America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,027 comments
- 1,698,804 views
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
There are only a few legal ways the US President can be removed from office.
1. The old-fashioned way, at election time.
2. Impeachment. Not likely, since the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, is required for the impeachment, and the Senate, also controlled by Republicans, is required for the conviction.
3. 25th Amendment to the Constitution. If his own cabinet were to declare the President unable to discharge the duties of office, the President may be removed. Not likely, since the President appointed the cabinet.
4. Forced resignation by loss of political support. This is what happened to Richard M. Nixon. His own Republican establishment turned on him. He resigned rather than face impeachment.
1. The old-fashioned way, at election time.
2. Impeachment. Not likely, since the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, is required for the impeachment, and the Senate, also controlled by Republicans, is required for the conviction.
3. 25th Amendment to the Constitution. If his own cabinet were to declare the President unable to discharge the duties of office, the President may be removed. Not likely, since the President appointed the cabinet.
4. Forced resignation by loss of political support. This is what happened to Richard M. Nixon. His own Republican establishment turned on him. He resigned rather than face impeachment.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Yes, mental health therapists - both professional and armchair variety - are having a heyday catering to disturbed, monied liberal elites residing on the coasts. This amounts to feckless caterwauling by losers, unless followed up by effective action at the polling booths in the flyover states. Possible? Yes. But is this likely?I have no evidence for this... but I'd guess Day One
In seriousness I don't think there's a genuine suspicion that he has - as far as I can see most of the things that mark this most peculiar presidency are explainable through narcissistic personality disorder.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Are mental health issues the sole preserve of the monied, coastal liberal elite?
That very likely accounts for some of the negative noise around Trump issues, as it were. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that very often his own words and actions speak for themselves - he's proud (it seems) of having no official filter but that doesn't always work in his favour.
The other day, for example, he was asked in an interview if it was true that he wasn't very humble. "Oh, I'm humble", he replied, "I'm more humble than you could probably understand". Geeenius.
- 1,684
- Houston, TX
- The_TetsuKobura
"DRUMPF WILL BE IMPEACHED!!"
says increasingly nervous man for the 8947th time this year.
says increasingly nervous man for the 8947th time this year.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 11,947
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Well America was planning on a way to assassinate Kim John Un, and this is fine for a country to perform or even plan?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
You make an interesting point. The US has authorized assassination of more than one foreign head of state. Despite many attempts, we botched the job on Fidel Castro, and it likely cost us the life of JFK in return. Is all fair in love and war? Does might make right? Do the winners write the history? All good stuff to grapple with. Thank you for your post.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 11,947
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
That is the thing.
If a average joe plans to assassinate or does assassinate a leader of a country it is a despicable cowardly act according to the leaders of that country, yet when that country tries to do the same thing, they act like it is OK or needed.
If the reports that america was planning on assassinating kim were true and I cant not see why not as it wont be the first time they did this not to mention no one will punish them for doing so despite it being "Illegal" and america wont hand over the one that pulled the trigger/gave the order to north korea to face punishment.
Assassination failed with Castro, yet america was planning it again.
- 1,684
- Houston, TX
- The_TetsuKobura
Kim isn't going to be assassinated, unless he decided to lose his mind and attack the US. We all know what happened the last time the US was attacked by a different country. I'd prefer for that to not happen again.
- 11,947
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Yes he knows better than to attack first but with these "shows of force" by flying near the NK border(Shows of force which are not working mind you).
One mistake and it can be an act of war.
The saying dont poke the bear comes to mind.
Yes kim cant be trusted with nukes, but can america be trusted as well?
America has over 8000, kim has what 10?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
Trump is bumbling through handling dead soldiers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-fits-a-clear-pattern/?utm_term=.5c494f9b420c
Expressing the sentiment (which seems to have been expressed) that a solider "knew what he signed up for" to his widow is impressively poor tact. The soldier's widow seems to be confirming that sentiment was expressed. The fact that nobody is coming out and saying the exact words the president used, and the fact that he disputes it, suggests that the phrasing was awkward and difficult to remember exactly. It suggests that the president was making it up on the fly, and that it was received, perhaps, in a way that was not intended.
This kind of lack of tact is a clear indication of the compromise that (a minority of) Americans made when they voted for a political outsider to run the country. I understand why they made that compromise, but I'm wondering now if it's just a bridge too far. You expect a certain degree of maturity, self-control, and diligence from any adult really, especially one who has lived a few years and had a lot of life experiences. I think that assumption is being revealed to be poorly founded. Trump has lived a very unique life, one in which people consistently reinforced his abrasive, arrogant, insensitive qualities. He's finding, though, that the job of running the country has a few facets which require those qualities to be suppressed - especially in matters of foreign policy and war. We're watching someone try to build, or if not build, at least stand on, muscles that have been left to atrophy for his entire life.
The United States has the most powerful armed forces in the world. That is not a guarantee, and the degree to which Trump bungles (or, if you want to believe it, disrespects) recognition of the sacrifice of the men and women who make up that force, it will decline. How many people decided not to enlist just now, after hearing that Trump callously dismissed a solider's death to his widow? It doesn't even really matter if it's true, it's believable. The fact that it's believable will result in people saying to themselves "I sure don't want my husband or wife to hear that about me if I'm killed in combat". It will dissuade good men and women from joining the ranks of the military.
It's a difficult enough proposition to recruit good people to serve. We don't need to make that job any harder. The fact that it seems like Trump is winging it through this minefield is consistent with his character, but this is not one of his strengths. The fact that he doesn't seem to recognize that, and let others prepare for him so that he can pull it off without creating yet another PR nightmare, is unfortunately also consistent with his character.
The very thing that got him elected, and the reason that people were so enthralled by the possibilities he represented, is turning out to be his undoing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-fits-a-clear-pattern/?utm_term=.5c494f9b420c
Expressing the sentiment (which seems to have been expressed) that a solider "knew what he signed up for" to his widow is impressively poor tact. The soldier's widow seems to be confirming that sentiment was expressed. The fact that nobody is coming out and saying the exact words the president used, and the fact that he disputes it, suggests that the phrasing was awkward and difficult to remember exactly. It suggests that the president was making it up on the fly, and that it was received, perhaps, in a way that was not intended.
This kind of lack of tact is a clear indication of the compromise that (a minority of) Americans made when they voted for a political outsider to run the country. I understand why they made that compromise, but I'm wondering now if it's just a bridge too far. You expect a certain degree of maturity, self-control, and diligence from any adult really, especially one who has lived a few years and had a lot of life experiences. I think that assumption is being revealed to be poorly founded. Trump has lived a very unique life, one in which people consistently reinforced his abrasive, arrogant, insensitive qualities. He's finding, though, that the job of running the country has a few facets which require those qualities to be suppressed - especially in matters of foreign policy and war. We're watching someone try to build, or if not build, at least stand on, muscles that have been left to atrophy for his entire life.
The United States has the most powerful armed forces in the world. That is not a guarantee, and the degree to which Trump bungles (or, if you want to believe it, disrespects) recognition of the sacrifice of the men and women who make up that force, it will decline. How many people decided not to enlist just now, after hearing that Trump callously dismissed a solider's death to his widow? It doesn't even really matter if it's true, it's believable. The fact that it's believable will result in people saying to themselves "I sure don't want my husband or wife to hear that about me if I'm killed in combat". It will dissuade good men and women from joining the ranks of the military.
It's a difficult enough proposition to recruit good people to serve. We don't need to make that job any harder. The fact that it seems like Trump is winging it through this minefield is consistent with his character, but this is not one of his strengths. The fact that he doesn't seem to recognize that, and let others prepare for him so that he can pull it off without creating yet another PR nightmare, is unfortunately also consistent with his character.
The very thing that got him elected, and the reason that people were so enthralled by the possibilities he represented, is turning out to be his undoing.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The whole thing is doubly awkward following his (awkward) comments the other day about how Obama never called the families, something that Trump states he himself 'traditionally' does. He did correct himself and say he was only told that, and then went on to say that Obama probably did. It really was awkward though, even by Trump's standards. Reading Mitch McConnell's face was the best part, he's such a pro
- 29,641
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It's endearing when a head of government makes a comedic gaffe like falling over or failing with a golf swing or making a mundane speech error every once in a while. It almost humanises them.
When it's an almost daily catalogue of gaffes, tasteless remarks and outright fabrications, it just becomes fatiguing.
You can only be dismayed so many times.
When it's an almost daily catalogue of gaffes, tasteless remarks and outright fabrications, it just becomes fatiguing.
You can only be dismayed so many times.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,053
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Perhaps the incumbent is fortunate that this isn't an elimination based gameshow featuring a weekly appraisal process.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
This is the media running with anything and everyone drinking it.
For starters it's a "he said, she said". The lady representing the widow is not a lawyer.(Isn't she some kinda politician up for reelection?)
I don't believe the widow has done a single interview.
There has been no recording released.
If he said it, the whole thing needs to be listened to for context. What if she said it first? We don't know what was said.
He's an idiot but I'm tired of them trying to find anything on him and hearing in the news EVERYDAY, getting worse than the Kardashians. Especially reading a regurgitated story of week ago Trump news.
- 11,119
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
That was always the risk. Picking someone with no experience was always going to be unpredictable in the persons action (at least in terms of usual presidents, for Trump as his own, you can say it was predictable).
I remember in Australia, Tony Abbot suffered similar fire after saying "🤬 happens" to a group of people after a respected soldier death. That was years ago and that helped put him in cold water and his eventual kick out of being Prime Minister for Malcolm Turnbull. If we look at it today where the political climate has been getting a lot dangerous, this is something not that you want. Now, I don't know if a President can be kicked out early by their party or public but this won't do wondering for him in the next election or maybe even pressure to resign (however I don't Trump would actually do that, especially if what we have right now from media lies and general hatred isn't enough)
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Christopher Steele, former British intelligence officer pictured in in London on March 7, 2017, compiled the dossier on Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria Jones/AP)
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to the people.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the firm in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Prior to that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.4f0e829de28a
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If there's truth in the allegations (a big IF, I know) then does it matter who funded them? Whether it was the taxpayer, Clinton, the DNC or Roland Rat it makes no difference - if there are new truths in the public domain then it's a waste of time trashing the source of verifiable information.
Anyway, if you want to know how bad Hillary's career is now... she was recently on The One Show, Britain's prime-time dross-chat. Presumably she appeared between articles on cystitis and rogue net-curtain traders.
EDIT: Thanks @Dennisch for spotting my heinous spelling mistake
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,395
- Texas
I'm surprised this is news again, as the Independent touched on how Steele was hired by Fusion GPS, a company used by a Republican rival & then the Democrats to uncover allegations against Trump, way back in July after the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. had ties to Fusion.
The only thing new I see is that instead of financial supporters of Clinton, now it's her own campaign and the DNC specifically listed as the backers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/News/...atalia-veselnitskaya-gps-fusion-a7834541.html
The only thing new I see is that instead of financial supporters of Clinton, now it's her own campaign and the DNC specifically listed as the backers.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,966
- Mile High City
*I should preface this by saying that all references to voting below are for the presidential election*
I've always been interested in the debate between popular vote and regional representation. The Electoral College seemed like an interesting compromise between population weight, which would allow politicians to cater to issues that focus on states with large populations, and perfectly balanced state votes between states (South Dakota is one state, it gets one vote. California is one state, it gets one vote). The electoral college seemed aimed at curing the problems that would crop up if you go with a purely population-based system. Might the rest of the union get sold on the idea of using South Dakota as a giant land fill?
But as Adam points out in the video above, it doesn't really work that way. Binning populations by state and giving the state to the winner is horrifically undemocratic. If you're a republican in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. If you're a democrat in Texas, you don't have to vote because your state is going republican. This means Texas has a very hard time getting heard in a national election.
The only states where voting really makes a difference are states that are close enough to swing either way, and yet, also have enough electoral votes to count. If you're in Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania, your vote is over weighted, not just because your have more electoral votes per person than California or Texas, but because California and Texas are going red or blue no matter what.
All that the electoral college is doing is creating extreme artifical importance on very particular demographics. And that was exactly the problem it was created to solve. Ultimately, I think it's bad for the country. Don't overweight the votes of individuals living in South Dakota, and don't bin votes according to states. Let's have a straight popular vote for the presidency every time.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...ossier-revelation-fbi-is-next/article/2638540
"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends," wrote Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
...the importance of the Democrats' involvement in the dossier is that it could be one step on the road to a bigger story. What did the FBI do with the dossier material? Did judges make surveillance decisions in the Trump-Russia investigation based in whole or in part on the dossier? To what degree is the "salacious and unverified" dossier the source of what we think we know about allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign?
