This amused me in The Observer today -
“ As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.”
Those were the words of the great American journalist HL Mencken (in the Baltimore Evening Sun, 26 July 1920).
I think Trump is proposing problematical candidates in order to flush out those Republicans in Congress who are anything less than unthinkingly committed to him.
I think Trump is proposing problematical candidates
Nah thats buying into him being the all thinking and conquering genius that he likes to project.
Last time round it was despite him being the all seeing leader he ended up hiring up a bunch of incompetents (in reality a mix of sycophants who ticked that box and also professionals who inevitably ended up upsetting him) because he was forced by the nasty deep state RINOs.
Now he doesnt have that excuse since his supporters are rather unimaginative it has becomes a way of flushing out the RINOs.
Its still bollocks.
Dont buy into his supporters mythmaking.
So spotted this over the weekend - the greatest country on earth apparently doesn't even have safe tap water that the residents are willing to drink...
According to one of Trump's top advisors in just over 4 months Britain has become a "tyrannical police state".
However the good news is that the people of Britain have apparently had enough of this tyrannical police state. Although more worryingly the same Trump advisor has previously claimed that civil war in Britain is "inevitable".
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1860731348962750677
It is probably worth remembering the Elon Musk supported Joe Biden's bid to become president 4 years ago, and previous to that he supported Hilary Clinton's bid.
Republicans and Democrats are often perceived, certainly in the UK, of being poles apart, but whilst the heterotic clearly is the policies perhaps not quite so much. Which I guess might explain how some supporters seem to seamlessly move from one camp to the other.
Why did he switch support? Does he think he can get what he wants from Trump, and Biden wouldn’t deliver? That suggests that they’re not the same. But it’s more likely connected to his own mental problems trying to deal with his own family.
Why did he switch support? Does he think he can get what he wants from Trump, and Biden wouldn’t deliver?
Mainly because he knows he can't personally stand for president and is playing Trump like a fiddle to get his own way
justice American style.... what a waste of time and money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gvd7kxxj5o
It would be a bigger waste of money if it went ahead as the constitution says you can't prosecute a sitting president for federal crimes. I'm sure they'll be waiting if he makes it through the next term in office
That suggests that they’re not the same. But it’s more likely connected to his own mental problems trying to deal with his own family.
Well obviously Donald Trump and Kamala Harris aren't the same but I am not sure that the switch from opposing Trump the first time he stood to supporting him in his latest bid is a sign of mental problems.
Trump got almost 14 million more votes this time than when he first stood, so his support has clearly grown significantly.
I suspect the reality is that many Americans probably don't see Trump and Democrat presidential candidates quite as poles apart as we generally seem to.
Joe Biden did reverse some Trump era legislation but nowhere as much as you might have imagined would have been the case if they were really politically poles apart. Fundamentally their aims and vision were remarkably similar.
According to one of Trump’s top advisors in just over 4 months Britain has become a “tyrannical police state”.
Interesting, also according to trump the uk is over run with relegious extremists.
I feel there's a certain sense of irony there that might get lost in the noise, but who am I to judge?
I reckon the greatest irony is Trump's relentless claims of "fake news".
It Trump a Christian? serious question as Christians are historicaly quite nasty people, as are Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc.
It's almost as if he just says what some people want to hear.
It Trump a Christian? serious question as Christians are historicaly quite nasty people, as are Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc.
Unlike atheists who are renowned for their compassion and never committing genocides?
I think Donald Trump's infamous tweet whist he was president wishing Christians "a happy Good Friday" betrayed the fact that he doesn't even understand the basics tenets of Christianity.
So I would say no to your question.
the constitution says you can’t prosecute a sitting president for federal crimes.
The constitution does not say that. That is a DOJ guideline, not a constitutional provision. Very, very big difference.
Edit: This is what the constitution says:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So, a President can be impeached and convicted by the Senate, and also tried in a regular court. The DOJ guideline seems to rest on the assumption that the Senate will try and convict first, making it unnecessary to charge a sitting president. But that's just a guideline, the constitution itself allows a president to be tried and convicted.
Well obviously Donald Trump and Kamala Harris aren’t the same but I am not sure that the switch from opposing Trump the first time he stood to supporting him in his latest bid is a sign of mental problems.
Perhaps I need to make it more simple:
- Musk has swing right, hard, and his move to supporting Trump is indicative of that, it is not a sign that Trump and his Democrat opponents are close. They are not.
- One of the reasons for the swing, and this is only my opinion, is his inability to accept his trans daughter, and his own mental state because of that has made him receptive to the “anti-woke” draw of the American right.
On a slightly more light hearted note regarding Trump and Musk... This is likely very close to where their current buddies of convenience vibe will be headed in a few months.
https://twitter.com/TheRichFromCali/status/1861127849748607300
Impeachment and prosecution outside impeachment are very very different things.
Yale law school argues that a sitting president is not prosecutable outside impeachment. Both at a state and federal level.
serious question as Christians are historicaly quite nasty people, as are Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc.
As a non-believer, I find that pretty offensive. Horrendous things have been in the name if religion, but every person of any faith that I've known has been kind, caring and compassionate. We shouldn't judge groups by their extremes
Yale law school argues that a sitting president is not prosecutable outside impeachment.
That's an opinion, it's not what's written in the constitution. If it was written in the constitution, they wouldn't need to argue their opinion, they would just read out the relevant part of the constitution.
That’s an opinion, it’s not what’s written in the constitution. If it was written in the constitution, they wouldn’t need to argue their opinion, they would just read out the relevant part of the constitution.
That's not what happened when Colorado took Trump off the ballot. The Supreme Court basically decided because Part 3 of the 14th Amendment hadn't been specifically codified in US Law then it could be ignored, and overturned Colorado's decision.
So it doesn't matter what the constitution says - Trump has loaded the Supreme Court with "judges" who will ignore it if it inconveniences him.
Why did he switch support? Does he think he can get what he wants from Trump, and Biden wouldn’t deliver?
Musk as money and wants power. Trump was looking like the winner between him and Biden and the orange one has power and wants money.
Yes, Vance did post this picture on Xitter! Seems like he’s a bit put out that Elonia Musk has been selected as Diaper Don’s new First Lady, and he’s trying to ingratiate himself with Don to get the place himself.
It Trump a Christian? serious question as Christians are historicaly quite nasty people, as are Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc.
It’s almost as if he just says what some people want to hear.
No, he’s not, and yes, he does.
As far as the statement about Christians etc is concerned, it all depends on who’s in power in various countries, it’s certainly the case that a variety of different countries have elected charismatic nationalists as leaders. This doesn’t automatically mean that followers of the various religions are nasty people.
If history repeats itself, as it often does, then if Dementia Don does what he promised and put large tariffs on imported goods, and round up millions of unregistered immigrants, then expect a huge crash this time next year, a repeat of the Great Depression…
if Dementia Don does what he promised
A lot of people seem to think that Donald Trump is a man of his word. I honestly don't know why anyone would think that.
The only thing certain about Trump is his unpredictability.
Trump is Nehemiah Scudder
Nehemiah Scudder is the fictional President (2012-2015) and First Prophet (2016-?) of the United States of America in Robert A. Heinlein's "Future History" series. Sometime during Scudder's first term, he succeeds in converting the US from a democracy into a religious dictatorship (theocracy). The original Scudder story ("If This Goes On...") was written in 1940, with several other references dating as late as 1987 (in Heinlein's last published novel, To Sail Beyond the Sunset).
Many people, especially rationalists, saw George W. Bush's presidency as veering dangerously towards a potential Scudder-like scenario. Bush's theocratic leanings, however, pale in comparison to those of 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who has openly advocated for Christian theocracy as part of his campaign platform.
Origins
Heinlein's concept of Nehemiah Scudder may have had its origins in such characters as President Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip in the novel It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. Windrip is believed to have been based on any of a number of real people, however, and Heinlein may have drawn from similar sources.Opinions
I generally always took this story to be a warning that the wrong person in the Presidency can essentially destroy everything that America is supposed to stand for, starting with democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.
blimey. not read heinlein in over 30 years - may have to revisit.
trump has shown what appealing to the base can accomplish, and biden's response of pardoning his son appears to me an acknowledgment that the american electorate couldn't care less. interesting times. not in a good way.
the USA is f***** pardon my french.
Your post has very ironic phrasing.
The US is not as screwed as Europe is going to be when Trump/Musk tear up NATO and come to an agreement with China and Russia
I can easily see the US staying out of a European war.
Who will protect us from advancing Russian aggression then? Not France, Not Germany either…
There are some bad times ahead for the UK I’m afraid.
His defenCe secretary pick has promised not to get shitfaced while in the job. High standards indeed.
"Over the weekend, the New Yorker reported that Hegseth, a former Fox News host, was known to drink excessively. It quoted a former staffer at a veterans non-profit that he led saying: “I’ve seen him drunk so many times. I’ve seen him dragged away not a few times but multiple times. To have him at the Pentagon would be scary.”
The Hill reports that Hegseth told Roger Wicker, a Republican senator who will chair the armed services committee, that he will stay sober if he gets the defense secretary job. Speaking to reporters, Wicker said: “I think that’s probably a good idea.”
Who will protect us from advancing Russian aggression then? Not France, Not Germany either…
And based on the recent wargaming, we can't protect them either - our military will be gone on 6 months apparently.
The world is looking an increasingly dangerous place.
I can easily see the US staying out of a European war.
In the same way that he was going to withdraw all US troops from Syria in 2019, “BRINGING OUR SOLDIERS BACK HOME”
This promptly sparked an assault on US-backed rebels, tore up a truce agreement and in the confusion dozens of ISIS prisoners escaped.
As C-in-C he oversaw the deployment of 14000 more troops to the middle-east to deter those waiting for the US power vacuum
PS the US still has a base in Syria at al-Tanf (established in March 2016, less than a year before his election)
Does anyone really think Russia that has failed so badly in Ukraine can attack europe? They wouldn't stand a chance, I doubt they have enought tug boats to tow there decrepit navy around.
They will just continue to destabilise and cause trouble with propaganda and misinformation.
The right wing populist are revelling in the propaganda as they benefit from it, and the centrists are toothless and capitulating to it at every turn. We won't be attacked militarily by russia, they will just tear us down from the inside as our Governments fail to address the problems.
And based on the recent wargaming, we can’t protect them either – our military will be gone on 6 months apparently.
I saw that, alarmist to say the least. I believe it used Russian meat grinder levels of attrition and it assumes Russia bypasses the rest of Europe and attacks the UK directly which is also a tiny bit implausible.
Does anyone really think Russia that has failed so badly in Ukraine can attack europe?
It absolutely can, either as a desperate last throw of the dice by a failing Putin, or as a follow-up to a Trump based appeasement deal in Ukraine.
Success for Russia probably looks very different to how you and I see it. But everyone will lose.
They will just continue to destabilise and cause trouble with propaganda and misinformation.
The right wing populist are revelling in the propaganda as they benefit from it, and the centrists are toothless and capitulating to it at every turn.
I can agree with you on that. If democratic nations had put as much effort into countering the misinformation and bots as Russia and it friends have, the world would look a different place. We've been behind the curve since we'll before Brexit.
His defenCe secretary pick has promised not to get shitfaced while in the job. High standards indeed.
The email to Hegseth from hs mum is a sobering read
Son,
I have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent. And as a woman and your mother I feel I must speak out..
You are an abuser of women — that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.
I am not a saint, far from it.. so don’t throw that in my face,. but your abuse over the years to women (dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling) needs to be called out.
Sam is a good mother and a good person (under the circumstances that you created) and I know deep down you know that. For you to try to label her as “unstable” for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.
I know you think this is one big competition and that we have taken her side… bunk… we are on the side of good and that is not you. (Go ahead and call me self-righteous, I dont’ care)
Don’t you dare run to her and cry foul that we shared with us… that’s what babies do. It’s time for someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women
We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. I don’t want to write emails like this and never thought I would. If it damages our relationship further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece. [Redacted]
And yes, we are praying for you (and you don’t deserve to know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply)
I don’t want an answer to this… I don’t want to debate with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But… On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say… get some help and take an honest look at yourself…
Mom
The only way that Russia could really attack Europe would be to launch a nuclear first strike but they know that Britain and France have nuclear deterrents so Russia would be devastated even if the U.S. didn't join in. Putin's goal is to make Russia into a world power again, not to see it incinerated.
Russia doesn't have the conventional capability to defeat Ukraine, let alone go through Poland, Germany, and France in order to get to Britain. They can't ship troops out through the Black Sea and Mediterranean because Turkey, Greece, Italy, and Spain are all NATO members and trying to launch an amphibious operation from the Baltic would be just as futile. That leaves sailing from Murmansk through the artic or from Vladivostok down through the Pacific and Indian Oceans, around Africa, and then attacking from the south. So, no, Russia doesn't have the capacity to attack Europe except by launching a suicidal nuclear strike.
I didn't include the "left" because I am not aware of any "leftist" party in power in Europe at the moment or in recent history.
