Thought for the Day

[Stavros]

I read a comment to a NYT article that suggests the President if he loses the election, can still be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Given that COVID-19 seems to be rampant in the White House and the two top guys don’t care and have even tried to cover it up, are there not legal grounds for removing them if it can be shown they are guilty of ‘reckless endangerment’ in relation to White House staff?
It would mean Nancy Pelosi being caretaker President until January, and the first woman to be President.

i had hoped she would retire but maybe she wants to beat Dianne Feinstein’s record. Or maybe a reform should force Senators and Congressional reps to retire at 65?

[broncofan]

I agree that they shouldn't turn the other cheek and 'play nice' because the other side will never stop behaving badly if they don't suffer consequences for it. However, you also don't want the system to devolve further into a 'tit for tat' game where both sides seek maximum advantage whenever they have the opportunity. So I think they need to focus on lasting reforms to address the shortcomings in the system that Republicans have taken advantage of. Maybe the Dems need a carrot and stick approach where they go harder if Republicans refuse to cooperate, but are prepared to moderate if the other side cooperates in supporting system reforms.

I think this is going to be important although it will be difficult to patch up all the areas that can be exploited if one party acts in bad faith and the other does not. I've thought about it and one tit for tat I still support is adding more Justices to the Supreme Court.

The effect of Republicans stealing one seat is that they have a majority that can impede voting reforms that prevent voter suppression and they can roll back civil rights, which they are primed to do. Without their made up rule, they would have appointed one Justice and Garland would be on the Court.

I also think that Democrats should restore rule of law, which does not require passage of new laws but restores an institution that will enforce the law without respect to partisan politics. That means the new Attorney General will be unimpeded in prosecuting corruption and other violations of criminal law by members of the Trump administration.

Edit: this is all a hypothetical assuming the Democrats win the election and both houses of Congress, both of which are far from a sure thing. If you look at the Supreme Court ruling on Wisconsin and the likely effect it will have on at least some ballots, it's even more uncertain.

[filghy2]

I think this is going to be important although it will be difficult to patch up all the areas that can be exploited if one party acts in bad faith and the other does not. I've thought about it and one tit for tat I still support is adding more Justices to the Supreme Court.

It's like the old joke about the Irishman who was asked for directions: "If I wanted to be going there I wouldn't be starting from here".

Interestingly, the Australian government has just announced two new appointments to our highest court (which don't need to be confirmed by Parliament). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-...ralia/12823720
It's so uncontroversial that the average Australian would probably be unaware of it. That's probably how it should be, but I can't tell you how to get there from where you are.

[Stavros]

Even if Biden wins the Presidency, and it looks more likely to be him than the other guy, the big takeway from this election is the fact that 'Trumpism' is here to stay, though we don't know fow how long. David Smith put it well-

"When some Americans protested “This is not who we are”, Trump voters replied: “This is exactly who we are – and we’re not going anywhere.”
“The so-called moral outrage around Trump’s presidency did not produce any substantive shift in his Republican support,” tweeted Eddie Glaude, a professor at Princeton University and author of Democracy in Black. “In fact, he expanded his base among white voters. Trump continues to flourish in the intersection of greed, selfishness and racism.”
Now, if Trump wins the election, Trumpism wins. But if Trump loses the election, Trumpism wins too.
A sense of grievance over a narrow defeat, fuelled by the president’s bogus claims of fraud and amplified by conservative media, will thrive again a Democratic president. The “Make America Great Again” movement – with its nostalgia for a country that never was – was built for opposition rather than incumbency."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ntial-election

Here is the thought for the day: he may be tied up in litigation over the next four years, but as the man who created this 'base' that now defines the Republican Party, not as the Party of Lincoln, but the Party of Trump, I can not only see him maintaining four more years of rallies across the country, and insult and abuse across Social Media, the question now posed is: can anyone replace him and maintain his broad message, that Government is the Problem, not the Solution?

So who will run for the POT in 2024? The man who lost in 2020. Will anyone dare to challenge him for the leadership?

In the end, he wasn't debt and buried, but survives, and we do in fact get 'Four More Years'...and you thought it was all over...

[Stavros]

And here we are, as predicted-

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1613613.html

Unless Tom Cotton, or Nikki Haley decide their time has come...

[Stavros]

The chilling thought for the day is that Bannon was not being sarcastic, and that merely by making such an outrageous statement he exhibits the contempt for Democracy in the US that underlines so much of the anxiety many people, inside and outside the US have about the way the country is going, and what its divisions mean for its future governance.

"Steve Bannon said a second term for Donald Trump should start by displaying the severed heads of Dr Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray on the White House "as a warning".
Speaking on his podcast The War Room, Mr Bannon - the president's former campaign strategist and senior counsellor - said putting their heads on pikes would be more suitable than a simple firing.
"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci, no I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Mr Bannon said.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you're gone."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1627108.html

[sukumvit boy]

Trump is now so hounded by debt,civil and federal lawsuits that many experts think he may leave the country . Also there is talk that he may have the audacity to "pardon himself " from the federal suites before leaving office.
Excellent article from The New Yorker here https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...afford-to-lose

[broncofan]

Trump is now so hounded by debt,civil and federal lawsuits that many experts think he may leave the country . Also there is talk that he may have the audacity to "pardon himself " from the federal suites before leaving office.
Excellent article from The New Yorker here https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...afford-to-lose

I'm going to read this right now. Without having read this article I have always wondered how the pre-emptive pardon would work. Does he have to admit the crime first? How specific does he have to be? Can they be blanket pardons for unenumerated crimes or acts? I might find out in the article or someone else, but this looks like it will be a good read. Thanks!

[broncofan]

I'm going to read this right now. Without having read this article I have always wondered how the pre-emptive pardon would work. Does he have to admit the crime first? How specific does he have to be? Can they be blanket pardons for unenumerated crimes or acts? I might find out in the article or someone else, but this looks like it will be a good read. Thanks!

Very good read. It says the issue of a self-pardon is an undecided legal question. It might not hold up in court. The reason I ask how it's done is that pardons often state the crimes or acts that are being pardoned. I don't know if Trump knows all the sources of legal liability he faces that are within the statutes of limitation. I did just see online that Nixon's pardon by Ford was a "full, free, and absolute" pardon for a time period. I don't think that should be allowed nor do I think the self-pardon should be either.

The good news is that pardons don't reach state level crimes. In New York this is a major source of legal liability he faces and the only way to avoid it is to remain President where his second term might outlast the statutes of limitation. He has possibly committed crimes for the Stormy payments and in bank loan and/or tax documents.

I wonder how his Real Estate empire can be sustained if he really can't get loans like the quoted banker in the article says. He has lots of debt coming due and foreclosures on properties would be the coup de grace for his ego.

He can probably be successful starting a media empire but I don't know if he or the people around him have the organizational ability to exploit his popularity.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

The chilling thought for the day is that Bannon was not being sarcastic, and that merely by making such an outrageous statement he exhibits the contempt for Democracy in the US that underlines so much of the anxiety many people, inside and outside the US have about the way the country is going, and what its divisions mean for its future governance.

"Steve Bannon said a second term for Donald Trump should start by displaying the severed heads of Dr Anthony Fauci and FBI director Christopher Wray on the White House "as a warning".
Speaking on his podcast The War Room, Mr Bannon - the president's former campaign strategist and senior counsellor - said putting their heads on pikes would be more suitable than a simple firing.
"Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci, no I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man," Mr Bannon said.
"I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put their heads on pikes, right, I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the programme or you're gone."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1627108.html

Nope the right wing racist Steve Bannon sure wasn't being sarcastic when he made those despicable and vile comments,which got him banned from Twitter.