One of these things is not like the others. It was completely consistent with Trump’s campaign rhetoric for him to berate the president of Mexico on the phone. It was consistent with his campaign rhetoric to focus all counterterrorism efforts on Muslims and to ignore threats arising from white nationalists. It was consistent with his campaign rhetoric to have an executive order drawn up that basically erases all federal protections against discrimination in the name of protecting evangelical Christian “freedom.”
His base wanted and expected these things.
What they didn’t expect was for the president to berate the prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull.
Of course, once they realize that Trump berated Turnbull because he was asking him to do something nice for Muslims, his base will understand.
I’m not so sure that Republicans in Washington DC will understand, however. Whether it’s cavalierly risking war with China over Taiwan, it’s threatening NATO, being soft on Putin, offending and weakening Merkel in Germany, or the next outrage or the one after that, there must be some breaking point. The Muslim ban might sound good in theory to a lot of folks, but it’s making our military, diplomats and intelligence services twitchy to say the least. Republican officeholders have a lot more routine interaction with those folks than they do with the people in their districts.
I know we have a problem with alternative facts and fake news, and I know that officeholders are terrified of their bases of support, but there has to be a limit.
I have two theories of the case. One is that the Establishment GOP is hopelessly cowed that it won’t step in to do anything, ever.
The other is that things are so bad and so transparently bad and so inevitably going to get worse fast, that Trump’s presidency will be terminated so quickly that we’ll come to think of it as a joke experiment.
Knowing my readers as I do, I can anticipate that most folks will subscribe to the former theory. And, I admit, all precedent and most evidence points that way.
I just can’t shake the feeling (call it hackneyed optimism if you must) that the Trump presidency is so obviously awful that the need to end it will soon become inescapably obvious to all but the most ideologically blinkered lunatics.
In this latter case, though, I admit that I can’t predict what factor or combination of factors would trigger it, or whether it would be directed from within the White House or from overwhelming unrest or from unconscionable unconstitutional overreach or from elements in the armed forces or intelligence agencies. It could come suddenly like a thunderclap or as part of a painful, wrenching years long process.
On the one side, there’s a genuine populist uprising and real support for much of what Trump is doing. On the other side is the way he’s doing it and the certainty of national and probably international catastrophe. And there’s also a real, building populist uprising against Trump which is growing at shocking speed.
The cynic in me has the advantage of earning the right to his opinion, but another side of me says that what we’re witnessing is so out of bounds that it cannot possibly have any shelf-life.
I guess the optimist in me thinks Trump is so extremely awful that it will prevent him from becoming ‘normal’ and quickly expend the right-wing establishment’s ability or willingness to cover for him.
But, again, I can’t decide which theory is right.
What say you?
Turnbull is weak. I’ve heard his position compared to Boehner and his right flank has been in contact with the Trump folks. Always hard to tell with Trump but this could be a boon to the far right liberals.
I guess I turn the question around on you. Why does there have to be a limit?
And also if Trump was officially removed what are the odds of armed revolt by his core supporters? Afterall theyd have their proof that the America they think they’re losing is gone… so why not burn it all down?
The limit in one way will harder to reach than it was with Nixon when there were Democrats in control of Congress and higher standards.
But in another way, Nixon was competent in many ways, even accomplished as president, and he wasn’t removed because people felt he was destroying international relations or in bed with the Russians or completely detached from reality.
In fairness, near the end Nixon did begin to lose his grasp on reality, but that was mainly related to his realization that he couldn’t save himself.
In any case, there’s a sense in which the threshold is easier to reach with Trump than it was with Nixon because it’s less about what he did than about who he is.
Nixon did his part to get a lot of members of Congress elected. He also arrived in the Presidency as a supporter of the Republican Party, and had governed before. These are significant relationship differences between the President and Congress, even before you get to the extreme recklessness Trump is exhibiting and the broad and vehement public opposition to that recklessness.
That said, Ryan, McConnell, and their broad caucuses are extraordinarily craven and immoral people. That makes it difficult to confidently predict that their relative sanity will outweigh their immoral set of strategies, tactics and policy priorities.
That is an interesting standard for the removal of the President.
It is not in any way constitutional – and its part f why I think people who are writing about his removal aren’t to be taken seriously.
As we saw with the Clinton impeachment here, and with the Rousseff impeachment in Brazil, impeachment is ideally a quazi judicial act which considers evidence based on the Constitution and the law, but in practice is more often a purely political act which pays scant attention to legal standards, or proper justice for that matter.
That said, Trump is leaving plenty of legal and moral rope exposed if a political hanging thru impeachment or use of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment becomes desirable or necessary.
Yes,
There is no written requirement in the constitution besides ‘crimes and misdemeanors’, which is incredibly open ended. Theoretically it could be because congress does not like his choice of suits. It’s the high requirement for conviction, and thus removal from office that prevents any old thing being used.
One wonders what the agenda is of someone who claims otherwise.
.
If you don’t are what the law says, what does that make you?
If this President can’t be impeached because of his preposterously large and ongoing violations of the Emoluments Clause, the Clause is useless. We could go on from there.
Despite this, Cheeto Benito not going to impeached soon. The Republicans in control of Congress can’t even hitch up their fucking pants and reject any of his Clown Cabinet nominees, and their displeasure with Trump’s remarkably destructive and Constitution-violating travel ban is quite muted. I’m not sure why the proper implementation of impeachment should be a thing to be quarreling about here at the moment.
Trump worships money, and it says right in the Constitution that no religious test can be required for an office of trust or profit in this here republic.
Enforcement of the Emoluments Clause would keep Trump from exercising his religion.
Davis, you’re working on a higher plane.
.
the constitution] says”. To my knowledge, his interpretation of what that means in a practical sense (i.e., “high crimes and misdemeanors” are whatever 2/3 of both Houses [I think that’s the requirement] say they are) is correct.
What are you claiming he got wrong about “what the law says”?
The cacophony of those chirping crickets is downright deafening.
“Turnbull is a good man” — Michael Corleone
(Sorry; couldn’t resist)
Anyway the issue isn’t Turnbull; it’s Australia, and our allies. Notwithstanding the splinter crazies who genuinely think that the President of the United States needs to shout at everybody, the rest of the world knows all too well just how precious global stability is and how much it depends on smooth diplomatic relations between allies (and between enemies).
Whether a foreign leader is right wing, or a socialist, or whatever is irrelevant. The POTUS is supposed to be circumspect in his words, and use diplomatic language…this is even more important in a first conversation. This prevents a foreign leader from misconstruing what is said.
This is particularly true with a Five Eyes Country.
And Australia in particular has listening posts.
Trump is without a doubt the greatest extant threat to American national security. IMO his administration is doing exactly what Putin wants….taking a wrecking ball to our alliances throughout the world.
He’s an impeachment waiting to happen.
.
I think that Trump’s extreme unpopularity with the GOP leadership in Congress will be his undoing. Once they’re convinced that they can’t get anything from him that they can’t also get from Pence, there will be no reason for them to keep him around.
It pays to climb into the Republican value system long enough to remember what matters most to them: power. With Democrats out of the way, they now must turn against each other to advance their individual agendas. That looks like a pretty good bet to me, given their recent history.
Except their base loves Trump. So Yertle the Tertle and Zombie-eyed Granny-starver have to go along for the ride.
Well there is this
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-says-he-called-australian-ambassador-after-trump-report
s
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said in a statement released Thursday that he called Australia’s ambassador to express his “unwavering support” for the country’s alliance with the United States, after a report came out Wednesday that President Donald Trump berated the Australian prime minister during a phone call the same day.
“all but the most ideologically blinkered lunatics.”
That, it seems to be, describes most of the modern GOP. However, I also think that the hard-core base, the “will forgive everything Trump does,” base isn’t actually that big and that enough of the country will come to realize what he’s doing that the end will be quick. That will leave us with President Dunce, however; I watched an NPR “interview” with him last night and his ability to evade even the most straightforward question was something to behold. (Not that the interviewer did a good job; the series of “are you confident that” questions were really just ridiculous. What did you think he was going to say?)
That’s my vote. Well, maybe an occasional blip on something like DeVos, but no serious opposition. When anti-Russian hawk McCain votes to confirm Rex Tillerson, that tells you all you need to know.
Living in a blue state, it’s easy to think the whole world thinks as I do. Spent a few days in Arizona and, man, what an eye opening experience that was. There are a lot of folks who think the Donald walks on water. They’ll say things like, “He’s not gonna let anyone screw with us anymore!” and their tone is so clearly delighted (as much as an ignorant bigot can sound delighted).
I think the Republicans have painted themselves into a very difficult corner. Obama tried to warn them; they didn’t listen. Now they’re truly between a rock and a hard place on so many issues — from repeal of the ACA through supporting Trump’s ridiculous executive orders to foreign policy and on and on and on.
Unfortunately, they’ve painted all of us into that corner with them. Congratulations on your eye opening experience in Arizona. As one who’s always lived in a red state, every day I get to experience first hand what watching Fox and listening to Limbaugh et al has done to the minds of my fellow citizens. It’s actually scary how far right they’ve all become.
I’ve been listening to a radio program on NPR called “Indivisible.” It’s temporary call-in show to discuss the first 100 days of the Trump admin. Admittedly the show is very anecdotal, and really only so-so, imo, in how the various radio djs handle the callers. But it does give insight into how voters feel.
The evangelicals and white working class Trump voters seem uniformly delighted and thrilled with every thing that Trump does, although even they sometimes say they wish he’d stop already with the Twitter junk.
Some Trump voters express more measured happiness with Trump’s current actions. The younger, better educated Republican voters are not as racist as their elders and express some concern over Trump’s more extreme positions.
That said, I seriously doubt that the GOP will done one thing to try to “curb” Trump or whatever. I said way back when – even though many stood up on their hind legs and brayed out their disavowal of Trump, in the end, they’ll all bend their knees to kiss Trump’s heiney. He’s the head of their party now, and he’s brought in the votes. They’re beholden to Trump now, and Trump knows it and will wield power with it.
Don’t ever count on the GOP to do what’s in the best interest of this country. Not gonna happen.
Party before country, money above all.
The Republican base is plain and simply a cult.
on the official Party Crest.
This is all I think about, every day — this exact question. It’s the only question that matters.
Put me in the second group. The more fucked-up military adventures, pissed-off allies, threatened global alliances, angry demographics and angry voters we see, the greater the chances of Trump’s early demise become.
And, notwithstanding these metrics, don’t forget the results of the policies — when there’s been enough time not just for protests and angry speeches but for collapsing economies and alliances, Homeland Security inquiries and hearings, downvoted nominations and other calamaties (all of which will prompt more idiotic, defiant braggadoccio from Trump).
The job of being president is a grueling affair.
If Trump has the time and mental space to obsess with television ratings, then he’s not doing the job. If he thinks he has weekends off, he’s not doing the job. If he thinks he can outsource all the hard work to his VP, he’s not doing the job. If he’s signing any document Bannon/Ryan/Putin puts in front of him, he’s not doing the job.
That he isn’t doing the job will become more and more obvious with each day’s new shiny object, and sooner or later he’s not going to do the job of keeping the money/power happy. The end.
I’ve thought about this recently. There would have to be one event so compellingly appalling that even his core supporters would recognize that he needs to go. No doubt that the establishment folks would be more than happy to see him go and elevate Pence to the presidency.
We need a massive intervention of all top leadership in the US past & present to stop trump. I’d like to think our former presidents are speaking with each other and with leaders of both political parties to come up with a plan to save the US and the world from the damage trump is doing. This is all getting really ugly!
Removing Twitler will be an inherently political act just like impeachment is.
The people in control of that political process are Republicans.
If they did that, or attempted to do that, they immediately lose 27% of their voting bloc, aka The Crazification Factor.
They can’t win, even in gerrymandered districts, without the Crazification Factor.
Thus, Twitler will not be removed. Only if he strokes out, has a massive heart attack or is otherwise obviously medically incapacitated, will the GOP “remove him”.
Bingo, and this basically ties in with the entire theory of the Repub party over the past 8 years. The coaches of Team Conservative created a Frankenstein monster they cannot control, so even if they might “want” to do something about the American Madman they can’t as a matter of simple political survival, which is the Prime Directive.
Hence your analysis is flawlessly logical, although I think the 27% you reference is Der Trumper’s support within the entire electorate; the Madman’s irreversible support within the Repub party is more like 45% of Repubs. But this only makes your take even more ironclad. If a Repub moves against Trumper, they are personally destroyed, his base will see to that as a matter of “honor”.
That leaves Repub “leaders” taking down Trumper because they are statesmen, out of selfless concern for the future of the Republic. After one stops laughing uncontrollably, we can move to the final possibility, a Dem wave in 2018 that returns them to super-majority power on the Hill and impeachment. But that is equally comic given the senate map and the game-rigging Repubs have already put in place.
So it’s 4 years of Der Trumper and very likely 8, given the massive demonstrable failure of the incompetent white electorate. Although one has to wonder what exactly will be left at that point….
Excellent comment. I’ll differ with you on only one point. I can’t see Trump remaining in office for a second term. If he runs again, I’m pretty sure he’ll get clobbered. Of course I thought the same of W and have been wrong before. Really hope I’m not this time.
On the mark thread of comments. The only thing I can add is that, though I also thought Bush would be defeated in 2004, it wasn’t really until after that election that his popularity really started to fall apart for him. A little review: Though Cindy Sheehan’s protest in the summer of 2004 helped to bring focus on Bush’s Iraq problem, it wasn’t until Katrina in 2005 that his sheen finally wore off permanently.
Contrast Bush’s slow multi-year degeneration with Trump’s immediate descent into a Hades of controversy. Three million people have already marched against him, millions more who likely march in future protests (supporting science, etc.), and an ever-growing popularity of #Resist. I don’t think there will be a resistance fatigue. Trump’s character guarantees that our anger will remain fresh.
I’m a believer that a person’s past behavior is a strong predictor of future behavior. Trump has no capacity for moderation or backing down. He will only continue to incite and insult and thereby create more and more resistance. Unless he does something illegal and unconstitutional and abetted by Congressional Republicans, he will be gone by the end of 2020.
Like you, I don’t see him lasting past 2010. If things continue on this trajectory without a Reichstag Fire moment ala Bush’s 9/11, he might run (or course he’ll run if physically able) but his shtick will have worn mighty thin by then. Of course everything depends not just on who the Dems put up but how the campaign is run.
If Dems regain control of the Hill in 2019 ala 2007 with Bush, there’s no way they’d impeach Twitler as he would be the gift that would keep on giving. Plus, remember impeachment is a political act and my guess the political calculus of Dems would be they’d get more benefit out of keeping him in the WH and shoveling screamingly liberal legislation down his throat for the expected veto than they would ousting his ass.
Remember, Pence is just as evil as Trump, just in a more American Taliban kind of way.
I see three all-too-likely (and one unlikely-but-not-impossible) scenarios where the Congressional GOP stand up to Trump:
[1] While I’m betting congressional Republicans are all authoritarians at heart, they want to be the ones in authority.
[2] I doubt Trump gives an airborne intercourse about the people who will be heart by ending Medicare/SS, one of his fake-populist advisers may convince him he has to offer some carrots to the Trumpenproletariat…
This is the path. I also think the appropriation of Congressional staffers with contracts to keep their work secret from their Committee chairs (and pay masters) is a big slap in the face of Congress and probably did more to show the WH true colors than anything else. They will try to bully/buffalo Congress on something, overstep and that will be the beginning.
Also the public contacting/showing up at town meetings is giving them heartburn, but the problem is keeping up that enthusiasm for issue over issue.
Personally, I think the debt ceiling will be a tipping point. Trump willing to have the US go into default, along with a small sample of right wingers in the GOP, will mean a huge loss for old Big Money and they will be on the phone to Ryan and McConnell. If Trump won’t budge, he has to go. Probably for health reasons.
And remember, Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment to US Constitution could be a lever to pry him out of office.
Ridge
The End Is Near —> Remember Those Signs You’d See On The Sidewalk By “Strange” Individuals —-> It’s Very True NOW!!! —-> I’ve Read All Of The Posted Comments —-> Let’s Just “Cut-To-The-Chase” COMMENTERS!!! —> Trump’s Behavior/Conduct/Repercussions Of Said Conduct-Behavior —–> Are NOT Sustainable —-> Pissing Off Australia And Having To Have John McCain Do A Follow-Up Phone Call To Smooth Any Possible “Ruffled Feathers” —-> All Of This On Top Of The Brutal Phone Call To Enrique Pena Nieto – Mexican President —-> “We Don’t Need Mexico” – AND – Clean Your Act Up Or We’ll Send In U.S. Army Troops —-> His Ties To Russia, His Obsession With Actually Winning The “Popular” Vote —-> This BumFuck Is Headed To Palookaville —> By May Or June His “Destruction” Will Be Colossal —-> Do The “Math” —-> Hell Yes, He’s Headed For An Early EXIT!!!
Of course, once they realize that Trump berated Turnbull because he was asking him to do something nice for Muslims, his base will understand.
Do you know what the agreement was about? Australia wasn’t willing to take in 1,300 or so Muslim refugees. So we were supposed to take them. That’s dead now, obviously. Turnbull and Trump are both scum of the earth. Can we stop feeling sorry for extremely conservative politicians from other countries!! Turnbull is like the Mike Pence of Australia. That’s how nutty that jerk is.
I did a cursory search on Turnbull’s social positions and he seems to favor both abortion rights and gay marriage. He’s most certainly not the “Mike Pence” of Australia. Perhaps you’re simply being a contrarian for kicks.
I used to live in Australia and have many ties there. Malcolm Turnbull isn’t the greatest pol, but he’s no Mike Pence. That’s a ridiculous comparison.
Once his base understands the issue they’ll support him wholeheartedly. In fact many Americans even those that did not vote for him will support his stance that this was a “dumb” arrangement by Obama once they get the full story.
What is this issue? Around 1,200 people from countries like Bangladesh, Iraq and others tried to illegally enter Australia. They were interdicted by the Australians whose strict immigration laws don’t allow these people to come in at all. Period. They have been detained in detention camps on Nauru & Papua & New Guinea for several years. For some reason, Obama agreed to accept these detainees since Australia refuses to allow them into their country.
So, it is OK for Australia to refuse entry but the US must accept them. I can understand why Trump called it DUMB and why he told Turnbull to take a hike on this matter.
The conditions Australia is forcing upon refugees in Nauru and Manus are exceedingly cruel. President Obama did the right thing, and Trump appears to be preparing to do the wrong thing.
THE PARTIES ARE NOT THE SAME.
My view is that there is almost literally nothing that Trump could do that would lead, on its own, to impeachment and conviction in the senate. That is, enough of the GOP will never “decide” to do such a thing.
However, I think it might just be possible for “the people” to force such an outcome by a sustained and overwhelming demonstration. Such as a general strike involving even more than demonstrated on 1/21/2017.
Or, if there is a huge wave election and Democrats have the votes in 2019.
It’ll be like that Gambian dick who fled his country after looting it for 20+ years. The Emperor’s having too much fun and there’s no one/way to stop him. He’ll probably die in office.
I vote for the option you didn’t include: none of the above. I too share the fantasy that Drumpf is so irredeemably awful and inept that he will self-immolate. But I’m afraid that discounts the power of those around him, who have far too much invested to let anything of the sort occur.
I also have a hard time imagining a future where he completes the full term (though I often panic when I consider that he might cruise to impressive re-election margins and end up the fifth face on Mt. Rushmore. I did think HRC was gonna win after all.)
I suspect the actual answer will be supplied by the rush of unanticipated events, which I’m thinking is a lot more likely given how much chaos and uncertainty is being intentionally created…
I can’t see a scenario where two thirds of a Republican dominated Senate would Vote to impeach him. If he loses the mid-terms badly, then maybe, just maybe.
But most of the really fucked up things he could do – like start a few wars – will only cause his core supporters to double down on him. After all it is not they who will be doing most of the dying.
In the meantime he will scapegoat the libruls, feminazis, LGBT people as enemies of the state. Shoot a few of them maybe. Nightly news television will become the reality TV entertainment as protestors are shot, opponents are imprisoned, workers are fired.
There is no limit to how bad this could get. Ask my parents who lived through 1930’s Germany.
He is also recklessly courting a serious domestic terror attack, but that gets about 75% of the country to double down on him, ala Bushco. His incompetence will make him a folk hero.
It is likely Der Trumper will be the greatest lawbreaking prez in our history, but revelations of his virtually certain felonious malfeasance will depend upon the corporate media—a pretty weak reed. One supposes the lawbreaking could as a theoretical matter be serious enough for Repubs to consider impeachment. But this would be a real black swan event.
We are just entering the tunnel…
Frank
Where were you when Obama & Hillary started two wars in Libya and Syria? There’s complete anarchy there and millions of people displaced and the source of the refugees.
Trump did not create the refugee problem. Obama & Hillary did. Call a spade a spade!
If you want to talk history then the source of the instability predominantly goes back to the Invasion of Iraq by Bush/Blair which allowed al Queda to flourish and ISIS to form. Libya and Syria were disasters waiting to happen, partly as a result of decades long western complicity in corrupt regimes, and in the case of Syria needed no help from Obama/Hillary. I’m not excusing Obama/Hilary of responsibility, but they were to a large extent inheritors of fundamentally unstable situations and there no good options for the US to resolve them. In fact I would argue that the less the US gets involved, the better. At least Obama/Hillary didn’t invade Libya or Syria as Bush or the neo-cons might have done. But yes – saying they were better than Bush is faint praise.
“In fact I would argue that the less the US gets involved, the better.”
At this point why isn’t this obvious to everyone?
Wasn’t it obvious from the comment that that’s the last thing it would want (meaning actual history, that is)?
they started the wars in Libya and Syria? you’re not serious are you?
I think we have already had a coup and he’s taken over. I think we will be at war with some or more than one country in very short order. Probably Iran, then China, then mexico. Or shuffle that in any way you want and it will be war. Then under the war footing he will use it to declare marshall law or something of that nature and that’s it. Customs has already shown they will folow Trump and not the law.
One Seal team has already shown their allegiance to Trump — http://abcnews.go.com/US/military-convoy-flying-trump-flag-belonged-seal-unit/story?id=45207477
How many other military units feel that way but just don’t advertise it?
Plus, with one tweet Trump can mobilize millions of heavily armed Americans.
Right now, anything you can imagine is not just possible, but probable.
Now that’s really scary. I had assumed we were witnessing some middle aged autocratic assholes playing dress-up. To see this was a real military unit doing something so obviously unauthorized is unreal. We’ve truly fallen through the looking glass.
Not necessarily:
https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1235968993105168?notif_t=notify_me¬if_id=148606097
3692814
That made my day. Thanks for posting.
I highly recommend following Jim Wright; he will help mightily in keeping you sane during the messes ahead of us. Plus he has the mastery of strategically deployed invective known only to (ret.) chief warrant officers. Besides his frequent essays and mini-commentaries on Facebook, he has a blog for his longer pieces:
http://www.stonekettle.com/
I daresay you won’t always agree with him, but I doubt you’ll ever come away from what he’s written without having enjoyed having your mind stretched.
Oh, and you can’t sign up to comment at Facebook; he’s way maxed out on his friends quota, the waiting list is well over a thousand. He does toss people out the airlock if they refuse to behave civilly, but that doesn’t often happen; he runs a tight ship.
That’s OK, I don’t do anything on Facebook but read. And I think I’d enjoying reading him. Thanks for the ref.
I think there will be revolts from within the government, all to make him look bad. Leaks. Doctors’ reports. Someone from the IRS saying something on background. It’ll all give him an excuse to resign a job he never really wanted or thought he would get or was prepared to do. He’ll go back to business with some lame excuse (medical or something) and leave us with Pence as a place-holder. That’s my prediction.
It all comes down to re-election poll numbers. If it looks like the House is going to lose their majority in the House because Trump is pulling them down, they’ll drop him like a steaming pile of dung that somehow ended up in their hands. If they look set to win re-election, they will go along with any damn thing at all.
I agree 100%, but have always thought the rubber will hit the road when Paul Ryan’s bill to essentially end SS and Medicare reaches his desk. Doe she sign and break his promise to his base? If he does, how bad do the approval numbers drop?
If he vetoes, does Ryan and other congressional Republican pull the plug?
That is the test.
See, what he is doing now is the easy stuff. Signing EO’s and selecting cabinet members and judges that your base likes is the low hanging fruit (although another bonehead – GWB – screwed that up with Harriet Miers). There is no downside (in their minds) to what he is doing there. But getting the hard stuff done that impacts members of your base is where it will all come to a head.
He’s awful, but unique enough that it’s helpful to perceive him, the GOP, and what they can and may do through that “awful” lens?
In their time, Nixon, Reagan, and GWB were also awful, reckless, and incompetent (or competently destructive). Then about a year and a half into their first term, Nixon and Reagan settled down for the midterms to limit potential losses.
The 2018 Senate map couldn’t be better for Republicans. Which gives Trump a lot of breathing room and prospects in the House may be just as good. Can Trump be awful enough that he jeopardizes any of the GOP senate seats? His awfulness may good bad enough to save the Democratic Senate seats.
This sort of reckless, incompetent awfulness: The Intercept – Press Secretary Sean Spicer Falsely Accuses Iran of Attacking a US Navy Vessel.
<blckquote>…
Pentagon Spokesman Christopher Sherwood confirmed to The Intercept that the attack was in fact conducted against a Saudi warship, and that the Pentagon suspects Houthi rebels. “It was a Saudi ship – it was actually a frigate” said Sherwood. “It was [conducted by] suspected Houthi rebels off the coast of Yemen.”
…
Remember the Maine!
Don’t have to go back that far.
Nope. “aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, and secret meetings in Prague.” All too recent.
“incident”.
You know who can settle this for us? Arthur Gilroy. Because, while the rest of us merely speculate, he’s the one here with the wisdom, forbearance and confidence to end every post with
Bet on it.
Be happy that you can at least bet on something. Ingrate.
When he has no theory of what’s to come, he retreats to insisting that we will find out (and that this truism warrants a a “Bet on it”). When I pointed out that he was simply arguing that the future would arrive and that this was obvious, he went to some lengths, semantically, to argue that many people do not “expect” the “future” to come; they are looking backward or whatever…and that led into Carlos Castaneda territory.
Jordan – your post made me chuckle. I know that the future will reveal itself in due time . . . but is that really offering insight into the situation.
Keep at it – I think you add value to this site.
Yikes – just read what I wrote, and it could be misconstrued if your snark meter is not set right — I was not trying to be snarky, I generally like what you add.
ag’s random ramblings?
Not seein’ it.
It’s all insane.
By 40-48 people oppose impeaching Trump.
So 40% of all Americans want to impeach him.
That, folks, is the sign of a banana republic. When significant numbers are willing to say they support removal of a democratically elected president two weeks into his president you have broken something very significant.
It gets worse: Trump’s approval rating in PPP is 47-49. Which means that precisely 1% of the US population that does not approve of Trump and opposes his impeachment.
Think about that for a second.
On what GROUNDS? The emolument clause? Do you think 1 in 10 even knows that that means? Not that it is clear what the clause means anyway.
Those who are for impeachment are no more reasonable that the Republicans who wanted to impeach Obama.
Democrats are embarrassing themselves. And pundits are making embarrassing arguments.
It’s like the bit in Monty Python:
Crowd: She’s a witch!!
Sir Lancelot: How do you know she is a witch?
John Cleese: Well, she turned me into a mute!
Sir Lancelot: A mute?
John Cleese: I got better
Crowd: Burn her anyway!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Seriously, does that number scare no one?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_2217.pdf
When significant numbers are willing to say they support removal of a democratically elected president two weeks into his president you have broken something very significant.
To quote Stanley Goodspeed, “well, gosh. Kind of a lot’s happened since then.”
What makes for a ground of impeachment?
Who said anything about impeachment? I quoted you as saying removal.
I cited the poll which talks about impeachment.
I think that generally speaking, people consider impeachment and removal to be synonymous, though I am quite aware that they are not. Perhaps the question would have been more interesting had they worded it differently.
Still, I think you are conflating the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ here. While I can see that there are both political and legal barriers to the ‘how’ I don’t think it’s at all ridiculous to support removing him from office.
democratically elected president
Well, with voter suppression, Putin interference and Comey, I think that phrase is debatable.
No – it isn’t.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. We had an election yes, but there was significant hinkyness involved, and the majority was denied, so the word “democratically” is doing a lot of work here.
The popular vote is irrelevant – he was elected under the same rules as the previous 44.
I’m not only talking about the popular vote, hence the comment about “hinkyness.” And if we ever have a democrat win under similar circumstances as Bush or Trump, we’ll see how quickly the popular vote becomes relevant.
Did those “rules” include improper intervention by the FBI twice in the last eleven days of the campaign? Because I missed those “rules”.
We can both accept the Electoral College result and lay claim to the fact that there were so many completely fucked up things about this campaign that Trump has very little legitimacy, and he has no legitimacy to rule by fiat.
I did what you often do: I simply declared something to be fact, without any immediately apparent evidentiary support!)
But meanwhile, I also demonstrated that your declaration is wrong.
Obviously wrong.
By debating what you declared not “debatable”. Thereby providing dispositive evidentiary support that you were wrong.
Surprisingly, many in a purported democracy are not too charitable towards a prez who prevailed despite losing the popular vote by the largest electoral college deviation ever.
Add in having an FBI chief who (for no compelling reason) broke long established precedent–and the “suggestions” of his superior–to successfully influence the election, and the revelations re Le Affaire Putin, which also could only aid Trumper.
So it should not surprise that very large numbers of citizens think Trump illegitimate. Nor are they absurd citizens in my view. They are basically saying they don’t accept him as the president, that the flukes and intentional unfair advantages he received are simply too great to accept with equanimity. A position that really should not surprise prez candidates that lose the popular vote, BTW, whatever the antidemocratic electoral college foists upon a revolted nation. I’m glad to see that the Repub party can’t “normalize” the disgusting electoral college, or Trump for that matter. He is a unique failure of our failed system.
Further, in his first week, Der Trumper succeeded in forcing the federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against an incompetent and illegal executive orders fueled entirely by racial and religious prejudice. He is also routinely tweeting baseless fantasies about 3 million illegals voting and that he “won” the popular vote.
There is no standard for “high crimes and misdemeanors” as far as I am aware. I don’t fault them for not
And it’s “newt”…from one Python lover to another!
I think it shows Democrats are every bit as irrational as Republicans.
It’s nonsense to talk about impeachment.
It would be a novel use of the constitution, but not an unreasonable one. Basically it would be a vote of no confidence, which our system doesn’t otherwise allow. But when you have a president who (1) was NOT the choice of the majority of the electorate, (2) is implementing policies that are both extreme and anathema to the majority, (3) exhibits gross incompetence, then I don’t think it is “nonsense” or “irrational” to talk about impeachment.
The counter-argument is that it is dangerous to stretch the constitutional system in this way. That’s a reasonable argument, but not so compelling that it automatically wins the discussion. It’s basically taking an originalist view (“the intention of the framers is what matters”) over a living constitution rule (“we should interpret the text in a way that is consistent with democratic values and current circumstances”).
It’s called the rule of law. You are arguing for the rule of the mob.
Hmm, what does that describe?
Yep – that argument is fundamentally fascistic.
No, I am not arguing for the rule of the mob. I’m arguing that we should follow the procedures defined in the constitution, which says that a president can be impeached with a majority vote in the house, and convicted with a 2/3rd vote in the Senate. This is the rule of law. The only debate is whether it’s wise to claim high crimes and misdemeanors when the “true” motivation is incompetence and democratic illegitimacy. I would be in favor of it, but I could see why some people would think it would establish a dangerous precedent.
impeachment is always a political act not a prosecutorial one, the burden of proof is only can you get the votes necessary to do so from Congress
If you don’t care about the meaning of words in the constitution you are right.
I don’t think people really grasp the arguments being made here.
The Presidents who were impeached did not meet the evidentiary standard for that outcome, but Congress did it anyway.
In other cases, there were Presidents who clearly committed high crimes and misdemeanors but were allowed to retain their position by Congress.
I’m not calling for Trump’s impeachment. I’m just pointing out, as unhappy as it can make us, that this ship has well and truly sailed a number of times in the history of our Nation.
he should be removed from power immediately.
. . . Affaire Putin”.
Here, let me help: “l’Affaire Putin”. (Which makes for a pretty serendipitously funny locution, since “putain”, meaning “whore”, would be pronounced identically to a francophone pronouncing “Putin” according to rules of French pronunciation, as I just noticed writing this.)
Was that a mute or a newt?
Newt. Good that got sorted out. 🙂
Well, we are all professionals here … sticklers for accuracy … always getting along in extreme cordiality … 2 of of 3 ain’t bad. 😂
That last one? A bit like going on a quest for the Holy Grail.
“On second thought, let’s not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.”
Thank you, because that picky detail was bugging me to an embarrassing degree!
I’m going for both scenarios. Since the Rep’s are experiencing calls, messaging & in person visits to their offices like they’ve never seen they are showing signs of waffling. Jason Chavitz gave up on his 3.3 million acre sell off just today after being bombarded by calls and visits.
Many of the Rep are telling staff to lock their doors, they’re cancelling town halls or running out the doors. And I’m sure they’re all thinking that this will die down. Thing is Trump himself stirs it up every hour of every day so the ‘it’ll die down’ premise is likely to be replaced by ‘geeze there’s even more of them than there was last week’.
Meanwhile the Secret Service will keep Trump blissfully free of the protestors. Congress does not have the slightest tolerance for heat so, despite their support for him today, they are melting fast.
Good points. You might be on to something there, the congressional GOP exhaustion factor. Even synthetic corporate-bred and fed hybrid organisms manufactured at Amgen still probably retain enough human feeling and response not to want to be constantly putting out someone else’s brush fires and covering for their blunders.
If the first two weeks of constant controversy and stupidity and extremism are a good indicator of what’s in store for the near future, look for Goopers to be watching the POTUS polls carefully as midterms approach. If Donald is down in the low 30s and it looks like major losses for the Repubs in midterms, then they may act.
Or they may need one final nudge –perhaps coming from the FP area where he’s ticked off yet another ally or major power, or gotten too cozy with my guy Vladimir, to where the Pentagon or CIA finally say enough. A phone call from a powerful well-placed insider at Langley is made to Ryan to let him know in no uncertain terms that he needs to act now, or else. The Emoluments Clause is the obvious choice as the tool but with Donald it could be a dozen other high crimes or misdemeanors. Or the CIA could manufacture a faux hcm — still plenty of willing agents over there who are tanned, rested and ready.
The MSM, already disinclined to cover Trump favorably, would be enthusiastic participants in the downing of Donald. Makes for great ratings for a year or so, plus they will get the same friendly corporate-friendly treatment policy wise from Pence.
a tolerance for perpetual chaos. I don’t think it is any accident that it was after Charles Koch spoke out against Trump’s immigration policy last week that we are starting some Rs growing a tiny bit of spine. Not much, yet, but time will tell.
First theory. Cowed and selfish. Their agenda trumps any love of or even concern for country.
Traitors all.
The question here is, do we accept the idea that there’s a “powers that be” group, above and beyond the elected government, that controls the nation, or don’t we?
I’m not talking about some perfervid conspiracy theory or a Hollywood-style “Star Chamber” — just some formal or informal gathering of business leaders, movers and shakers, power brokers etc. with their thumbs on the scale, to whatever degree. In the 1970s-1980s people talked about the Trilateral Commission in these terms; later it was SPECTRUM 7 (who represented, if I remember right, the overlap of CIA interests and the oil companies whose will was enacted by charter member George H. W. Bush, who represented both groups).
In other words, on a national or international scale, in whatever way is reasonable and not fantastical (and doesn’t indulge racist/Nazi theories about “banks” etc;), a collaborative will representing the various public and private interests.
If there is such a thing, I think that this group is already tired of Trump and is starting — or will start — to get seriously alarmed as events continue along their present course. Unrest in the streets, in Congress (with protracted hearings, etc.) will only exacerbate this. Global markets, trade agreements, delicate peace treaties…an entire world order is at stake.
So, steps will be taken. I’m not talking about Dallas-in-1963 type steps. I’m talking about a concerted effort to do what can be done do get the world off this page and onto the next one. (There are many who feel that Nixon was essentially ejected by some version of this “elite establishment,” as has been documented in a couple of books that got discredited and then a couple of more recent books — Russ Baker, I think — that revised the theory.)
It’s really a sort of existential question. If nobody’s minding the store, if there’s nobody here but us chickens, then, yes, we’re stuck with Trump for the duration.
An oddity of this blog is the post American Fascism at the top of the righthand column. Comment is disabled. It has been there for a long time, maybe even since the end of 2010 when CrapisKing wrote it, presumably posted it on this blog. Read it. its presence always gave me the creepy feeling that BooMan saw Fascism as a very real threat to the USA. I found the idea pretty extreme, even though I read Upton Sinclair’s ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ and heard Frank Zappa’s answer ‘And it did.’ I can’t decide whether Donald Trump is the embodiment of the Fascist leader of America, who some posters love to childishly refer to as Der Trump as if he is not a full-blooded American phenomenon. I do know however that he is not going away, no way no how, the whole political zoo and the entire military will have to forcibly remove him…and then along comes Pence, the same thing in more respectable guise. Let’s say the difference between Mussolini/Hitler and Franco/Salazar, who would probably be he best parallels to Trump/Pence if either of them ever decides to go so far.
I got there back in summer of 2015:
http://www.jordanorlando.com/ns/index.php/trump-is-hitler/
http://www.jordanorlando.com/ns/index.php/trump-is-hitler-part-ii/
Sinclair Lewis!
We haven’t even seen a single Jeffords.
It’s been two weeks.
Jeffords defected in May of Bush’s first year.
I’m not a huge fan of GWB, but equating Trump to him …
It’s clear what Trump is. It’s been a year of Trump, not just two weeks.
It was just as clear what Bush was! Anyone who didn’t see Bush coming, wasn’t looking.
No, of course not. Apologies for being unclear. Obviously Trump is a vastly greater threat, and the outrage has been commensurately bigger and faster.
I’m simply saying, if you create an “outrage metric” of Bush vs. Trump, the four months of Bush that leads to Jessup still translates (according to that metric) to more than two weeks of Trump. It will happen…faster than with Bush (as all the outrage has happened faster) but not that fast.
At the end of the day, most of the Senators are C+ individuals who make their decisions based on their polls and what the leadership tells them to do.
Therefore, if you’re asking what calamity has to occur to get them to vote Trump out, you have to ask, what calamity will cause these Senator’s polls to plummet and what calamity will cause the leadership to tuck tail and run?
Honestly, I think the only thing that can happen is that Trump gets in a tiff with conservatives and does something stupid. Currently, they have are so enamored with him, it’s hard to imagine it happening, but it could.
The closest thing we probably have is Russia. Some sort of sexual scandal, unless it involves children, won’t do it because the evangelicals have already shown by electing him that sexual shenanigans are only a sin if you’re a Democrat.
My answer: a treasonous action involving Russia in pursuit of a personal / business aim. All but the hairiest of knuckle draggers will survive a poll hit after supporting that.
Once he gets firm control of the military/FBI/NSA/CIA all of the politics will be over. Round up any dissenters, Senators or otherwise, shoot them, send them to GitMo, whatever. The people will be the key … we must be prepared. Declare the Repblican brand a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION and treat them like ISIS.
A staged terrorist attack … on the tube … during the Super Bowl. Followed by Martial Law. Shit, here it comes.
Mexico. It’s really all about our neighbor to the south….Mexico.
I strongly recommend this article at Lawyers, Guns, and Money
It explains some of the myths that Americans have about Mexico.
If Trump follows through with his threat about our military and Mexico, he won’t be POTUS for very long afterwards. Crossing the border of a peaceful neighbor with virtually no military (read the article…) would without a doubt be impeachable, and no way could anybody..including republicans…stand by while he killed Mexicans. Disrespecting the Mexican president is so incredibly obtuse, and damaging to our security, it boggles the mind.
.
I think this is an interesting article by Naomi Klein about how we got here and what we have to expect when we respond. How we respond will have a lot to do how long do with whether Mr Trump remains in office and what we do if and when he does leave office. https:/www.thenation.com/article/trumps-crony-cabinet-is-full-of-scared-losers
I don’t think the GOP’s hesitancy is due to fear of Trump, because in truth they could get rid of him tomorrow if they wanted to. Their hesitancy is due to the fact that, while he is doing great harm (even to them), he is also a big help to them. A lot of his agenda is an extreme version of their own. Not the overt racism, the anti-Muslim crusade, the really crazy stuff you’re talking about, but the other stuff which is just as crazy, but more “acceptable” — most of his cabinet, the anti-environmental agenda, the job creation (actually the two are closely related), the deregulation, the lowering of taxes for the rich, the repeal of Obamacare (though it’s probably not feasible even for these maniacs) etc. And there’s a good reason for this — it’s the part of his agenda that they put in, but he has the popular support to implement. Whereas Pence, who was not even elected and doesn’t have the same kind of base, might not.
The GOP want him in as long as needed to get that agenda up and running, and once it is they will be more than happy to get rid of him. The thing is, what’s the cutoff point? I don’t know, and I doubt they know either, because the longer they can keep him in the more they benefit, but they also know things are getting more and more dangerous (even for them, politically speaking). I’m trying to think of a metaphor for this, maybe burning the candle at both ends is it. At some point your going to have to drop ithat candle, but you want to hold onto it as long as possible.
After reading the many thoughtful comments on this thread, I’m going to slightly revise what I said above. It won’t be the GOP that will decide the point at which Trump gets dumped. It will be the PTB. It will be based on national security concerns, not political ones.
Reichstag fire and Enabling Act to go yet. #100days
At the rate we’re going, I suppose a Kristallnacht should be in the offing somewhere by the 100 day mark. Cue up the angry mob. Plenty of scapegoats to choose from.
Americans of all ethnicities, religions and cultures will rush to defend whichever scapegoats this immoral Administration identifies.
That is being made very clear. We have to be determined to continue to make it clear thru the difficult days ahead.
But that would be the only way I could see it happening.
Or if Democrats manage a miracle in 2018 and take over the house. The way this is going, at least we’ll be energized.
Whether he lasts a term or not, history is going to be very unkind to him. I hope he will be alive when history starts writing about what a horrible president* he was. And, I hope it hurts as no one else could hurt him. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Trump’s views will be normalized by a strong economy. The left should root for the worst recession of our lifetimes.
With Trump’s set of extremely regressive tax and economic policies, even if there were to be overall economic growth in the next months and years, it will not benefit the middle and lower classes. He will not keep his promises to these people. The only way Trump survives that with middle class whites is if he blames the failure to improve their wages on the unwillingness of the Legislative and Judicial branches to get rid of all the brown and black people like he wanted to.
Ah yes, a new and improved, English language version of the stab in the back myth.
They will get rid of him when it starts to cost the 1% money in lost values of their holdings.
Hackneyed optimism is what’s always made your site the best lefty blog left in the blogosphere. So please keep it up. Amp it up if you can.
Looking back on the Bush II administration from 2001 through 2008, it’s hard to see how much bigger the fuckups can be with this iteration of Republican dominance. When the president is (certifiably) crazier than even the worst of the other Republicans, I think he just provides cover. That’s why a lot of us wanted Obama to be an even bigger fascist, socialist, Muslim, pinko, Kenyan, commie traitor than he was during his first two years than he was. Republicans seem to know (intuitively?) that the faster and more boldly they move the harder it is for Democrats to change the rules later. Democrats, incrementalists, always want to take baby steps and when they lose, because they just want to take baby steps, we suffer setbacks that we never recover from. Baby steps that Democratic leaders hail as great acheivements end up sounding like lies, bigger lies even than the audacious ones Republicans tell as a matter of course.
So, we’ve got Bush III now, or Nixon IV, or Hoover VII or however you want to add it up. They all served out their terms. Two of them got reelected. Without a Democratically controlled House and Senate, Trump will be around for the duration. And fewer and fewer bold Democratic leaders will see an upside to fighting on such a lilly-livered team.
A Leaven for your hackneyed optimism?
What would you replace the Trump administration with?
The Pence administration?
Another non-elected President like Ford?
A coup d’etat of the Trumpista military?
There are lots of other possibilities. What exactly is the both possible and desirable outcome from here?
I think a Pence presidency following a Trump impeachment would be a crippled, lame duck affair. The Republicans would have the raw numbers to ram through their agenda but their actual political power would be hamstrung by the desire for re-election and it would be relatively easy for the Democrats to peel off a few senators here and there to prevent any real accomplishments dismantling the state.
That’s why I think it won’t actually happen outside of some enormous mass movement like an ongoing national work stoppage or some such. But if it did happen I think it would be all upside for the Dems, Pence’s negative qualities notwithstanding.
As I commented to Shaun Appleby a while ago: Pence could blow up America; Trump could blow up the world.
There is no conceivable desirable outcome, so what is possible is a moot point. One can make a somewhat plausible lesser-of-two-evils argument (Christian Dominionist Pence less apocalyptic than Der Trumper), but both simply suffer from differing forms and levels of mental illness and lack of empathy. There is no acceptable political option.
To be probative, opinion polls (to the extent anyone can place any credence in them after Nov 2016) now need to be regional, not national. Since the US is now effectively two different nations (at least), “national” polls are an oxymoron and meaningless.
The anecdotal evidence is that Trump state majorities continue to be ecstatic over his actions and Crackpot Cabinet. The US is effectively breaking up; there is no consensus on a single issue, nor is future consensus likely. We are engaged a political battle to the death.
War does not seem likely to politically harm Der Trumper (or Repub control), nor grotesque presidential malfeasance, nor terror attacks arising from his manifest incompetence. I suppose a major recession could, since the driving mentality of most Americans is material and “economic”. If a governmental action would (with certainty) drive another species to extinction but (arguably) save one job, it will be gleefully taken.
America, circa 2017…
There are at least 65 million voters who did not vote for Trump, and he is ignoring them.
There are at least 4 million people willing to get out and do something in the way of street action.
Those are the base constituencies of an opposition party against Trump regardless of the allocation of the electoral college.
Anectdotal evidence is just another form of narrative; one must ask who is pushing the narrative.
In principle over half of the voters are in opposition to Trump. What must an opposition do as an opposition party to gain control of the government, given that numerically it is a majority. And not necessarily silent at all.
I’m so old I remember the first Earth Day and the hopefulness of the so-called Environmental Movement of the 60s-70s — which looks pretty naive in hindsight.
It seemed then we had turned a corner. For a while there, it would have seemed shameful to (I presume) a strong majority that a mere “job” would be prioritized over, and justify the extinction of, an entire species.
Decades of rightwing propaganda (decrying “fish over people”, etc.) have now reversed that to the point where your statement seems practically inarguable.
Which is a horrible, immoral change.
In light of which it’s hard to argue that “we” (in the collective sense, though many of us individually won’t) don’t deserve what’s coming.
No. He’s not going to last. The Republicans would be perfectly happy with Pence as President. He’s one of them and enthusiastic about everything that matters to them. He’s consistent and predictable and is unlikely to start a war deliberately or inadvertently. He’s not going to have the personal and financial scandals that Trump has had and will continue to have. He’s not a fan of Putin. Another consideration: Neither Tillerson nor Mattis will put up with Bannon and Kushner and Flynn telling them what to do for long. Doubtless McConnell and Ryan won’t want to put up with them either. Donny and his hangers on will wear out their welcome with the Republican leadership quickly; the Republican brand will start to suffer and then one way or another Donnie will be forced out.
Minus some major catastrophe, Strongman Trump probably has 8 years. At this point, 8 years is pretty much baked into the cake.
My opinion is that Trump will replace William Henry Harrison as having the shortest presidency.
The level of anger/hatred is so strong and unprecedented that I would say the probability of assassination is strong (hasten to say, I’m predicting, not advocating that). The aftermath will not be pretty, I can guarantee that.