|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The closeness of the polls is very concerning . . . .
It's not that unusual for the polls to be close around convention time. If they're still close in a few weeks, then we may have more cause to worry. If, on the other hand, Clinton moves back fairly quickly to the lead she had before the conventions, then it may be the Trump supporters who need to worry.
Trump is not worried. Neither are his supporters. It's all upside to them.
Hillary is a weak candidate, of even weaker character. She has been running for this office for most of 20 years and people just don't like her. Furthermore, if she hadn't married the man she did no one would even know her name.
It's Hillary and her supporters who are and will continue to be worried.
Rightfully so...
When Gordon Brown was fretting about the succession he used to remark that "they get sick of you after the first ten years". Hilary has been in the public eye since 1991, she's done two terms as First Lady, two terms in the United States Senate and a stint as Secretary of State. During this time she has been subjected to a withering stream of hostile commentary from the media and the Republican Party. By any normal calculus of politics the Democratic Party ought to have gone for someone with fewer hostages to fortune. The fact they didn't is partly because Hilary is, actually, rather good at this and secondly because given that the Republican Party were unable to find anyone better than a shouty millionaire with no discernible qualifications for the job mean that a great many of the usual calculations don't really come into play. Frankly, against Trump, the DNC could have announced that, with hindsight, the result of the 1980 Presidential Election was a bit harsh and Jimmy Carter could have another go. I'm not sure he'd win but it would be competitive. For all their faults you wouldn't have said that about Romney, McCain and Dole. Basically, you are doing something wrong when the other lot can put someone up on a platform of "I may have my faults, but I'm not going to blow up the world in a fit of pique". It is one of the iron laws of US politics that a Democrat does not get to hand the Presidency over to another Democrat unless the Grim Reaper intervenes. The Republicans had every chance of victory with honour but have decided to go for defeat and disgrace. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
Brexit has already increased instability and instability begets strife. Trump has threatened world peace with one paragraph and he's barely just been nominated. The world now isn't the one of decades past. A person with no concerns about this is a person without the intelligence to understand the consequences.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
Brexit has already increased instability and instability begets strife. Trump has threatened world peace with one paragraph and he's barely just been nominated. The world now isn't the one of decades past. A person with no concerns about this is a person without the intelligence to understand the consequences.
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid. We hope...
Even so, the prospect of Trump calling the shots in the White House situation room should give any thinking person an attack of the horrors.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... I don't personally view these developments as posing any greater risk of turning us all to ash than the crises and upheavals of decades long past.
You are of course entirely correct that there have been plenty of dreadful crises and dreadful ongoing states in the past, both distant and recent. Nobody can disagree with that.
That doesn't though, entitle anyone to be blasé about the present clutch of crises. It certainly doesn't permit anyone to vote for Trump because the world scraped by, dodged destruction, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, or that not everybody was within the range of the Mongol invasions of the C13.
Faced with a choice between a not very exciting candidate about whom many people have reservations and Mr Trump, I'd go so far as to say that it is actually a sin, rather than just stupid - they are not the same thing - to vote for Mr Trump. It's no good anyone excusing themselves by saying they don't reckon much to Mrs Clinton. Nor is there any point in saying you would rather have someone else. 'Someone else' doesn't happen to be standing. If you have a vote in this election - which of course I don't - she's the only alternative you've got.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Whether or not I am a thinking person is probably a topic for the Hot Place.
What I do think though is that overuse 'stupid' did nothing to stop the UK voting for Brexit neither will it stop the US public voting Trump.
Take a look at the world a 100 years ago if you want see dangerous, 76 years ago to see even more dangerous. Follow that with four and a half decades of tension that could well have resulted in the human civilisation being destroyed by it's own hand in the space of one day.
If change is coming we might as well embrace it as wallow in a pit of fear mongering. I agree things have changed from even one or two decades ago, one only has to watch films or footage from the mid 90's to see that.
It could well be the pace of cultural and technological change that has ushered in this, what many appear to experiencing as instability.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid. We hope...
This is what Brian Beutler describes as the "if Trump wins we could always stage a coup" position.
quote:
[Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell, doing damage control for Trump after the GOP presidential nominee threatened to abandon NATO allies, “chalk[ed] it up to a rookie mistake” — a degree of generosity he would obviously never show a Democratic presidential nominee. But the worst part about it is how McConnell explained his blasé attitude. “I think he’s wrong on that,” McConnell said. “I don’t think that view would be prevalent or held by anybody he might make secretary of state or secretary of defense.”
McConnell isn’t the first Republican to rationalize supporting Trump under the theory that Trump can be contained. But think about what this implies in an extreme scenario: Russia invades a NATO member state, Trump is inclined to abrogate the treaty, and the secretary of defense, what, mobilizes the military without the president’s approval? Here’s the Senate majority leader, the second-most powerful Republican in the country, shrugging off the tail risk of a Trump presidency, because if the going gets tough, the secretary of defense might just override Trump’s command and control of the military.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution says that the "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and here we have the Senate Majority Leader suggesting that it's okay if his own party's Presidential candidate is unfit to wield that power because his (notional) cabinet appointees would be willing to throw out the Constitution in a crisis.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's obvious that you detest Hillary Clinton. But are you more relaxed about Trump becoming Commander in Chief of the United States than her?
No more, no less.
One of them will win and I wouldn't vote for either if Jesus Christ walked up, warmed my coffee and politely asked me to do so.
The difference in the potential outcomes will be negligible in my life and in the world. I do have to admit I don't find the prospect of looking at or listening to Hillary for the next number of years appealing in any way.
She is a case study in fecklessness and mendacity and that vacant smile sends chills down my spine.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
The difference in the potential outcomes will be negligible in my life and in the world.
If only that were true.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'd go so far as to say that it is actually a sin, rather than just stupid - they are not the same thing - to vote for Mr Trump.
Amen.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If change is coming we might as well embrace it as wallow in a pit of fear mongering.
Ridiculous. That attitude would have had Europe all speaking German before 1946. The word stupid has not been overused, but under accepted.
75 years ago, the most powerful weapons were in the hands of people who considered the consequence of using them.* Today, those weapons are in close reach of those who will not. The world is a different place. A weakened EU and a US run by a president that has no clue, nor patience or temperament to get one, could have far more consequence than a few rough years.
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
*Confirmed by the Senate
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan et al cannot control Trump -now-. What makes you think they can do any better after next January? The Tooth Fairy is not going leave spines under their pillows.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
*Confirmed by the Senate
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Furthermore, if she hadn't married the man she did no one would even know her name.
And yet twenty years ago all the jokes were that if Hillary hadn't married the man she did nobody would even know his name.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
*Confirmed by the Senate
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
The Chiefs are appointed by the president from a group that owe their rank to, at least in part, political maneuvering.
And you are trusting the confirmation process to a group whose only qualification is getting elected. And if Trump becomes president, we shall quickly see the value of
that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
He gets the bathroom part wrong. Remembering Cait going over to use the bathroom and tweeting about it to Trump. That was one of the humane things he seemed to endorse.
But anyway...I left the evangelical church circles over this type of hubristic thinking.
It's child-like. A list of things that "prove" he's "right". Oh my gosh. Nope.
Who is to say any of the justices will die as everyone anticipates? Yes, some look like they are on the brink of that. But even if one dies, who is to say Trump gets a reasonable person even if "conservative"?
It's my hope that the not only straight white men will go out to vote.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
That may be his view, but what reason is that why it should be mine or anyone else's?
Rocinante, I may be completely wrong on this. Perhaps a transatlantic shipmate could advise more authoritatively on this. But I think one of the many big differences between the ways the US and the UK work, is that the US doesn't have the same sort of permanent civil service that we have. So when a new President comes in, all the equivalent of our top civil servants lose their jobs, and the incoming president appoints a clean sweep of tame nominees to run things.
I think the same goes for the diplomatic service, but I don't know to what extent it applies to the military.
[ 30. July 2016, 17:46: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
That may be his view, but what reason is that why it should be mine or anyone else's?
He is an opinion-leader in relatively moderate evangelical circles. Perhaps not moderate by Ship standards, but much more moderate than the caricature backwoods fundies.
He's making an explicit appeal to the kind of people who are staunch conservatives on DH issues but who have enough decency to baulk at voting for someone as nasty and incompetent as Trump, urging them to vote for him anyway.
I think he starts going wrong near the beginning when he appeals to Jer 29:7 "pray for the peace of the city" (a verse I often appeal to and actually got into print in the local paper today in our current unpleasantness) - and goes on to interpret the "city" as being the USA and nowhere and nobody else. It goes downhill from there on in.
[ 30. July 2016, 18:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
*Confirmed by the Senate
Exactly-- they are chosen by the President. One thing Trump has demonstrated clearly both in the campaign and in the business world and on The Apprentice is that he loves to surround himself with yes-men. The Donald is not going to select a chief of staff who's going to challenge him, much less prevent him from doing something stupid. He will select folks who will tell him how brilliant he is, and when it goes south, assure him it's all great because he's great. In fact, Trump has made noises about selecting his kids for those slots.
So no, no hope for humanity there.
[ 30. July 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Conservative evangelical heavyweight Wayne Grudem, who compiled IVP's benchmark Systematic Theology, endorses Trump.
Yet another reason for this evangelical to reject Grudem's systematic theology. I don't need another reason, but it's always nice to have a spare.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation. I don't know enough about US governance to know if these are all political appointees, (I know the chairman of the joint chiefs is), but the confirmation process would presumably block any really unsuitable appointments?
So the scenario is that in the event that President Trump decides to leave America's NATO allies flatfooted in the face of a Russian invasion, high ranking military officers will take the U.S. to war with Russia against the express orders of their Commander in Chief? I won't claim to be an expert on such things, but civilian control of the military is usually talked up a lot in most democracies, and individual generals assuming the authority to start wars with Russia on their own initiative is something that's grist for nightmarish dark comedies, not serious foreign policy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Nice movie link. And very much to the point.
Loving Trump seems very Strange to me.
I'll get my coat ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I vaguely remember an episode of the West Wing where Toby Ziegler advises some visiting VIPs from Eastern Europe who are basically setting up a new country, not to copy the US constitution as it puts too much power in the hands of one individual. Now I see why.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
It's my hope that the not only straight white men will go out to vote.
IMO, age will prove a major factor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Once upon a time the fear of the left was that if the elected a leader who could make a difference, the Americans would arrange a coup. Now the hope is that if Trump is elected, the Americans will arrange a coup. Makes me sick, motherfucker, how far we done fell.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
He's making an explicit appeal to the kind of people who are staunch conservatives on DH issues
I suppose the other difference between the UK and US is that in the US is that staunch social conservatives are very unlikely to be anything other than staunch economic conservatives [The section on 'minorities' is indicative - presumably evangelicals feel they should be seen to care for the poor, but also feel taxes should be lower. Though exactly why lower taxes should help improve schools is never explained].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Women will vote, you betcha. We are not stupid. I know of no Hispanic persons who will not vote =-- they are registering in droves. There are voter registration drives for Muslim-Americans as well, and they are wildly successful as you can easily imagine. And I trust Barack Obama will call upon every African-American to turn out. So, straight white elderly men, sucks to be you, possibly for the first time in history.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
duchess--
Good to see you! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Who is to say any of the justices will die as everyone anticipates? Yes, some look like they are on the brink of that. But even if one dies, who is to say Trump gets a reasonable person even if "conservative"?
They can retire, too. And Justice Ginsberg has said that the (next) president probably will need to appoint several new ones.
I'm not glad Justice Scalia is dead, but I am glad he's off the court. However, even he was probably more reasonable than anyone T would appoint. And I suspect Scalia would get sick of T.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
I'm thinking that Justice Ginsberg, bless her soul, will announce her retirement soon after President Clinton is inaugurated.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So, straight white elderly men, sucks to be you, possibly for the first time in history.
Except, of course, for those straight white elderly men who support Hillary. (Yes, they do exist. I know quite a few.)
[ 31. July 2016, 01:48: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The president is surrounded by people who know what they're doing whose job it is to prevent the president from doing anything stupid.
The president is surrounded by people of their own choice* who advise him/her.
*Confirmed by the Senate
Exactly-- they are chosen by the President. One thing Trump has demonstrated clearly both in the campaign and in the business world and on The Apprentice is that he loves to surround himself with yes-men. The Donald is not going to select a chief of staff who's going to challenge him, much less prevent him from doing something stupid. He will select folks who will tell him how brilliant he is, and when it goes south, assure him it's all great because he's great. In fact, Trump has made noises about selecting his kids for those slots.
So no, no hope for humanity there.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff serve at the pleasure of the president; he chooses candidates with the advice and consent of the Senate. Trump couldn't select his children since the chiefs of staff of the services must be general officers, and the chairman must be an officer.
The role of the JCS is purely advisory - they're not in the chain of command, which runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders, who are also nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Their job is basically to carry out the president's orders, stupid or not, as long as they're not actually illegal.
(In case you were wondering which US Combatant Command considers your home to lie within its Area of Responsibility, here's a handy map.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
i was speaking of the cabinet positions
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
If this thread is to be believed, the U.S. is basically a dictatorship which relies heavily on the people picking a benign and rational dictator. Did the founding fathers envisage a situation where the people might elect a narcissistic, unstable buffoon?
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Government authority is divided by separation of powers which is a US constitutional principle. The relationship between that principle and the power of the President as Commander in Chief is complex and subject to dispute.
Here is a link.
Under Real Life pressures in the Situation Room, military commanders would be pretty hard pushed to refuse a direct order from the Commander in Chief on constitutional grounds. I've no doubt they would argue, or could obfuscate, if they thought it was an illegal or really stupid order. But essentially they are subject to chain of command.
Personally, I wouldn't want Donald Trump anywhere near the Situation Room, never mind top of the chain of command. Whereas I'm sure Hillary Clinton could handle that responsibility just fine.
Which is why I thought romanlion's dismissive complacency on that point was unwise.
YMMV
[ 31. July 2016, 08:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
And in other news ...
This Presidential Candidate is a complete and utter asshole.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
rocinante--
The US gov't has a balance and a separation of powers. We have 3 branches of gov't: executive (president), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court). They each can do certain things on their own, but they can be blocked by the others.
And, of course, neither Congress nor the Supremes would be in the room if the president pushed the button to launch nukes.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Did the founding fathers envisage a situation where the people might elect a narcissistic, unstable buffoon?
No, because the founding fathers did not envision a process by which the president was elected by the people at all. They designed a process by which the president was elected by an electoral college (with the method of choosing electors left to the states) or by Congress. And, of course, they assumed that only white property-owning males would typically have the right to vote.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Did the founding fathers envisage a situation where the people might elect a narcissistic, unstable buffoon?
No, because the founding fathers did not envision a process by which the president was elected by the people at all. They designed a process by which the president was elected by an electoral college (with the method of choosing electors left to the states) or by Congress. And, of course, they assumed that only white property-owning males would typically have the right to vote.
So the assumption was that people like Donald Trump (a white, property-owning male) had legitimate and valid political opinions, while people like Hillary Clinton (a white, property-owning non-male) did not. I can understand why a group of wealthy white guys might think the only people with worthy to wield political power were their fellow wealthy white guys. I'm not so sure as to why this is still cited today as a legitimate sign of political moderation. "Of course they're sane and reasonable people. They're rich, melanin-deprived, and have penises! What more proof do you need?"
Interestingly not all the founders thought "male" had to be a requirement. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 allowed women to vote provided they met the property requirement ("worth fifty pounds proclamation money"). This persisted until 1807, when the franchise was removed from the women of New Jersey.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not so sure as to why this is still cited today as a legitimate sign of political moderation.
I didn't cite it as a legitimate sign of political moderation. I cited it as a counter to the suggestion that the founding fathers envisioned a situation where "the people" elected the president. Under the system envisioned by the founding fathers, most of "the people" had no suffrage.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
rocinante: quote:
I was thinking of the military Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the president what is and isn't militarily practicable and advisable in any given situation.
And if he ignores their advice, what then? Military coup? Another civil war? Does the American constitution have a clause covering what to do if the President is insane?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
It does - the 25th Amendment. The vice president and a majority of the cabinet can declare him disabled, making the VP acting president. If the president contests this, Congress must vote by a 2/3 majority of both houses within 21 days to uphold the declaration, otherwise the president resumes his office.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Does the American constitution have a clause covering what to do if the President is insane?
Yes. Section four of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment states:
quote:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Insanity would fall under the definition of "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". Of course the bar for such a thing is set deliberately high. In the hypothetical being considered Mike Pence and a majority of Trump-appointed cabinet secretaries would have to be willing to publicly declare that Trump is mentally unfit for office.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Pity section 4 doesn't allow for an advance declaration re a candidate.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I repeat: if the GOP is not willing or able to discipline Trump now, what makes anyone think they'll be able to do it after he's sworn in?
It is also worth noting that the powers of the Presidency have increased greatly in our lifetime. This is a link from the Washington POST, sorry if you've used up your free ones but tomorrow is August 1.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Some time ago, Barnabas put three options for republicans voting for Trump. They were something like:
1. Squeeze your arsecheeks together and hope you don't get screwed;
2. Squeeze your arsecheeks together and hope the party talks Trump out of screwing you.
I believe that s/he missed the third option, from a Republican perspective: Anyone but Hilary, literally. I mean, Dennis Rodman instead of Hilary if that's what it takes.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Not Dennis Rodman. He was buddies with the previous Dear Leader of N. Korea. Not sure if he knows the current one.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Actually, he's buds with this Dear Young Leader. The kid loves him some basketball.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, then, perhaps Dennis Rodman could be some sort of special envoy to N. Korea. But *not* US president! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
How about Harrison Ford? He was a great president in "Air Force One". And he can fly a helicopter, if necessary. He's done search and rescue work.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Trump has an ace in the hole. If Gary Johnson got say 10 electoral votes, Hillary got 269 and Trump got the rest, I think the vote goes to the House of Representatives. Thanks to district gerrymandering, the House has an inbuilt GOP advantage.
So if you are a member of the GOP and you can't stand either Clinton or Trump, a vote for Johnson might get you Trump anyway.
I said it pages before. If the choice in your view is between a louse and a double-louse, vote louse. You know it makes sense. At least this year.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... I said it pages before. If the choice in your view is between a louse and a double-louse, vote louse. You know it makes sense. At least this year.
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It ought to be obvious.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Trump has an ace in the hole. If Gary Johnson got say 10 . . . .
That's a huge and highly unlikely if, though. In all but two states, the candidate with the plurality of votes in a state gets all of the electoral votes for that state. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska (9 electoral votes total), where electors are determined by who gets the plurality in each congressional district, with the remaining two electors being determined by who gets the plurality statewide.
I'd put the chances of Gary Johnson getting more votes than Clinton or Trump in a congressional district in Nebraska or Maine as very low, and the chances of him winning an entire state at next-to-nil.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
