumper.





https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...crisis/569443/

Guess some people value that Government paycheck more than the fate of their nation.

...or, perhaps, they realize the real value of staying on in order to try and get the truth out and to try and mitigate whatever damage may be done by the Trump Miss-Administration. Its always easy to just walk away when faced with a conflict of conscience, but if the conduct, morality, and ethics of the US system of governance is indeed important to a person who is in a position to affect and defend lawful values, then it would be a bigger act of cowardice to to quit than to stay. It is the whistle-blower who is far more loyal to the greater organization than those who either stay quiet to save their own paychecks or those who walk away leaving an untenable mess behind. Its kind of like saying the Colonists should have just kept quiet and not question or criticize the excesses or failures of the Crown (which was held by a truly mad man), ostracizing those who did speak out or seek to mitigate the Crown's actions. Basically, it would have made our current form of government impossible...

Back during the Vietnam War, particularly during the Nixon years, Nixon sought to wrap his policies in The Flag and his followers took up the slogan "America: Love It Or Leave It", a slogan that was countered by "America: Love It And Save It". Nixon, his minions, and his criminality has gone, but those he and his pack railed against are still here. Now we have another president with his own catchy little slogan to lure in the rubes: "Make America Great Again". For the growing vast majority of Americans, you know, that very large group of voters who did drink his Kool-Aid and vote for him, we didn't ever think America was not great. We know there are problems, but we also realized the solution was not the snake-oil 'remedies' of Trump and those backing him. Half-assed, ill-conceived, poorly planned and/or executed efforts don't really solve anything, particularly when the sole purpose of such gross missteps seems to be the self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment of the Yellow Lump currently in the Oval Office. "Make America Great Again"? Don't need to: it already is great and will remain so once we make the major improvement of dumping Trump...

As far as the fate of the nation, well, we survived a Civil War a couple of World Wars, a Cold War, a couple of unsuccessful impeachments, the resignation, in disgrace, of a President (occasioned by the exercise of press freedoms and the acts of people loyal to a the nation and national values, and not the butt sitting in the Big Chair in the Oval Office), and any number of other crises, a good many of which, at the time, had people saying the fate of the nation was at risk; but, you know what, the Nation is still here and I have faith it will weather the dumping of Trump and his minions. Oddly, myself, and an awful lot of other citizens, actually prefer our Oval Office occupant to not be a raving loon with the morals of a carny sideshow conman and an ethical vacuum to his actions. Trump hug the flag all he wants and try to hide behind faux 'patriotism' all he wants, but, as time goes on, fewer and fewer citizens are buying his Bandini...













<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The mere fact that somebody thinks the situaiton is so desperate that he must go this way with the editorial, and that workers in the WH must cheat on a so-called president in order to save the country from bigger harm, means that these persons do not have the trust anymore that the established mechanisms that should safeguard against something like a Trumpnami and provide prtection to country, people and the constitutional order. Its a system meltdown, like I said just yesterday. The system has failed.

In a Democracy opinion does not overrule elections and the rule of law. When they do you have a problem.

To oppose, disobey and confront the Trumps of this world, no matter their names and nationality, should be seen as a moral imperative for every thinking man of mental sanity and reasonability.

Yes you are correct.The question is how should this be done? In the US there are Congressional elections every two years. There are Presidential elections every four years. There is freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Protests against the government are legal. Anyone can run for office. All those rights and freedoms have not been exhausted.

The system did not fail this person, the anonymous source. This person failed to take advantage of the possibilities available. If necessary he/she should have resigned their position and went to the media with the story. That would be showing the courage of your convictions. Instead what they did do was create another crisis when one was not needed.

[Buddahaid]

I still think he'd benefit by dropping Twitter. Every tweet he makes is always fodder for the press, and wonder if that's the end all of it after all. One could likely write an app that responds to within 98% fidelity of what Trump writes. Presidential trolling?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

...or, perhaps, they realize the real value of staying on in order to try and get the truth out and to try and mitigate whatever damage may be done by the Trump Miss-Administration.

These statements are alarming, of course, because of the "senior" level status of the government official purported to have written them.
But they are also alarming because an anonymous, unelected government appointee is substituting his or her judgment for that of the duly elected leader of a constitutional republic.

In truth, this appointee has a duty to resign his or her post and report whatever egregious behavior he or she has personally seen to Congress and the Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That's appropriate behavior in an orderly republic, as opposed to this political and policy vigilantism that runs contrary to the remedies created for us by the founding fathers.

Set aside whether you love or hate Donald Trump and his policies. Is it right for unelected people to make decisions for him? Is this a signal we want to send the rest of the world, that constitutional order has fallen apart in the world's most durable democracy? Because that's precisely the destabilizing effect this op-ed will have on America's standing in the eyes of our friends ... and our enemies.

Our democracy is based upon us all agreeing to abide by the results of the Electoral College in presidential elections, and that goes for everyone -- including people who work for the federal government in unelected capacities.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/opini...ngs/index.html

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I still think he'd benefit by dropping Twitter. Every tweet he makes is always fodder for the press, and wonder if that's the end all of it after all. One could likely write an app that responds to within 98% fidelity of what Trump writes. Presidential trolling?

I'd be in favor of breaking his thumbs. But gently of course.

[August]

So according to the article we have an organized group of senior government officials conspiring with each other to subvert the authority of the elected President,



...but there's no such thing as a deep state, nah.

[Catfish]

I may have said this a hundred times already.

Initially, the 'deep state' is what some politicians called the right wing conspiracy with influential and rich people from big business and politicians supporting arms manufacturers and vice versa (this "industrial military complex" already Eisenhower spoke about), following their own secret agenda regarding starting wars, managing political relations to other countries, and unchallenged american access to worldwide resources. Along with secretly observing anyone who was thought to be opposing them, being 'left', and neutralising them if need be.

"For the real deep state it seems that the men and women responsible for executing U.S. foreign policy are uninterested in the views of the many Americans who actually pay for the nation’s wars, and the Americans who fight them."

That Trump and his yes-men now turned this term upside down and (ab)use it for bullying anyone disagreeing with them is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

The deep state does not exist

Trump's 'deep state'

This has nothing to do with Trump's idea of a 'deep state', lies and accusations.

If there is anyone left in this government with enough conscience and belief in a higher authority and moral than in Mr. Trump, may god help him in his efforts.

[Hawk66]

@August...so all is fake news...Bob Woodward, NyT, all the secretaries who have left/were fired for the very same reasons , e.g. Tillerson.

And all words, sorry, tweets from Trump are the truth..I see

Sorry, you only have to watch him on TV, read his tweets, realize what 'knowledge' he has from internal or external affairs....then you do not come to the same conclusions ?

The right wing movement (I am not talking about conservatives because Trump is not a conservative, else he would respect common values) in Germany and the US is pretty the same: The root cause is not Migration or economics in general... it is just plain hate and the complete inability to differentiate and searching for comprimises... We have seen what consequences could arise from this in the last century.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

In the case of the disaster that is Trump, you are essentially saying prayer will solve the problem of a deceitful, dishonest, amoral, and criminal leadership.

No, I am saying that prayer is seeking God's perfect will. Prayer is not telling God what to do, but this forum has rules about witnessing so I will let it go.

I'm sorry your young friend lost her life to cancer ... stuff like that happens everyday. God gets the blame or gets the glory, uh?

I respect you and your views vienna keep up the good work ...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by vienna

"America: Love It And Save It".

The counter-phrase I liked at the time was "America: Change It or Lose It."

The problem I have is that while I agree with those who point out that Trump has a much bigger problem in himself than he does with any "enemies", I also agree with those who point out that a lot of the rhetoric from The Left really is just spite. This is the biggest witch-hunt I've seen since The Right went out of their way to get Clinton.

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Then they should allow debates on if the person that won the nomination should stay the POTUS like they do with other countries that allow a vote of confidence even submarine captains are being recalled due to a lack of confidence in their ability to perform their assigned duties ... why not the POTUS?

The system we have now was put there for a reason. The Founders intentionally made it difficult to change leaders for light or transient causes. Once the President is in place it must be proven that he has committed crimes against the country itself. Just because his popularity waxes and wanes is not good enough reason to remove him from office.

Debates are not part of the electoral process. There is no provision in the Constitution for convincing people to vote for one candidate or the other, just as there is no provision for the People to vote for President at all. They made it so the States elect the President, and later the States made it so the people voted for the Electors who in turn elect the President. Popularity has nothing to do with it.