Who is "we" and how do "we" stop him?
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Who is "we" and how do "we" stop him?
'We' is 'The West' and realistically I'm looking at those in power within the United States, under pressure from the rest of us, to not kill us all because a senile bloke said so.
The way Trump and his crew are cosying up to Russia and constantly sniping at China is genuinely terrifying. This is the sort of lunatic foreign policy you might eventually read in history books about the beginning of World War 3. For feck's sake...
Rohrbacher has been compromised by the Russians, just as Mike Flynn has. They apparently have a policy of cultivating key US actors who then behave as surrogates on their behalf when they go home.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/putin-congress-rohrabacher-trump-231775
Here's footage of one of his (potential) esteemed advisers in the interview transcript I posted above. We're in safe hands, right?
Most of the west was complicit in starting the Iraq War, see Tony Blair's lapdog approach to whatever W wanted. There isn't much reason to think we won't fall in line when the US starts the next war.
Putin's clammy hands are all over the whole Trump circus. From his electoral campaign to the people he chooses to surround himself with now he's president elect. As someone who has previously expressed concerns at Russia's foreign policy are you honestly still confident Trump will be good for America (i.e. good for the western world, in general)
Not sure which of those in power get consulted in a "wake up, the Russians are attacking, do we press the button?" type scenario. Posted an article on it before the election, it's pretty much just down to the President.
As tin foil as I'm aware it sounds, I simply don't believe this.
Depends. If someone is married to a British national then there shouldn't be any criteria at all (apart from the obvious checks to make sure someone's not just abusing the system to get a passport).
My criteria would simply be that people have to have a job within a couple of months to be resident, the same kind of condition thats already on EU freedom of movement. We have minimum wage in the UK, so if there's a job there you can get you're someone worth having in the country as far as I'm concerned. Immigrants make money for the country, so spend some of it on improving local services in areas that see a lot of migration and let everyone get richer.
The US president has in recent history been given extraordinary powers of war that are almost completely unchecked. The people who can say no to the president are people who they hire themselves, hence likely to do whatever the president says.
He's incredibly thin skinned for a man who claims to be the "big, bold, brash tell it like it really is" type. Just look at the ludicrous debates over the size of his hands that any normal person would have laughed off. He bears grudges, long, long after normal people would have let things go. Look at his vendetta over the original "little hands/short fingered vulgarian" jibe which stems back to an article in Spy magazine over 30 years ago by Vanity Fair's editor who still gets regular photos from The Donald trying to show how big his hands are. He's viciously vindictive and will throw anything he can at people he feels have slighted him.
To most of us he is coming across as someone who is unhinged and really should be restrained for the good of his own mental health, someone who should not really be trusted with a Twitter account that the likes of Xi or Putin might take seriously, let alone supreme power. I personally hope Xi, Putin et al are sitting back pissing themselves laughing at The Don's rantings much as we have all enjoyed doing when the last Kim or the present one decide to show the world's media what they are made of. But heaven help us all if one of them decides to reply and upsets the mad orange one, he genuinely looks like he's not playing with a full deck of cards and I fear what his response might be.
Judge for thyself.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...les-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955
Key point:
"If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon’s nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside). It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
But within these broad constraints there is no wiggle room for evasion or defiance of the president’s orders. That’s true even if the national security adviser, the secretary of defense (who along with the president makes up the “national command authority”) and other top appointees and advisers disagree with the president’s decision. It does not matter whether the United States has already come under attack by nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It does not even matter if the commander in chief simply orders the use of nuclear weapons on an ordinary day for reasons unknown to all but him or her. Under the president’s open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority."
Well the president can't declare war that's true. But an attack that could start a war? Yes, they can.
But none of them have ever used nuclear weapons, since other powers developed them.
I'm getting quoted with a lot of legal and procedural stuff. I re-affirm the tin foil element. I am assuming these things will be disregarded.
Absolutely fair analysis and one that I understand (see! I'm not close minded and just brash!)
Hopefully he'll have people around him (Pence, Ryan and maybe even Romney) to ensure he doesn't catapult us towards a stand off.
Still don't think Russia have any reason to, only one to keep an eye on is China IMO
Ryan's already demonstrated himself to be a complete coward in saying "it's not my problem" in reference to Trump's comments on illegal voting and by backing him unreservedly after turning against him during the campaign, and Pence is a religious extremist who supports gay conversion therapy. Romney's the only one I'd have a hint of faith in.
Because for the most part the US leaders have been somewhat sensible, cautious and pragmatic. Trump is us entering entirely new territory.
See also: people labelling very white rural places as "real america".
I do feel that is an abuse of the word 'somewhat'. 'Comparatively' I would understand.
Yes, he is.
Really? Wasn't it the same rhetoric when GWBush was in power?
Bush was an idiot but he at least had some sort of political nous. Very little, but I struggle to see how Bush is on the same level as Trump.
W wasn't thin skinned, for one. And secondly, he was intellectually active. Not the brightest, but he reads daily.
Bush also royally fecked an entire region of the world.
In other news, it turns out the Vince & Linda McMahon were the among the biggest donors to the Trump Foundation and to his campaign. What was it people were saying about Clinton giving ambassadorships to her top donors? Turns out a place in Trumps cabinet is cheaper than being a Clinton ambassador.
DRAIN THE SWAMP! Christ almighty.
In other news, it turns out the Vince & Linda McMahon were the among the biggest donors to the Trump Foundation and to his campaign. What was it people were saying about Clinton giving ambassadorships to her top donors? Turns out a place in Trumps cabinet is cheaper than being a Clinton ambassador.
DRAIN THE SWAMP! Christ almighty.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ted-to-ring/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b0275f58c0e1
If you thought the Bernie bros were bad...
If you thought the Bernie bros were bad...
Was going to say this, but then you already did.
Might as well say it again though. Appointing a couple of Generals. Throwing out some tweets about the South Chinese Sea. Structural economical problems that can't really be resolved. What could possibly go wrong?
I'll also be hoping for a military coup to save us in the event of Trump decides to launch nukes.
I'd also like to point out that relying on the military generals to reign in an overly aggressive/mental president is basically the exact opposite to how it has worked in the past, and how it is supposed to work.
For example, it was Kennedy who managed to avoid nuclear war, despite many of his military commanders pushing for it. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/
For example, it was Kennedy who managed to avoid nuclear war, despite many of his military commanders pushing for it. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/jfk-vs-the-military/309496/
You are pretty clueless.The fact that he has such little to show?!
Haha, biased publication. What do you read, so thing with a lot of pictures I bet.
Been to Iraq recently?
Or you might say this is exactly how it's supposed to work, depending on your definition of it. And this doesn't just apply to the States, nearly half of the world is turning into one big mess.
Obviously the formula is a bit too complex to go and type out all the variables on an internet forum. And there are so many possible outcomes. But it's not some irrational fear or an urge to monger doom that makes me say that it will not end well. Because it won't end well, at all. It's like watching a trainwreck.
Just looking at it calm and logically, without any anxiety clouding my judgement, I quite literally can't think of one reason why this will not end very badly. America is a very big factor to take into account, and normally you could bet your house on Trump being impeached within 20 months which would create some geopolitical leeway.
But given the absurdity of the fact that he's gotten away with what he has done up until now, I again have to conclude that I somehow don't see his impeachment happening. Though I can't yet rationalise why this won't happen. And it might not change anything.
Michael Moore predicts Electoral College will deny Donald Trump: “He’s not president of the United States yet”
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/08/mic...p-hes-not-president-of-the-united-states-yet/
Wishful thinking i know .
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/08/mic...p-hes-not-president-of-the-united-states-yet/
Wishful thinking i know .
Nah won't happen, states have Democrat and Republican sets of electors so prevent faithless electors.
And even if it's the case, we then end up with President Pence. Not by any shape or form a better alternative outcome.
The Cheeto Jesus might just be incompetent enough to feck up the implementation of Ryan's agenda. No such possibility exists with RoboPence.
In the event of a detected launch by the other side, there's not much time for debate. An ICBM takes half an hour to reach its target. If America wants to launch its own missiles before they're destroyed in their silos, the President has to make an instant decision.
Its hard to pick out what aspect about the Trump election bothers me most, because there are several. But the Russia angle might just be it. The country that doesn't have a robust economy, doesn't have much influence beyond its immediate (although large) surroundings, winning at the game of politics in the anchor of western democracy and civ. If this continues for more years I keep imagining how history books would tell it. "Declining Russia 'played' the gullible America"?
This is sincerely unbelievable for me, that American politicians and a part of the public are openly campaigning against the country's own interest. This is not because I take a default hawkish position on Russia and would like for the US to play a game of chicken with them. I do take a position of general suspicion of Russia, China and other global and regional powers (and if I were in charge of another country I'd also be suspicious of the US, but less so because their media and politics offers a measure of transparency). These guys are not your friends. But beyond that I'm open to any strategy idea. Convinced that a Detente is the way to go after expanding NATO too much? Fine, but do it on your own terms, make Russia concede something too.
If this sort of maneuvering can be done again, then democracy has lost its ability to govern in its own interest.
In the event of a detected launch I don't think if you could instantly poll every member of Congress, the Cabinet, and every officer in the entire military with a star or more on his shoulder, that you would get a single 'No' back. That's not the event I think we're worried about. (I mean, we should worry about that too because it means we're mostly dead, but POTUS didn't make the first move).
- Status