News I feel just like this sometimes, lately

[collinsmark]

I feel just like this sometimes, lately. (Well, first since around early November of last year, then pretty persistently since late January.) (Actually, it really first all started back in late June.)

[Source: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/a-realistic-alien-invasion]

[Edit: I'm kidding of course. Yet every day I palm my face, wondering how we got here.]

 

[Borg]

I know what you mean. I've felt like issuing a formal apology to the rest of the world for a few weeks now.

 

[russ_watters]

Modern western civilization is awesome. I don't get the despondency.

 

[Borg]

Modern western civilization is awesome. I don't get the despondency.

Yes, it is.

 

[collinsmark]

Modern western civilization is awesome. I don't get the despondency.

Yes, it is awesome , assuming that it still exists and isn't on its deathbed .

Hopefully, we can pull ourselves out of this mess in time, one way or the other.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, it is awesome , assuming that it still exists and isn't on its deathbed .

Hopefully, we can pull ourselves out of this mess in time, one way or the other.

Well, there was a car accident on the highway this morning that cost me 10 minutes on my drive. Is that the "mess" you meant? They were cleaning it up when I drove past, so it should be fine by now.*

Life has been soooooo good for so long that many westerners have never seen anything significantly bad and most others don't remember. As a result, people perceive anything less than their view of perfect as a civilization-ending catastrophe. People need to chillax. Enjoy a Super Bowl party tomorrow.

*That's only half a joke: it is also related to a real example of the problem I was describing in the middle: a couple of years ago on that very same road toward the quiet part of the suburban southeastern Pennsylvania, a guy shot a woman through her car in a road rage incident. She lived and reported she had no idea what she'd even done to anger him. Odds are, she was going to slow or accidentally cut him off as he was driving in the Indy 500 -- which was a serious enough #firstworldproblems to be worthy of shooting her. That is the current state of affairs in the US.

 

[Borg]

For me, it's like watching the movie Idiocracy in real life and thinking "Oh, now I see how they got in that situation".

 

[NTL2009]

So we've got a new President who is lacking in experience, got elected with a hollow campaign slogan chanted incessantly by large groups of his supporters, many would say got into office with votes along racial lines, with his supporters giving him accolades before he even does anything positive, and may not have gotten into office w/o the help of leaked information.

But many who are despondent today are singing the praises of former President Obama, who I described above in 2009. So maybe give the new guy a chance?

One pundit said something like - the people who are willing to give President Trump a chance take his words figuratively, but seriously; while others take him literally, but not seriously.

And if some of the above went over your heads, the accolades refer to the Nobel Peace Prize, and the leaked information was the "sealed" divorce papers of his rival (Jack Ryan, his wife is Jeri Ryan, well known to Star Trek fans) in the 2004 Illinois Senate race...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ryan

When Jack Ryan's campaign for an open United States Senate seat in Illinois began in 2003, the Chicago Tribune newspaper and WLS-TV, the local ABC affiliate, sought to have his records released. Both Jeri and Jack agreed to make their divorce, but not custody, records public, saying their release could be harmful to their son.

On June 18, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider agreed to release the custody files. The decision generated much controversy because it went against both parents' direct request and reversed the decision to seal the papers in the best interest of the child. It was revealed that six years earlier, Jeri had accused Jack Ryan of asking her to perform sexual acts with him in public, and in sex clubs in New York, New Orleans, and Paris. Jeri described one as "a bizarre club with cages, whips, and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling." Jack denied these allegations. Although Jeri only made a brief statement, and she refused to comment on the matter during the campaign, the document disclosure led Jack to withdraw his candidacy; his main opponent, Barack Obama, then won the 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois.

Getting to the Senate gave Obama the exposure he needed to make a Presidential run. W/o that, who knows?

 

[Borg]

So maybe give the new guy a chance?

Trump has his chance and his actions speak volumns. I've never liked people who try to make themselves look good by tearing others down. Doing it on the campaign trail is unfortunately normal in this country even though he took it to a whole new level. Anyone who disagrees with him gets the focus of his inane tweets - judges, gold star families, TV personalities, etc. Now that he's on the world stage, he does the same thing to every country except Russia. His playbook has one play - scorched earth. The rest of the world will tire of this and will likely retaliate in ways that will hurt this country. Of course, for Trump's supporters, it will be because the rest of the world didn't give him a chance.

 

[NTL2009]

... I've never liked people who try to make themselves look good by tearing others down. Doing it on the campaign trail is unfortunately normal in this country even though he took it to a whole new level. Anyone who disagrees with him gets the focus of his inane tweets - judges, gold star families, TV personalities, etc. ...

And I agree with much of that. I cringe at some of the things he has said, or at least the way he said them. And you are free of course to disagree with my next statement, and I expect you will, but I get the sense (to be proven yet), that in his heart, he wants to do the right thing. I never got that sense from HRC, she just lied to the public about serious matters (handling of classified material), and not so serious matters ("under sniper fire" - she wasn't, so why lie?) - whatever seemed convenient or expedient. No need to rehash that, but we had a choice to make. I understand, and respect that other people had reasons to make another choice. I voted for Bernie in the Primary, because my top choices on the R side didn't have a chance at that point (Carly Fiorina was #1 for me at the time - but she never gained traction). And of course your 'tearing others down' comment goes both ways - let's not forget HRC's "deplorable' comment:

you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. ... Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Now that's how to gain friends and influence people! Not!

I will add, I don't think people would have such a negative view of Pres Trump if they discounted the media, and went to the source of the information to understand the full context - no editing, no editorializing. My news feed is full of headlines "xyz happened, (and gosh is it bad!)", instead of "xyz happened" and letting ME decide if it is good or bad. It's getting tiring to have to search down sources for just about everything I read or hear these days. I only have time for so much of it, just got to tune out the rest, because I can't trust it.

And by give him a chance, I mean more than two weeks.

 

[Mark44]

So we've got a new President who is lacking in experience, got elected with a hollow campaign slogan chanted incessantly by large groups of his supporters, many would say got into office with votes along racial lines, with his supporters giving him accolades before he even does anything positive

Sounds pretty much like Jan. 20, 2009.

• Lacking in experience - check, unless you count "community organizer" as meaningful preparation for becoming a U.S. president
• Hollow campaign slogan - check, "Hope and Change"
• Accolades - check, Nobel Peace Prize

 

[Borg]

...let's not forget HRC's "deplorable' comment:

Now that's how to gain friends and influence people! Not!

I will add, I don't think people would have such a negative view of Pres Trump if they discounted the media, and went to the source of the information to understand the full context

I'm sure that you know that she said that in response to the frequent news reports of Trump supporters who were openly assaulting protesters at his rallies - egged on by Trump no less. You want people to understand Trump in context and yet you are taking Clinton's deplorables comment out of context.

And by give him a chance, I mean more than two weeks.

I have completely stopped watching the evening news because I can't stomach hearing about his latest tweets against his pariah of the day and how the world is reacting. The damage that he has already done to our county's relationships around the world is astounding. To me, he has epically failed in just two weeks both at home and abroad. What would be an acceptable amount of time in your view? It would also be nice to know what you think would be considered a failure on his part that doesn't involve comparing it to Clinton or Obama. I'm really trying to understand the mindset of giving him more of a chance than he's had already.

 

[NTL2009]

What would be an acceptable amount of time in your view? ...

I was going to jokingly say "eight years?", but you probably wouldn't see the humor in that and it might ruin your day. ;)

Well, I would say certainly not until he at least has his cabinet in place, plus some time for them to actually get settled into the job. But hey, that's just me.

As far as back-and-forth on the 'deplorables' comment, this is a "Current News" thread, and I'm afraid those discussions might get shut down by the mods? I don't know how strict they are on that.

I have also almost completely stopped watching any news because the media is so lazy, sloppy, just trying to stir things up for ratings, or just plain biased. I see the headlines in my news feeds, and try to research the sources if I feel it is important for me to understand. And we are not alone, the news media's favor-ability ratings are in the tank.

 

[Borg]

Well, I would say certainly not until he at least has his cabinet in place, plus some time for them to actually get settled into the job.

Still pretty vague on the time plus no statement of what failure would be in your view.

As far as back-and-forth on the 'deplorables' comment, this is a "Current News" thread, and I'm afraid those discussions might get shut down by the mods? I don't know how strict they are on that.

Yes, I'm sure that this is pushing the limits of the mod's tolerance but that didn't stop you from originally going into detail about Clinton's deplorables and the Obama "what if" scenario. I don't wish to derail the thread any further since it will be locked eventually. I just hoped to get some straight answers about Trump without more stories of everything but Trump.

 

[russ_watters]

What would be an acceptable amount of time in your view?

100 days seems to be a common benchmark. It is enough time to get some significant policy work done -- though part of his travel ban was for 120 days, so that is the deadline for it to be replaced with a permanent policy.

It would also be nice to know what you think would be considered a failure on his part that doesn't involve comparing it to Clinton or Obama.

That is going to be difficult because people aren't going to agree on many/most policy actions, so one person's success is another's failure...though I guess if he says he's going to do something and then doesn't, that's by definition a failure.

I'm really trying to understand the mindset of giving him more of a chance than he's had already.

It's pretty straightforward: he has done very little of what he is likely to do in the next few months and you can't judge things that haven't happened.

 

[Borg]

Thank you for the direct answers Russ. I understand that failure is going to be a relative term. I have friends who are ardent Trump supporters and have yet to have one tell me what failure would be (or has been) without redirecting the conversation to the Democrats, 'demon' media or some other topic to avoid a direct answer. Many of them look the other way no matter what he does. It really does interest me in a "raised Spock eyebrow" kind of way. Clearly, he will have his chance because he is the president. We will see what the next few months brings. I just hope that I don't need to literally apply SPF 1,000,000 during that time.

 

[Helios]

What does it mean to give or not to give president Trump a chance? Exactly what chance is being given or not given? Exactly how do we recognize that this chance has been given or not given? What does it mean? Show me the chance. Those who keep saying this, I don't think can explain. It's talking without a meaning.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you for the direct answers Russ. I understand that failure is going to be a relative term. I have friends who are ardent Trump supporters and have yet to have one tell me what failure would be (or has been) without redirecting the conversation to the Democrats, 'demon' media or some other topic to avoid a direct answer. Many of them look the other way no matter what he does. It really does interest me in a "raised Spock eyebrow" kind of way. Clearly, he will have his chance because he is the president. We will see what the next few months brings. I just hope that I don't need to literally apply SPF 1,000,000 during that time.

I'd caution you not to fall into the same hyperbolic loop your Trump supporting friends are, though. When you describe a couple of bad phone calls and a minor immigration policy that you really really dislike as an "epic failure", you don't leave yourself much verbiage to describe what could happen in the wide gulf between where we are today and lead sunglasses.

 

[russ_watters]

What does it mean to give or not to give president Trump a chance? Exactly what chance is being given or not given? Exactly how do we recognize that this chance has been given or not given? What does it mean? Show me the chance. Those who keep saying this, I don't think can explain. It's talking without a meaning.

What people are referring to is not passing judgement on his overall presidency before he's had a chance to do very much.

 

[Borg]

I'd caution you not to fall into the same hyperbolic loop your Trump supporting friends are, though. When you describe a couple of bad phone calls and a minor immigration policy that you really really dislike as an "epic failure", you don't leave yourself much verbiage to describe what could happen in the wide gulf between where we are today and lead sunglasses.

Noted. Describing things as an epic failure was a bit much. The SPF comment was reference to his previous tweet telling the Senate to "go nuclear" in order to confirm his Supreme Court nominee. I'm hoping that he uses some restraint before tweeting the pentagon or other countries something like that so that I don't have to get out the extra strength sunscreen.

 

[russ_watters]

Noted. Describing things as an epic failure was a bit much. The SPF comment was reference to his previous tweet telling the Senate to "go nuclear" in order to confirm his Supreme Court nominee. I'm hoping that he uses some restraint before tweeting the pentagon or other countries something like that so that I don't have to get out the extra strength sunscreen.

I guess I'm still not getting the reference/turn of phrase: are you saying (even tongue-in-cheek) that Trump might accidentally start a nuclear war with a badly worded tweet?

 

[Borg]

I guess I'm still not getting the reference/turn of phrase: are you saying (even tongue-in-cheek) that Trump might accidentally start a nuclear war with a badly worded tweet?

Yes, definitely tongue-in-cheek.

 

[NTL2009]

Thank you for the direct answers Russ. ...

Sorry, I didn't mean to be evasive in not giving you a specific timeline. I honestly don't know, I feel it is more event/results driven, than any specific term of days, months, years. The 100 day mark that Russ mentioned is a traditional point where a review is made, but I'm not sure we can really judge success/failure at that point.

I understand that failure is going to be a relative term.

Sure, even if we ignore the extreme views on each side, it is pretty tough to objectively state this. There will likely be failures and successes by some measure, then how do you weight each? Even scholarly historians disagree on many points decades after the fact - nukes against Japan - did it shorten the war and save lives, or a terrible abuse against innocent civilians? Both I suppose, but success/failure?

I have friends who are ardent Trump supporters and have yet to have one tell me what failure would be (or has been) without redirecting the conversation to the Democrats, 'demon' media or some other topic to avoid a direct answer. Many of them look the other way no matter what he does. It really does interest me in a "raised Spock eyebrow" kind of way.

Sure, and I have friends like that, and also on the opposite side of that spectrum. Like you, I also am perplexed and saddened that they shut out clear evidence contrary to what they seem to want to believe. But such is the world we live in (and it has probably always been this way).

I just hope that I don't need to literally apply SPF 1,000,000 during that time.

I see Russ has already addressed this, but I will also say that comments like this give the perception that you may have made up your mind on this. Anyway, I understand that Democrat Harry Reid used the "Nuclear Option" in 2013, so I'm not sure what the point is.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...tions-answered-about-nuclear-option-filibust/

Yes, it was limited to below the level of Supreme Court appointees, but...

Indeed, it was Reid’s move that was akin to "crossing the Rubicon" by laying down a precedent that McConnell can now use, said Lawrence Solum a Georgetown University law professor.

I'll also add that I can't really consider myself a "Trump Supporter". I have major reservations in some areas. But I do want to see him given a chance, and I don't feel the majority of the media is being balanced. Hopefully, he can move us forward. That is what I hoped in the past two POTUS elections, even though I did not vote for the winner.

 

[NTL2009]

Yes, definitely tongue-in-cheek.

OK, but given the touchy nature of conversations like this, and the difficulty in having a constructive exchange with people coming from a different viewpoint, may I suggest that any such 'tongue-in-cheek', satire, and/or hyperbole be set aside, or at least clearly called out? This has been a pretty good discussion, I think, I'd like to see it continue. I think we are doing pretty good, especially considering the 'snarkiness' that I see in the opening post.

 

[Buckleymanor]

To me, he has epically failed in just two weeks both at home and abroad.

You are not alone in that.
I don't know if this will play, it gives some idea of how some of the UK politicians are taking this.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-1143578414_uk

 

[JohnDillinger2]

You are not alone in that.
I don't know if this will play, it gives some idea of how some of the UK politicians are taking this.http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/racist-sexist-donald-trump-john-bercow-westminster-hall-state-visit_uk_5898aafee4b076856216dee7?utm_hp_ref=uk&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=-1143578414_uk

The Huffington Post is extremely liberal to the point of being silly. Have you ever thought there might be a great number of people that are fine with Trump who live outside of your little bubble?

Trump is not perfect and says things that are concerning, but the amount of hysteria from those on the left is ridiculous. Life will go on fine for the vast majority of you regardless of who the president is.

 

[Evo]

Life will go on fine for the vast majority of you regardless of who the president is.

Life may go on fine for some, but it may not go on fine for the majority. It seems Trump has a very low approval rating.

Polls show Trump with historically low approval ratings
Majorities of Americans view Trump unfavorably — and also disapprove of the way in which Trump has built his incoming administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-low-approval-rating-transition-233678

 

[DiracPool]

I've done some soul searching, and I think that the best any of us can or even should do is just state what you think and where you stand, without any hyperbole.

I like to think of myself as an independent thinker, and there's nothing I'd like to do better than to take some original "independent" stance on global politics. The truth of the matter, though, is that, after reviewing my positions on a variety of political and social issues over the last 30 years, I pretty much just come down as an average Democrat. It may seem prosaic, but it is what it is. Just be honest with yourself and accept what you are...

My opinion is that Donald trump has already made a mockery of our country (USA) and the constitution and our system of governance. I think this damage is irreversible. And maybe that points out a flaw in the system of governance in the USA. Perhaps our founding fathers weren't so smart after all. But we'll see how it plays out.

 

[russ_watters]

Life may go on fine for some, but it may not go on fine for the majority. It seems Trump has a very low approval rating.

Even for most people who don't like Trump, "life will go on fine" because the President has very little impact on peoples' daily lives. Just as it did for people who didn't like Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush...etc.

 

[russ_watters]

I've done some soul searching, and I think that the best any of us can or even should do is just state what you think and where you stand, without any hyperbole.

I like to think of myself as an independent thinker, and there's nothing I'd like to do better than to take some original "independent" stance on global politics. The truth of the matter, though, is that, after reviewing my positions on a variety of political and social issues over the last 30 years, I pretty much just come down as an average Democrat. It may seem prosaic, but it is what it is. Just be honest with yourself and accept what you are...

Great points: the second one was self-awareness. Be honest with yourself about where you stand. It is very common for people to use themselves as a reference frame and incorrectly declare themselves to be in the middle.

My opinion is that Donald trump has already made a mockery of our country (USA) and the constitution and our system of governance. I think this damage is irreversible. And maybe that points out a flaw in the system of governance in the USA. Perhaps our founding fathers weren't so smart after all. But we'll see how it plays out.

As many of the things Trump has done or set in motion were to reverse actions of Obama, that shows that the actions of a President are reversible by the next President. Do you have a particular action you think is irreversible? Something more serious than un-building a pipeline?

Even most seriously bad actions that seriously damage the country are reversible in terms of their ongoing damage even if the act itself is not reversible. For example, commuting the sentence of one of the worst traitors in US history is not reversible, but the damage to the USA was reversed when Obama left office. That being: for a few days traitors were told by the President's actions that the USA didn't care about treason, which gave Hope! to fugitive treasonous scum, up-and-coming traitors and our enemies alike(and took it from our allies). But the idea that these traitors had that the President might let them get away with it left office with him and thus the ongoing damage was reversed.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Even most seriously bad actions that seriously damage the country are reversible in terms of their ongoing damage even if the act itself is not reversible. For example, commuting the sentence of one of the worst traitors in US history is not reversible, but the damage to the USA was reversed when Obama left office. That being: for a few days traitors were told by the President's actions that the USA didn't care about treason, which gave Hope! to fugitive treasonous scum, up-and-coming traitors and our enemies alike(and took it from our allies). But the idea that these traitors had that the President might let them get away with it left office with him and thus the ongoing damage was reversed.

I assume you are referring above to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning, prior to undergoing transition to a female). In which case, I completely, utterly disagree with your characterization of her (formerly him) as a traitor -- she (formerly he) is a classic whistleblower exposing illegal activities that the US Army committed during the second Iraq War.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further in a separate thread or in a PM, as that whole topic isn't current (any more), and it is (somewhat) off-topic.

 

[russ_watters]

I assume you are referring above to Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning, prior to undergoing transition to a female). In which case, I completely, utterly disagree with your characterization of her (formerly him) as a traitor -- she (formerly he) is a classic whistleblower exposing illegal activities that the US Army committed during the second Iraq War.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further in a separate thread or in a PM, as that whole topic isn't current (any more), and it is (somewhat) off-topic.

People are entitled to agree or disagree with what is "bad" because "bad" is a matter of opinion. So no, we don't need to discuss it (and Google will tell you all you need to know about both positions) because it is an example of what I said it is, for me (so there is nothing to discuss) and the factual part -- the fact that Trump isn't beholden to Obama's decision -- is what matters for this discussion.

This thread is (backhandedly) about Trump, so the point of my response and the example was a question: I'm asking for people (who believe it, such as DiracPool) to list the permanently damaging actions of Trump.

 

[DiracPool]

As many of the things Trump has done or set in motion were to reverse actions of Obama, that shows that the actions of a President are reversible by the next President. Do you have a particular action you think is irreversible?

When I used the word "irreversible," I wasn't referring so much to specific policies which, as you pointed out, could be reversed by a subsequent administration. I was referring more to the perception of the, if you will, dignity of our system of governance as perceived by the greater world at large, or even by those within the USA. I live in the USA and, to be completely honest, I'm embarrassed as to what a "clown show" our political system has turned out to be since Donald Trump entered the fray 16 months ago.

Rather than than get depressed by it, though, I think it may be more constructive to use this opportunity to study how this absurd state of affairs could have manifested itself. Personally, I think it points out a perhaps, latent major flaw in our system that went unrevealed for 200 years because it took the advent of Twitter to expose it. Idk, but I think the subject it ripe for study. The actuality of the Trump presidency, IMO, exposes the dark side of what can actually manifest from the ostensibly positive aspects of a society founded on personal freedom, capitalism, and free markets.

 

[russ_watters]

When I used the word "irreversible," I wasn't referring so much to specific policies which, as you pointed out, could be reversed by a subsequent administration.

Good to hear -- I had to ask because with all of the hyperbole out there, I'm not sure what constitutes a Collapse Of Our System Of Government to some people...That said:

I was referring more to the perception of the, if you will, dignity of our system of governance as perceived by the greater world at large, or even by those within the USA. I live in the USA and, to be completely honest, I'm embarrassed as to what a "clown show" our political system has turned out to be since Donald Trump entered the fray 16 months ago.

But this lack of dignity is primarily a reflection of our current leader's lack of dignity and the lack of respect people have for those who voted for him -- both of which can be changed by the election of the next President, can't they?

Personally, I think it points out a perhaps, latent major flaw in our system that went unrevealed for 200 years because it took the advent of Twitter to expose it.

That is disheartening to hear. Much of our system of government was designed specificially to deal with the possibility of bad leaders being elected and if Trump turns out to be an exceptionally bad leader - and not just exceptionally brash - our system of government is set up to deal with that and has successfully in the past. So it is disheartening to me to hear the loss of confidence in our system of government over something that has happened and been survived many times in the past and that all Americans and most people in the world should be aware is always a possibility.

This also means that electing an execptionally bad leader is not in itself an irreversible failure (it's a feature, not a bug): the failiure would come from failing to deal with and recover from his Presidency if indeed he does something really really bad.
[edit]
I'll be more blunt: I am much more concerned by the lack of respect and understanding for our system of government by some Trump opponents than I am by Trump himself. Aside from my above post, a lasting problem for American society is that one of our most important protected rights is under siege: we are losing our freedom of speech and substituting instead political indoctrination. When colleges adopt policies of favoritism for one political afiliation and suppress or protect suppression of the other - which is widespread and extreme today - it does generations worth of damage to free thought. The recent Berkeley riot against freedom of speech in which no one was arrested is one stark example of a problem that has been building for decades. That, to me, is a threat to our system much bigger than Trump is.

Sales of 1984 are up recently, but it is being applied in the wrong direction!

 

[DiracPool]

The actuality of the Trump presidency, IMO, exposes the dark side of what can actually manifest from the ostensibly positive aspects of a society founded on personal freedom, capitalism, and free markets.

Rather than just leaving everybody hanging on a negative note, maybe it would be better to offer or suggest some sort of remedy. The first "correction" to our constitution I would make is that, right under that clause that says the president must be at least 35 years old, should be a clause that says any would-be presidential candidate needs to take a high school class in "civics" at least and, most importantly, have some prior experience in governing. Owning the "teen USA" pageant and "Trump steaks" doesn't qualify. Yeah, those credits aren't transferable. I don't care if you were the mayor of Mayberry for one term. If you're going to hold the highest political office in the land, I want to see at least a little previous experience in diplomacy under your belt.

This is what I mean about the exposing of a flaw in our political system. It just should not be the case that you can go from hosting "the apprentice" one season to holding the nuclear football the next. Doesn't sit well with me. Trump has turned the US system of governance into a reality TV show and made a mockery of the whole process.

The danger here comes from the potential that the citizenry at some point may no longer respect that system of governance or it's rule of law because it's a joke. For example, if the president is going to mock federal judges and call them imbeciles if he doesn't agree with them, then why shouldn't I? Etc. We are already seeing this sort of widespread disrespect for our political system with the massive protests that are going on everywhere in the USA right now. So, again, I don't know how this is going to play out. Maybe it will turn out to be a mostly benign shakedown of our system that will yield a positive outcome. I hope so. But we'll see.

 

[DiracPool]

if Trump turns out to be an exceptionally bad leader - and not just exceptionally brash - our system of government is set up to deal with that and has successfully in the past.

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily. I really can't imagine Trump resigning voluntarily from anything. I think you are correct in saying that our system of governance can be effective at removing bad players from office in general. There just hasn't been a test, yet, at the actual highest office of the presidency. Maybe Trump will prove to be that test.

 

[NTL2009]

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily. I really can't imagine Trump resigning voluntarily from anything. I think you are correct in saying that our system of governance can be effective at removing bad players from office in general. There just hasn't been a test, yet, at the actual highest office of the presidency. Maybe Trump will prove to be that test.

I assume he means that we have an election every four years.

 

[DiracPool]

I assume he means that we have an election every four years.

A lot can happen in 4 years. That's not a fail-safe measure to deal with a bad actor at the helm of power.

 

[NTL2009]

Life may go on fine for some, but it may not go on fine for the majority. It seems Trump has a very low approval rating.

I think people need to take a breath here. 'Life may not go on fine for the majority'? Because of a 48.6% disapproval rating (RCP average)?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls

OMG! What were you saying back in Dec 2014, when Obama's disapproval rating hit 55.3%? Oh, the humanity!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

A little perspective and calm objectivity, please.

 

[NTL2009]

A lot can happen in 4 years. That's not a fail-safe measure to deal with a bad actor at the helm of power.

Just because impeachment hasn't directly removed a President from office (clearly, Nixon's resignation was as close as you can get without being able to call it 'direct'), doesn't mean it can't/won't happen in the future.

If Trump commits clearly impeachable offenses, the process is there. So let's see how this plays out.

And in the mean time, I brushed my teeth, washed my face, did some stretches, and had coffee with breakfast just like any other day.

 

[russ_watters]

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily.

Nixon resigned because he believed that he would be successfully impeached and removed. But I wasn't just talking about Presidents or impeachment.

We haven't had many Presidents, so the lack of a successful conviction does not imply that a conviction would not be successful in the case of an exceptionally bad (criminal) leader. I think - and Nixon apparently agreed - that that recourse would work if needed.

Corupt holders of lower/state offices have been successfully removed on many occasions using similar tools.

Beyond that, Presidential power is held in check by both Congress and the courts on a farily regular basis, including many examples of both under Obama and already one under Trump. These limitations on Trump's ability to do (or continue to do for a long time) exceptionally bad things should not be overlooked.

And again: In my opinion, successfully dealing with an exceptionally bad leader would show the strength of the American system of government, not a weakness. It's the Apollo 13 principle.

 

[mheslep]

If Trump commits clearly impeachable offenses, the process is there...

Yes clear offenses. But also, for vague or ambiguous offenses, or if Congress simply decides it dislikes him sufficiently, the impeachment process is there, especially if Congress switches parties. For instance, Trump had the legal power to power to fire Yates, but a future Congress could deny this, as Congress did once before when it asserted the President can't fire his own Secretary of War. Should Trump lose contact with the electorate that put him in office, I think he could be taken down by a paper cut.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes clear offenses. But also, for vague or ambiguous offenses, or if Congress simply decides it dislikes him sufficiently, the impeachment process is there, especially if Congress switches parties. For instance, Trump had the legal power to power to fire Yates, but a future Congress could deny this, as Congress did once before when it asserted the President can't fire his own Secretary of War. Should Trump lose contact with the electorate that put him in office, I think he could be taken down by a paper cut.

Yes, that is an alternative danger of the Trump administration; the possibility that a rogue Congress or courts could unlawfully/unconstitutionaly act against him is very real.

 

[StatGuy2000]

But this lack of dignity is primarily a reflection of our current leader's lack of dignity and the lack of respect people have for those who voted for him -- both of which can be changed by the election of the next President, can't they?

As I see it, it is more than Trump's lack of dignity -- it is the actions that he has brought out both through his executive orders, as well as his unprecedented ouster of top military brass in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make way for Steve Bannon (formerly employed at Breitbart News, long a source for fake news and racist propaganda) that has contributed to the "lack of dignity" within the American political climate of late.

As for lack of respect for those who have voted for Trump -- in certain cases, that lack of respect is warranted, if certain voters voted for Trump because of his sweeping slurs against whole ethnic groups and religions (I'm thinking of people like Richard Spencer and other members of the "alt-right") rather than in spite of them.

That is disheartening to hear. Much of our system of government was designed specifically to deal with the possibility of bad leaders being elected and if Trump turns out to be an exceptionally bad leader - and not just exceptionally brash - our system of government is set up to deal with that and has successfully in the past. So it is disheartening to me to hear the loss of confidence in our system of government over something that has happened and been survived many times in the past and that all Americans and most people in the world should be aware is always a possibility.

I agree that the American system of government was designed specifically to deal with the possibility of bad leaders. The concern though is that the very system of checks and balances built into the American system of government has been weakened over the past 30-40 years due to the corrupting influence of money in politics, particularly in light of Supreme Court decisions Buckley v Valeo (1976) and Citizens United vs FEC (2010), both of which have opened the floodgates for near-unlimited campaign donations to political candidates. It's this level of influence, described by some as "legalized bribery" that has contributed to the loss of faith among many Americans to their system of government, and allowed for a demagogue like Trump to be elected to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but this has become a political thread that has strayed from the OP's cartoon. Thread is closed.