Trump's personality

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, Aug 9, 2017.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    It ain't rocket science. Find people 55 - early 60's. Declare a 3 day use it or lose it public vote, and get some people into government that know what the heck they are doing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Suppose President Trump wanted to war. Doesn't that have to go through Congress? If he wants to engage (press a button) in an existing war, doesn't that go through some defense committee for vote? Economy: If he wants to raise taxes, or directly or indirectly regulate insurance companies can he do that without Congressional approval? Can he act as a dictator?

    BTW, I think dictatorship is a form of government. Germany, China, Italy, France, Greece were not dictatorships. The actions taken by those leaders were approved by their sitting governments. So can President Trump say, "I want 101st Airborne to attack Nacogdoches, Tennessee," or anywhere else, and it will be done? What is his overall effectiveness quotient in Defense, Economics, Politics and so on: High, Low, 79%? Shouldn't his (or any government employee) effectiveness be somehow limited to his ability to use it wisely? Or do they get power over and above their personal abilities to use it properly. Maybe there should be a screening process to determine the levels of power afforded to persons signing into high level jobs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,345
    "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States."

    "Libya intervention in 2011[edit]
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution's provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no "hostility" in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[15][16][17]

    May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[19] since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,[20] and since US involvement was somewhat "limited". In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[16][23]

    On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama's position "lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years

    So, following Clinton/Obama, if precedent is the law of the land, then Trump can pretty much do as much as he damned well pleases with our military.
    It would seem that all he really needs is some toady harebrained lawyer to come up with a silly legal (illegal) justification."

    ....................
    Epimethius:
    The Clinton/Obama legal team reminds me of a saying I heard in grade-school long ago.
    to wit: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    161
    Two things. 1) As soon as I heard whites would no longer be the majority circa 2050 and 2) Corporate America began a push for 'diversity', I said "ah oh". I knew the current white heterosexual male oriented society would not take losing their status well. And I was right. Every human society has an order and substantial resources go into maintaining that order. It takes decades and decades to upset that order and it will never be easy and without pushback sometimes substantial pushback. The Obama presidency shocked many and now we may be seeing the blowback to that.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    That would be "following Reagan, B Clinton, W&Cheney, and Obama", you mean. If you are looking for precedent.

    Credit where credit is due. W's expansion of permitted AUMFs to include non-State forces, in 2001 - 2002, was the most recent key factor - it's how Obama got started chasing terrorists all over the map with the US military, and is the current ostensible justification behind Trump's yet more radical expansion of scope - he is apparently delegating the authority to design, time, and launch these assaults to local US military command.

    And W was fully supported in that key modification and reduction of Congressional oversight by this guy:
    btw: the subject of Pence having come up, we note that in 2014 Tim Kaine co-sponsored legislation designed to replace the War Powers Resolution with wording more difficult to bypass, finesse, or defy. https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-...ntroduce-bill-to-reform-war-powers-resolution
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1939
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/war-powers-the-constitution-and-bipartisanship-115263

    It was bottled up in committee, of course. Republican Congress.

    But that makes Tim Kaine the only one of the four candidates - T&P, C&K - to have acted or plausibly recommended acting in opposition to this creeping power grab by the Presidency.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2017
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    The fact is both parties have ignored the war powers act for some time, and it's a problem. They only seem to bring it up to gain political points against the opposition.
     
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,108
    Xmo1 said: "What percentage of Donald Trump's personality effects the United States government. Let's start with Defense, probably move to Economy, and so on."

    Sadly, I don't think there's any way of rigorously rooting such a thing in percentages. Personalities, government and economic are such vast fields that it would be impossible to say "43.4%". President Trump is the living embodiment of an on-going political abortion and it isn't pretty. He's inept on a scale that boggles the mind, but shouldn't surprise us given that my party (the Democrats) haven't done much for my people (the industrial state where I came from) since the 70s. People were pissed. Their wish won't be granted. Their jobs won't come back. The good times are gone. BUT, in the meantime, we can all pop popcorn and watch the entire thing go on in stunned disbelief and horror that we're a part of it.

    The ONE, teeny area that Trump isn't a bungling idiot is Defense. He's kept it at arms length and has given Mattis a long leash to conduct the affairs of Defense as he sees fit. That's usually the best way for a POTUS to operate, with getting updates and holding people accountable. I'm not saying that Trump can't screw that up too (I'm sure he's busy working on it right now), but it's still so new and fresh that it'll take years to unpack all of what Trump is doing (and not doing, for that matter).
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    Trump doesn't read updates, has no way of holding any military command "accountable", and has never shown the slightest interest such matters.
    What this would make sense as is Trump forging a mutual dependency - "alliance", in his world - with the military command. In combination with Exxon and Goldman Sachs in his cabinet etc, he looks as if he were consolidating power.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    Some Dems, such as Tim Kaine, have attempted to reform and stiffen that Act. It has definitely not been ignored by the left wing of the Democratic Party.
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,108
    I guess that's a good thing. Quick! Name anything he gets involved in that has a positive effect? The one defense initiative he got involved in was him banning trans folks from serving. Oh brilliant!

    You're giving him way too much credit. I don't doubt that he's trying. I just don't think he's got a clue.

    ....

    With all that being said, I'm certainly not resting on the fact that he's been inept so far. What worries me the most is if he's removed and Pence becomes POTUS.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    Define "positive".
    Define it from Trump's pov.
    Define it from the pov of the Republican Party backers - the American fascist political movement that has taken over the Republican Party.
    They have plenty to celebrate, from Trump's involvement, and more on the way.
    My bet: There is now a faction of the US military, including command, personally loyal to Trump in defiance of the rest of civilian governance.
    Whether or not he has a clue - and I doubt he knows what he's doing in any big picture sense - he is succeeding so far.

    Right now our remaining hopes are pinned on Robert Mueller's investigation, continuing as we hope it will and bearing fruit as we hope it will, months or (more likely) years from now.

    That's it. That's what we've got, barring a coronary or the like and no too-serious conspiracy theory reaction.

    In short: he's winning. He's holding on to the job long enough to learn how to work it.

    He currently has more power, and a wider power base, than he had when inaugurated, for example (or his enemies have less, which amounts to the same thing in this kind of disaster). The longer he stays in office, the more comparatively powerful he becomes, the harder he will be to get rid of by force and the worse the leftover situation will be.

    Like a corporation that has made a really bad CEO hire, at some point - already? - we may have to pay him off, to walk away. Some kind of bribe or compromise. And then what if he refuses the deal? What if a complete pardon, full Presidential retirement benefits, restoration of lost monies and cancellation of his tax liabilities, and VP Ivanka, isn't enough?

    Basically, we're all in the situation the Republican Party officialdom found itself in, spring of 2016: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-wretch-sketch.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  15. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,605
    Or people like Ron Paul.
     
  16. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,108
    I'm not going to ever put myself into the "defend Trump" corner (I fucking campaigned against him and donated money I didn't really have to spend on defeating him). I know there are LOTS of people who are in Trump's corner who think he's the second coming (and possibly literally that for some). Whether or not you wildly speculate about flag officers who would follow him against the US and try to affect some kind of a coup is irrelevant (I don't think that for a second, considering how many military family members I have, two who are commissioned officers, and that one of my close friend's dad was literally just nominated specifically by Trump for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and I know precisely what that man thinks of Trump and how passionately he loves his country and its constitution). They would also have to find a way to command the people under them -- people like my brother, a commissioned officer in the USAF who goes to annual seminars on "when to disobey an illegal order" (something beaten into the heads of EVERY commissioned officer). And while the thought of that does make me physically ill, more than anything, this is half my family dispersed between agencies they can't talk about, places they're not allowed to say all the way to mundane logistics jobs. They're not hive creatures frothing at the mouth to topple the republic. You're free to speculate on all the perfidy they're possibly planning, I don't buy it for a second.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    WTF are you talking about?
    Trump has, over the past couple of months, established a base of personal loyalty within the US military. Probably. That's what it looks like. The transgender tweet ban was part of that. That is an expansion of his hold on power, an advance, a positive development from his pov.

    That's all.

    No allegations of hive mind, slanders of the military in general, etc, are involved. (Those would come from noting the re-election of W, the McCain/Palin and Romney vote, the solid Christian fundie faction in the Air Force command, etc etc etc.).

    Meanwhile:
    Which I did not, of course.

    But following your lead, consider a more plausible line:
    Not against the US, and not now - against the machinations of unpatriotic and venal and incompetent civilians who are betraying the US, years from now, by undermining Trump in a time of war.
     
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,108
    You said, "My bet: There is now a faction of the US military, including command, personally loyal to Trump in defiance of the rest of civilian governance."

    Either you're implying that push-come-to-shove that they'll affect a coup or have failed to spell out what precisely you mean.

    Re: "Trump has, over the past couple of months, established a base of personal loyalty within the US military. Probably."

    He has ... probably? Probably what? Specifically. Very specifically name those specific things he's done? How have you come by this brilliant insight into how this has happened beyond hilariously convoluted conspiracy nonsense? Like is there a secret report on what you say is "probably" happening? And how do you know they're PERSONALLY loyal ("probably") to him?

    If you point out that he's moved brass around, great. Welcome to this place called, "a new administration that always does this." Every one. What is this "personal loyalty" you speak of because apparently you have inside information into how this personal loyalty has been affected.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    And Dennis Kucinich, etc. Mostly Dems, if bipartisan (if W and Reagan condemned along with Clinton and Obama).

    The point was: for anyone seriously concerned with that and similar matters, a vote for Clinton/Kaine over Trump/Pence was a no-brainer.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    Or support one. I'm implying exactly that, for that faction within the military. I object to your presumptions of what such a push coming to shove would look like - certainly nothing like we have now.
    Probably: He has acquired the personal loyalty of a fair number of military folk - including some at all command levels - by speaking and acting as he has. His Muslim ban, his wall, his belligerence, his willingness to remove restrictions on their current actions and delegate such matters to field command, etc, found favor with them. So did his transgender tweeting.

    That's my bet. Would you bet against that?
     
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,108
    Mostly no. I mostly sort of agree with the implication of what you're saying. I also mostly think that it's the wrong thing to focus on with someone like Trump not because "it could never happen here" but because I tend to be in the Fukuyama camp in that totalitarianism is largely unthinkable here but the dangers we face are manifestly coming from other directions, be it from a complete forfeiture of our privacy, to tyranny through the corporations that run roughshod over (what is) human rights (anywhere else in the modern world). I yawn at the implication of a dictatorship. Dictatorships were an attempt to control chaos. Trump's ilk have no desire to control chaos. They've made their peace with it. His ilk sow it and want to make a shit-ton of money from it which *IS* something to be frightened of.

    Trump's fucking asshole friend, Murray (Murray Energy) has been begging for lighter regulations on both the risk to actual miners and his ability to dump toxic shit in our rivers. That's the shit people aren't noticing. My friends on the left are want to pule about such-and-such admiral or general, when the problem is that the gulf between rich and poor is going to grow even worse now that Trump can systemically dismantle the New Deal (well, I mean, put the final nail in its coffin), get YET another fucking tax break for his tax bracket all while convincing idiotic masses that he's got their back. There won't be a coup -- there doesn't need to be. We just handed them everything they want: tons of money & no accountability.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,859
    It's not a focus, it was an example. Trump is, so far, winning. He's not "inept" at what he is doing. He's only "inept" at governing, at fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of a President.
    Fascist takeovers commonly involve a coalition of capitalist corporate interests backing a charismatic frontman. It's not a question of corporate takeover and loss of rights to corporate interests on one hand, and "dictatorship" by some wanna-be bigman on the other - with fascism you get both.
    Or as everyone - everyone - in my little crowd has been banging on about for decades: the problem is the media-enabled fascistic takeover of the Republican Party, not Trump in particular. They were bound to dig up a demagogue eventually.

    That's why it's important to keep Trump and the Republican Party Siamese hitched. The inevitable failure of governance we saw under Reagan and W needs to be tattooed on the foreheads of every Republican candidate for office, not shoveled away into bothsides oblivion, this time.

    Trump's character and personality is the character and personality of the Republican Party.
     

Share This Page