Trump Presidency and the Consequences

[tomorton]

Trump sees like so many previous US Presidents to me. He isn't going to change the world: or even America for that matter. He will soon be found disappointing to even his own voters, Republicans in government seem already dubious.

The left are getting steamed up over trivia and the media are driving this for all its worth - for their own ends of course.

 

[sminicooper]

Trump sees like so many previous US Presidents to me. He isn't going to change the world: or even America for that matter. He will soon be found disappointing to even his own voters, Republicans in government seem already dubious.

The left are getting steamed up over trivia and the media are driving this for all its worth - for their own ends of course.

Agree with all of that. Give it 6 months and when the froth has blown away we might start seeing where we're headed.

 

[dbphoenix]

Looks like he would have to be tried and found guilty of a crime to be impeached DB..?

Or determined to be crazy.

 

[sminicooper]

I hope not. I'd like to think that the England I knew is still there.

But maybe not.

That's an interesting comment db; care to elucidate?

 

[Atilla]

I reckon GOP, the Senate and just about everyone else will be applying some EXTREME vetting of their own on Trump's idea of what is likely to make America great again.

Right now I'm laughing my head off. Just feel dreadfully sorry for the poor people caught up in his tripe.


I heard someone say the ruling was a success and some 300,000 were allowed in and about 280 detained in custody. Is this true?


Doesn't smell like success but I guess all the people and the court judgments could be fake news. Alternative facts even!

 

[dbphoenix]

The left are getting steamed up over trivia and the media are driving this for all its worth - for their own ends of course.

The constitutional issues are not trivial, at least to us. But countries that don't have constitutions would likely not see the issue the same way.

 

[Atilla]

That's an interesting comment db; care to elucidate?

It means one hopes UK citizens are less gullible than US citizens for believing the fake news and false promises.


Do you believe Trump with his presidential decree, has made the US safer than before?

How can we judge as none of those countries caused the death of any American in America? However, America has led to the deaths of good many 00s of 000s of deaths in these muslim countries.

I reckon these countries need protection from Trump. Make sure you keep him contained in the USA and not let him out. :cheesy:


Have you gone mad or still on your way there?

 

[dbphoenix]

It means one hopes UK citizens are less gullible than US citizens for believing the fake news and false promises.

Not exactly, though that is definitely a hope. However, this is not the thread to discuss changes in the UK since WWII.

 

[counter_violent]

This Internet & forum thing is great isn't it?

Who'd have thought, years ago, that we'd be having so much electronic fun today.:clap:

More electronic fun.

There is an interactive map which clearly shows high density areas of the great unwashed.

Also handy for the authorities so they may strategically place riot police, rubber bullets and water cannon etc. :innocent:


http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=178844

 

[counter_violent]

I guess he's used to getting his own way

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38805944

 

[wackypete2]

Looks like he would have to be tried and found guilty of a crime to be impeached DB..?

To date, no U.S. President has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

Before anyone says there's always a first time, it takes BOTH houses of congress to REMOVE a president and currently both are controlled by the republicans thanks to elections.


Peter

 

[hhiusa]

To date, no U.S. President has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

Before anyone says there's always a first time, it takes BOTH houses of congress to REMOVE a president and currently both are controlled by the republicans thanks to elections.


Peter

Correct. Also, impeachment does not automatically mean removal from office. People who think impeachment will solve the problem are gravely mistaken. It is akin to the grand jury indictments for civilians. Impeachment allows charges to be brought against the president and other politicians. It takes both the House and Senate to remove a president, but only the House to impeach.

@mike. You have that backwards. He has to be impeached before he can be tried.

As of the 115th Congress, the Senate is only 52 Reps. 46+2 Dems and Indies who caucus with the Dems. That is not the stranglehold it was during the 114th.

The Democrats went from having 57 in 2009 (111th), to 46 in 2017.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached and then acquitted.

 

[Pat494]

So Trump has nearly dictatorial powers ?
One of the obstacles to his power was The Joint Services Committee. That has been demoted already and without much of a fight.
His Executive Orders aren't giving the Houses much of a look-in to even debate the important issues like immigration.
Oh yeah Here comes The Supreme Leader/Fuhrer ! If he does an Adolph Hitler effort, the USA will end up in the same pit as Nazi Germany.

 

[tomorton]

The constitutional issues are not trivial, at least to us. But countries that don't have constitutions would likely not see the issue the same way.

What has he done that was unconstitutional? And if it was, surely there are constraints that would apply?

 

[Pat494]

What has he done that was unconstitutional? And if it was, surely there are constraints that would apply?

The US Constitution was written a long time ago in a bygone age and can't expect to cover all future events. True there have been some amendments but not enough to stop what Trump may unleash on America and the Rest of the World.

 

[dbphoenix]

What has he done that was unconstitutional? And if it was, surely there are constraints that would apply?

Well, if you're really interested, there's plenty available, and the stack gets higher every day. Just google "trump constitution violation" or something similar. The following are a start:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-fre...ecutive-order-refugees-violates-establishment

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

His supporters couldn't care less whether he violates the constitution or not, but that's neither here nor there.

Edit: This may also be of interest:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nald_trump_refuses_a_federal_court_order.html

 

[dbphoenix]

This provides a good example of what happens when an executive adopts an autocratic stance:

Trump’s order to “kill two regulations for every new one adopted” is a mess

Not only, as Schwarzenegger said, does it make us look stupid, but it throws the government into chaos. Some people want that. But on the whole it's not a good idea.

 

[Signalcalc]

What happened to good old fashioned presidential assassinations, was the last attempt on Reagan?

 

[dbphoenix]

Presidents Can Be Impeached Because Benjamin Franklin Thought It Was Better Than Assassination

 

[tomorton]

Well, if you're really interested, there's plenty available, and the stack gets higher every day. Just google "trump constitution violation" or something similar. The following are a start:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-fre...ecutive-order-refugees-violates-establishment

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitution_trump_s_muslim_ban_violates.html

His supporters couldn't care less whether he violates the constitution or not, but that's neither here nor there.

Edit: This may also be of interest:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nald_trump_refuses_a_federal_court_order.html

The Foreign Payment suit cited in the NY Times seems very dubious.

As far as the others are concerned, no travel ban has been placed on members of a specific religion. Its a fact that the countries mentioned are predominantly Muslim but that's because of their repressive legal regimes and societal structures, which very effectively discriminate against freedom of choice in religious belief. Isn't there something in the Constitution on that subject?

What the leftist media are saying is that any negative actions towards a predominantly Islamic state is an attack on Islam the religion. But isn't that like saying any attack on Israeli state affairs is an attack on Judaism? Or any criticism of French policies is an attack on Catholicism? Or criticism of Black Lives Matter is an attack on the black race. Either way, its a narrow bigoted point of view.