The Trump Presidency - Part 2

Pogue Mahone said:
It’s probably a weird thing to say but if I was a yank one of the things that would stress me out the most would be the complete lack of dignity, class and decorum from someone who is the figurehead of your country all over the world. Means feck all in the grand scheme of things but Christ almighty, it’s so grim to watch.
Click to expand...
Not weird at all. You've got the president, his family and his staff openly mocking the leader of an invaded country with comments about his dress sense and his height. It's pretty despicable.
 
RoyH1 said:
I remember discussing with one of my history teachers in university how the fall and decline of Rome happened. He accurately predicted that the US would have a similar sort of decline chaos/followed by short burst of stability and back again. But we thought it would take several decades if not centuries. But with Trumpism, there might not even be a USA ten years from now. In less than 6 weeks he's allied himself with Russia and is on the point of surrendering the USA's leadership of the so called 'free world' for good.

At one point he's going to need a military victory to distract the populace and get them to rally around the flag. I wonder which poor country is going to get the privilege of seeing the stars and stripes waving around the place.
Click to expand...
The parallels are interesting even before the Roman empire became what it was because you had people like Sulla who paved the way for Caesar to be dictator for life. It only takes someone to break the law and subvert the constitution for their own vanity/power and things are never the same again because if they can do it, then so can anyone else because a precedent has been set. Trump might actually just be the start of that and it's quite sad that Americans, like the ancient Romans, were fiercely republican and hated kings and now consciously or unconsciously they actually want a fecking monarchy again.
 
Drainy said:
Presidents of both stripes have been filling the Supreme Court with justices with that vision of the powers of the presidency. For obvious reasons but no-one anticipated a Trump.
Click to expand...

Are there specific rulings in which the democratic appointed justices have voted for an expansive interpretation of executive powers you’re thinking of?

I don’t doubt it’s true just curious.
 
Drainy said:
Presidents of both stripes have been filling the Supreme Court with justices with that vision of the powers of the presidency. For obvious reasons but no-one anticipated a Trump.
Click to expand...

If that was actually true than the Supreme Court wouldn't have just voted 5-4 to not let Trump cut USAID. In fact, none of the Democrat SC appointments have that type of belief in unitary executive theory and not even John Roberts has that "vision of the powers of the Presidency" so this statement is not correct.
 
This is a fecking clown show and the lack of any real pushback speaks volumes.

I'm here for the Terry Crews presidency though!
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
If that was actually true than the Supreme Court wouldn't have just voted 5-4 to not let Trump cut USAID. In fact, none of the Democrat SC appointments have that type of belief in unitary executive theory and not even John Roberts has that "vision of the powers of the Presidency" so this statement is not correct.
Click to expand...

Kagan was considered a pro executive power appointee when she was nominated so...

She might be voting for her team at the moment but she was there for a reason....
 
RedSky said:


Great speech, such a shame the Dems never supported Bernie, such a missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

Bernie is a real one. He has incredible stamina to continue fighting the good fight at 83 years of age, even when everything is going in the wrong direction.
 
Drainy said:
Kagan was considered a pro executive power appointee when she was nominated so...

She might be voting for her team at the moment but she was there for a reason....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call her dissent in Seila vs. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as just "voting for her team" when she was the one who wrote the strong argument that the Constitution does not give the President the power to fire the CFPB director at will. That explicitly goes against unitary executive theory and doesn't read like just voting for her team at all.

Additionally, even before she was nominated, her legal philosophy was definitely distinct from people that actually propagate unitary executive theory even if it was slightly closer to that view than just about every other Democrat nominee. And I certainly haven't seen any evidence she was nominated specifically because she was "pro executive power", which is a bit of a hyperbole and not really accurate when we look at people that actually believe in unfettered executive power.

"Professor Kagan's rejection of the "unitary theory of the executive" is perhaps best articulated by her consistent differentiation between delegations by Congress to executive branch agencies (that provide the President with broad "directive authority") and delegations to independent agencies (that provide the President with no "directive authority").92 Supporters of the "unitary theory of the executive" often insist that "the Constitution provides the President with plenary authority over administration, so that Congress can no more interfere with the President's directive authority than with his removal power."93 Professor Kagan's express acceptance of Congress's power to create agencies that are insulated and separate from Presidential control arguably represents a significant distinction between her concept of "presidential administration" and the "unitary theory of the executive."

To place Professor Kagan's views in context, if a horizontal line were to be drawn with the traditional view on the far left end and the "unitary theory of the executive" at the far right end, it would seem reasonable to assert that the concept of "presidential administration" articulated falls somewhere in the center, albeit closer to the right end of the line."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41272.html

Anyway if your original statement was correct, that both parties are nominating justices who emphasize unitary executive then the recent ruling would not have been 5-4 against Trump admin but 9-0 in favor.
 
Godfather said:
I can never respect a party choosing Clinton or Harris over him.
Click to expand...
To be honest they didn’t choose Harris over him, they weren’t going to run an 83-year old after they’ve just removed an 82-year old from the race because he felt too old.
 
Sarni said:
To be honest they didn’t choose Harris over him, they weren’t going to run an 83-year old after they’ve just removed an 82-year old from the race because he felt too old.
Click to expand...

Fair enough his age is a concern but he looks really sharp still. Totally different than Biden.
 
Drainy said:
For obvious reasons but no-one anticipated a Trump.
Click to expand...
No they really didn't did they....in particular the opposition.

Trump will already go down in history for all sorts of things, including coming back from the 'politically' dead when the Democrats breathed life into his 'Lazarus of Mar-a-largo' act by ensuring he was the first felon to be elected.

Then if this blunder wasn't enough, enabling Trump to become only the second President to have won a second term after he had left office, by allowing an ailing man with obvious cognitive problems to run against him...... until it was too late.

Its likely that in future Trump will be remembered on the world stage for allowing his VP to 'diss' his longest serving allies, in public; for raising the real fear of 'Trade wars' breaking out...... and the emergence of Brexit type unicorns perhaps?

Finally, going forward the opposition in the US and in the Governments of the free World at large, will have to stand watching whilst 'the Don' creates an US oligarchy of the super rich and seemingly nobody being able to do anything about it.

Make America Great Again.. whatever did they think he was talking about?
 
Last edited:
Drainy said:
Presidents of both stripes have been filling the Supreme Court with justices with that vision of the powers of the presidency. For obvious reasons but no-one anticipated a Trump.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what rulings saw the democratic appointed justices side with fascist levels of executive power, but they haven’t supported any of these next level attempts by Trump.

Is there a particular ruling you’re thinking of?
 
I don't doubt that Trump will get what he wants from Ukraine
And he will do that by blackmailing President Zelenzkyy and not caring how many people could get killed as a result.

1. Firstly demand payback for the support the US has given Ukraine.
2. Invite Macron and then Starmer to the WH and turn on the charm.
3. Then host Zelenzkyy who will have seen how well the other 2 were treated and most likely will have dropped his guard.
4. Launch into a barrage of insults backed up by Vance leading Zelenzkyy to fail to sign the Minerals Deal and tell him to leave the WH.
5. Next suspend all military aid to Ukraine as well as intelligence sharing knowing that Zelenzkyy cannot carry on with fighting Russia. This will force Zelenzkyy to beg Trump to allow him to accept exactly what Trump wanted in the first place, but totally on Trump terms

Trump gets what he wants which is pretty easy when you have all the cards and Ukraine is now subservient to the whims of the US, while Europe is left marginalised and playing catch-up.

He will see it as brinkmanship and feel very smug.
Others like me will see it for what it really is.
Blackmail. Pure and simple.
 
The man is despicable and a complete moron, that said I have never seen a president follow through so decisively on campaign promises.

Everyone thought he was just bluffing and convincing themselves “no he just saying that to get elected but he won’t really do that”. Now reality has hit home to his voter base that he is deadly serious about every campaign promise.

This is actually refreshing since most politicians over promise and under deliver however in this case his policies are so insane and destructive that there is a very real chance he will bring about a global market crash.
 
Sarni said:
To be honest they didn’t choose Harris over him, they weren’t going to run an 83-year old after they’ve just removed an 82-year old from the race because he felt too old.
Click to expand...
putting him aside I think people seem to forget that harris was always a shit candidate to begin with. If I'm remembering correctly, she was one to early ones to drop out of primaries. no one knew what she stood for. sure, biden made it worse by delaying his announcement (Imo that wouldn't have changed anything radically). couple this with her running a shit campaign with no messaging and burning through a feck ton of money. It just shows you how unserious dems are and don't really stand for anything.
 
Last edited:
RoyH1 said:
I remember discussing with one of my history teachers in university how the fall and decline of Rome happened. He accurately predicted that the US would have a similar sort of decline chaos/followed by short burst of stability and back again. But we thought it would take several decades if not centuries. But with Trumpism, there might not even be a USA ten years from now. In less than 6 weeks he's allied himself with Russia and is on the point of surrendering the USA's leadership of the so called 'free world' for good.

At one point he's going to need a military victory to distract the populace and get them to rally around the flag. I wonder which poor country is going to get the privilege of seeing the stars and stripes waving around the place.
Click to expand...
Centuries were never on the cards, not in the world we're living in, but similarily to Rome the US will implode. Drunk on its own power, out stretched, corrupt, violent, and socially "decadent".

Due to its privilegied geographic configuration, as well as its technological and military superiority, there never was going to be any real outside threat to the US. The danger was always going to come from within.

Iran would be the most likely target, but I don't think that it would be enough to divert the US from its crash course. The country is rotten to the core.
 
That_Bloke said:
Centuries were never on the cards, not in the world we're living in, but similarily to Rome the US will implode. Drunk on its own power, out stretched, corrupt, violent, and socially "decadent".

Due to its privilegied geographic configuration, as well as its technological and military superiority, there never was going to be any real outside threat to the US. The danger was always going to come from within.

Iran would be the most likely target, but I don't think that it would be enough to divert the US from its crash course. The country is rotten to the core.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by socially "decadent"?
 
Beans said:
I’m not sure what rulings saw the democratic appointed justices side with fascist levels of executive power, but they haven’t supported any of these next level attempts by Trump.

Is there a particular ruling you’re thinking of?
Click to expand...
I remember around the time when Obama started drone strike executing American citizens abroad executive power being a major issue for the supreme court and dems looked to shore up their authority.

But it was a long time ago so maybe I'm misremembering something or whatever. Not really arsed to argue the point when we are where we are.
 
entropy said:
putting him aside I think people seem to forget that harris was always a shit candidate to begin with. If I'm remembering correctly, she was one to early ones to drop out of primaries. no one knew what she stood for. sure, biden made it worse by delaying his announcement (Imo that wouldn't have changed anything radically). couple this with her running a shit campaign with no messaging and burning through a feck ton of money. It just shows you how unserious dems are and don't really stand for anything.
Click to expand...
They could have definitely picked a much better candidate. The elections could and probably would have been won with someone selected more carefully. I mean, they already tried running an uninspiring woman against Trump in 2016 and lost miserably even when she was a favorite to being with, to do it again when Biden/Harris presidency wasn’t exactly perceived very favorably was just calling for a disaster.
 
RedRoach said:
The man is despicable and a complete moron, that said I have never seen a president follow through so decisively on campaign promises.

Everyone thought he was just bluffing and convincing themselves “no he just saying that to get elected but he won’t really do that”. Now reality has hit home to his voter base that he is deadly serious about every campaign promise.

This is actually refreshing since most politicians over promise and under deliver however in this case his policies are so insane and destructive that there is a very real chance he will bring about a global market crash.
Click to expand...

I continually wonder why people think he won't do what he says he'll do when the very specific, very directed manual for what he wants to do is called Project 2025 and all he's doing is implementing that document's recommendations. There's a literal playbook that he's following, nothing should be a surprise.
 
Beans said:
Pretty scary 4 SCOTUS judges are perfectly fine with turning this country into a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
What's worse is that 4 of them voted to not pay for work/contracts that has already been done, which is what this ruling is about, future aid is still screwed as far as I can tell
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Reminds me of those Led by Donkeys guys. Clever ideas, well implemented and enjoyed by their base but completely irrelevant to the people they’re taking potshots at and anyone who would vote for them.
Click to expand...
Yep, but it goes beyond that imo. The thing I find the most concerning (and this applies generally and not just to Trump’s presidency) is that I suspect not enough people actually care.

In my experience the people who have been and are most vexed by Trump and the political changes currently underway in America and many European countries are older people. I just don’t see that replicated with younger generations to anywhere near the same degree. I think there’s a counter-cultural allure to it.
 
Bebe said:
I continually wonder why people think he won't do what he says he'll do when the very specific, very directed manual for what he wants to do is called Project 2025 and all he's doing is implementing that document's recommendations. There's a literal playbook that he's following, nothing should be a surprise.
Click to expand...
Do you really wonder that? This isn’t a criticism of you, but in all reality we are surely all aware that the overwhelming majority of voters pay little to no attention to detail. Most people are single issue voters…..guns, abortion, immigration etc…..or vote purely on a gut reaction, “he’s tough”, “he’s too old”, “he’s a straight talker” etc. etc.

When it comes to specific policies, people are always surprised because they never delved into the details of what they were voting for, and they never will, despite being surprised multiple times in the past.

The Presidential election is now a popularity reality show for entertainment purposes in the eyes of most Americans. Unfortunately it just happens to have massive geopolitical and climate consequences. It hasn’t been decided on policy for a long time, and the big mistake the Dems make is running as though it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.