TRUMP 2016

[EyeKhan]

Your first two suggestions of reversing the primary results or the electoral college results are both clearly non-starters. Both would cause an unprecedented constitutional crisis, be a total betrayal of democracy and would potentially lead to mass violence or even a civil war if the democratic winner of the election didn't take over. If you deny people ballots they turn to bullets.

Yet they are how the Constitution is designed, with the intent to prevent a shit head like Trump from getting elected. Leaving aside whether the consequences you describe are plausible, I think it would have meant a remaking of the Republican Party from the ground up, if not the splintering or dissolution of the party entirely.

I do think it was plausible and workable to kick Trump out of the Primaries early in the process, on grounds of "inappropriate, undignified, and/or unpresidential behavior" or some such, with minimal consequences. Of course, at the time, literally nobody thought he could possibly win the nomination, much less the election, so I'll call hindsight on myself for that one.

Mueller is doing an honest investigation of collaboration, which they could have prevented with their control of both Congress and the Justice Department. They didn't prevent it. Mueller's investigation will take time but unless you think he is doing a whitewash the proper constitutional procedures are being followed. They can't impeach him until there's a smoking gun about his malfeasance which requires Mueller's investigation to find it.

Fair enough on the part about Mueller being allowed to proceed (so far). However, in terms of respect for the claims in the NYT editorial, this doesn't affect how I feel about that in any way.

So really you're being completely unreasonable.

LOL, I am not. That editorial writer really is a self-serving coward, like the rest of his party. Why speak out at all?

You definitely can't expect them to overturn democracy.

I don't and have not, at least not beyond the protections that are built into the framework of this country's republic. All it takes to function correctly is a bit of courage and integrity.

You can't expect them to invoke Amendment 25 without proof.

There is DEFINITELY proof. The editorial author clearly indicates the widespread knowledge that Trump is incompetent and that's the purpose of Amendment 25, to remove an incompetent president.

... you're stuck with him and its the voters fault.

We disagree.

The Framers knew that an electorate was vulnerable to self-destruction in the ballot box. That's one reason why this is a Republic (not a Democracy). And that's why the Electoral College exists at all, to essentially veto the voters and prevent the creation of a President Trump. It just didn't work. So don't blame the voters, blame the Framers for their flawed design. Blame the Electors for not doing their duty. Blame the extreme partisanship, or our flat-out unrestricted freedom of speech that created it -- really the Framer's bad design again, I guess.

I blame the Republican Party leadership for Trump even being on their ticket, the party could and should have nipped him in the bud. And I blame the Democratic Party leadership for Hillary being on their ticket. It's hindsight again, but somebody should have been able to see the extent to which the conservative propaganda machine had damaged her. I honestly believe practically any other candidate could have won that election against Trump.

[RandBlade]

Yet they are how the Constitution is designed, with the intent to prevent a shit head like Trump from getting elected. Leaving aside whether the consequences you describe are plausible, I think it would have meant a remaking of the Republican Party from the ground up, if not the splintering or dissolution of the party entirely.

Yes and no. Originally yes the Constitution was designed with the electoral college as an alternative to Direct Democracy. However in reality democracy has evolved so that the electors are elected under a ticket attached to a candidate.

I do think it was plausible and workable to kick Trump out of the Primaries early in the process, on grounds of "inappropriate, undignified, and/or unpresidential behavior" or some such, with minimal consequences. Of course, at the time, literally nobody thought he could possibly win the nomination, much less the election, so I'll call hindsight on myself for that one.

Indeed the only way to prevent him was to prevent him from being a candidate. By the point of the election it was too late.

Fair enough on the part about Mueller being allowed to proceed (so far). However, in terms of respect for the claims in the NYT editorial, this doesn't affect how I feel about that in any way.

Why?

LOL, I am not. That editorial writer really is a self-serving coward, like the rest of his party. Why speak out at all?

Because the country isn't a totalitarian dictatorship. People like the author can act in post as they see fit within reason.

I don't and have not, at least not beyond the protections that are built into the framework of this country's republic. All it takes to function correctly is a bit of courage and integrity. There is DEFINITELY proof. The editorial author clearly indicates the widespread knowledge that Trump is incompetent and that's the purpose of Amendment 25, to remove an incompetent president.

The 25th amendment is designed to remove an incapacitated President or one who is incapable of discharging their duties not an incompetent one. Especially where their incompetence was known pre-election.

The Framers knew that an electorate was vulnerable to self-destruction in the ballot box. That's one reason why this is a Republic (not a Democracy). And that's why the Electoral College exists at all, to essentially veto the voters and prevent the creation of a President Trump. It just didn't work. So don't blame the voters, blame the Framers for their flawed design. Blame the Electors for not doing their duty. Blame the extreme partisanship, or our flat-out unrestricted freedom of speech that created it -- really the Framer's bad design again, I guess.

Republic is not an alternative to democracy, republic is an alternative to monarchy. You are both a democracy and a republic.

I blame the Republican Party leadership for Trump even being on their ticket, the party could and should have nipped him in the bud. And I blame the Democratic Party leadership for Hillary being on their ticket. It's hindsight again, but somebody should have been able to see the extent to which the conservative propaganda machine had damaged her. I honestly believe practically any other candidate could have won that election against Trump.

Ditto. But Hillary shot herself. She was awful at campaigning, dull, uninspiring, took voters for granted and was derogatory to voters ("deplorables"). She lost a blue state that she didn't even visit in the final few weeks FFS.

[EyeKhan]

Because the country isn't a totalitarian dictatorship. People like the author can act in post as they see fit within reason.

Here I'm really speaking to the author's motives and character. What was the point of writing that editorial? Why communicate to the whole world that some like minded people are secretly sabotaging what they consider to be the president's worst decisions? I believe it's an attempt to influence the November election in favor of Republican candidates - that's the only thing I can think of. And I don't respect it at all.

The 25th amendment is designed to remove an incapacitated President or one who is incapable of discharging their duties not an incompetent one. Especially where their incompetence was known pre-election.

Well, what constitutes incapable of discharging duties is arguable, though not worth arguing I don't think. I mean, as an example, the president's own lawyer believes he is literally incapable of telling the truth. WTF? That sounds like the description of a mental illness. I think a solid argument can be made that that alone is grounds to remove him.

Ditto. But Hillary shot herself. She was awful at campaigning, dull, uninspiring, took voters for granted and was derogatory to voters ("deplorables"). She lost a blue state that she didn't even visit in the final few weeks FFS.

Yep. It wasn't just how damaged she was, she and her team made a lot of mistakes. Idiots.

[RandBlade]

Here I'm really speaking to the author's motives and character. What was the point of writing that editorial? Why communicate to the whole world that some like minded people are secretly sabotaging what they consider to be the president's worst decisions? I believe it's an attempt to influence the November election in favor of Republican candidates - that's the only thing I can think of. And I don't respect it at all.

You're a cynic, it could just as easily undermine Republicans.

5 alternative explanations include honesty, wanting to vent/get things off your chest, encouraging by example others to do the same, in response to Woodward's book, wanting to demonstrate even Trump's own people consider him incapable. That's just off my head.

Well, what constitutes incapable of discharging duties is arguable, though not worth arguing I don't think. I mean, as an example, the president's own lawyer believes he is literally incapable of telling the truth. WTF? That sounds like the description of a mental illness. I think a solid argument can be made that that alone is grounds to remove him.

Is that on the record?

Yep. It wasn't just how damaged she was, she and her team made a lot of mistakes. Idiots.

Agreed.

[EyeKhan]

Is that on the record?

It was quoted in the Woodward book. Not sure if that puts it on the record or not. Probably the lawyer has denied it.

[LittleFuzzy]

There is DEFINITELY proof. The editorial author clearly indicates the widespread knowledge that Trump is incompetent and that's the purpose of Amendment 25, to remove an incompetent president.

No it's not. It's designed to remove someone who is physically not able to fulfill the duties of President, not someone who can't do it with much competence. It's in case the President is ill/disabled, as Wilson was for the last year of his Presidency. And you need a majority of the cabinet officials to agree in writing with the Vice President to do it. Furthermore, all that's necessary to rescind that assumption of authority is for the President to assert he or she is in fact able to fulfill their duties. To overcome that you need the same majority, plus a 2/3 majority in both of Congress to override it (i.e. a greater majority than you'd need to convict of impeachment in the first place)

The Framers knew that an electorate was vulnerable to self-destruction in the ballot box. That's one reason why this is a Republic (not a Democracy). And that's why the Electoral College exists at all, to essentially veto the voters and prevent the creation of a President Trump. It just didn't work. So don't blame the voters, blame the Framers for their flawed design. Blame the Electors for not doing their duty.

The electors did their duty. Your issue is that the process of electing the President has become one of direct democracy and not backrooms in the first place. Electors are supposed to vote for who their state directs them to vote for, end of story. The states have moved to have that decision be unfettered direct democracy.

And I blame the Democratic Party leadership for Hillary being on their ticket. It's hindsight again, but somebody should have been able to see the extent to which the conservative propaganda machine had damaged her. I honestly believe practically any other candidate could have won that election against Trump.

If Hillary couldn't, then Sanders certainly wasn't going to pull if off either. You are STILL lying to yourself about how and why Trump won.

[EyeKhan]

You are STILL lying to yourself about how and why Trump won.

Still lying to myself? I don't recall discussing this before. Have we???

[Aimless]

The Framers knew that an electorate was vulnerable to self-destruction in the ballot box. That's one reason why this is a Republic (not a Democracy).

This is an oft-repeated claim, but a constitutional representative republic IS a democracy. Minor point but regardless.

I blame the Republican Party leadership for Trump even being on their ticket, the party could and should have nipped him in the bud.

But Choobs, you know that there is nothing worse than the enemy winning. Nothing is worse than that. Period. Exitus acta probat.

[EyeKhan]

But Choobs, you know that there is nothing worse than the enemy winning. Nothing is worse than that. Period. Exitus acta probat.

By nip in the bud, I meant they could have kicked him out of the primaries for bad behavior or some such, before his train really got rolling. At that point nobody believed he could win, so it would have been to the party's benefit since he was humiliating all their more competent candidates like a playground bully.

[Khendraja'aro]

This is an oft-repeated claim, but a constitutional representative republic IS a democracy. Minor point but regardless.

It's a failure of US-American education where they somehow seem to teach that only a direct democracy is a real democracy and that a republic isn't simply the opposite of a monarchy.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's a failure of US-American education where they somehow seem to teach that only a direct democracy is a real democracy and that a republic isn't simply the opposite of a monarchy.

A republic ISN'T the opposite of a monarchy, anymore than a theocracy is the opposite of a plutocracy. You can't really describe government types as opposites (at least not accurately or legitimately)

[Hazir]

A republic ISN'T the opposite of a monarchy, anymore than a theocracy is the opposite of a plutocracy. You can't really describe government types as opposites (at least not accurately or legitimately)

Droit divin vs the nation as the sovereign? Entire libraries are written about the monarchy and the republic as opposites.

[LittleFuzzy]

Droit divin vs the nation as the sovereign? Entire libraries are written about the monarchy and the republic as opposites.

Being rivals or historically opposing each other is not at all the same as being opposites. I don't care how many worthless words you try and pile up on your side, your concept just does not work. You might as well be trying to declare that e is the opposite of pi. It's just not what the word opposite means.

[RandBlade]

A republic ISN'T the opposite of a monarchy, anymore than a theocracy is the opposite of a plutocracy. You can't really describe government types as opposites (at least not accurately or legitimately)

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/
noun
noun: republic; plural noun: republics

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

How is that not the opposite of a monarchy?

Republic is to monarchy as atheism is to theism.