Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

25th Amendment is supposed to be used for times such as when Reagan was shot. It just codifies what was already practiced. The president is 'OOO' and we are letting you know the Vice President is in charge now.

Although personally I don't see why it can't be applied here. You are losing sight of the big picture if you believe that incapacitated is defined by the disability of motor functions.

An entire cabinet and the VP rebelling against their President is a big enough act that Congress cannot blindly support POTUS as the act itself shows the extreme lack of trust in the individual which would completely undermine the public's trust in the administration. The average citizen won't be swayed by Paul "it's just politics, support your president" Ryan. It wouldn't be a constitutional crisis, but certainly a crisis of confidence with blowback.

Think of a theoretical Presidential "madman" who (while fully cognizant) blindly wants to start launching nukes in a first strike to trigger a nuclear apocalypse when there is no clear external threat posing the country. I don't think anyone can argue that pointless nuclear self-destruction has been or ever will be the 'will of the people'. Election be damned, the cabinet should invoke the 25th when humanity (as we know it) is on the line. So with the extreme case illustrated, the argument shouldn't be "the 25th can't be applied to these types of cases" the argument what is the line that we will draw for these types of cases and have we gone over that line.

That's exactly what impeachment is for. In abstract. The united front of the Cabinet and VP would be a kick in the ass to get Congress moving on impeachment.

If Trump nuked Cincinnati tomorrow for "no reason", that would be facially impeachable. (Well, at that point maybe other things should be done, but we can't discuss those.)

Even from a purely consequentialist perspective, impeachment is always easier than 25th Amendment, so you always go with impeachment.

[Montmorency]

Here's a more concise (rough) proposition:

A = 25th amendment condition
B = impeachment condition
if A ⊂ B, impeach
iff A /⊂ B, 25th amendment

With Trump or the scenarios raised here, criteria for impeachment are already met. Let's say there is some (i.e. considerable) debate over whether these carry over to meet the criteria of the 25th Amendment.

Let's say we conclude they do. When both impeachment or the 25th are indicated, you always activate impeachment because impeachment supersedes the 25th both procedurally and in purpose.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's a more concise (rough) proposition:

A = 25th amendment condition
B = impeachment condition
if A ⊂ B, impeach
iff A /⊂ B, 25th amendment

With Trump or the scenarios raised here, criteria for impeachment are already met. Let's say there is some (i.e. considerable) debate over whether these carry over to meet the criteria of the 25th Amendment.

Let's say we conclude they do. When both impeachment or the 25th are indicated, you always activate impeachment because impeachment supersedes the 25th both procedurally and in purpose.

While you and I differ as to whether either threshold has been reached (I used to scoff at the likelihood, I no longer scoff at the possibility), I agree completely with your order of preference as denoted in your table.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's exactly what impeachment is for. In abstract. The united front of the Cabinet and VP would be a kick in the ass to get Congress moving on impeachment.

If Trump nuked Cincinnati tomorrow for "no reason", that would be facially impeachable. (Well, at that point maybe other things should be done, but we can't discuss those.)

Even from a purely consequentialist perspective, impeachment is always easier than 25th Amendment, so you always go with impeachment.

Impeachment in this tribal environment will ultimately be considered usurpation of political power and not because of the systematic destruction of the Senate rules/conduct under McConnell.
Republicans will not consider impeachment by a Democratic Congress legitimate.

Now that some Democrats have gotten a taste of scorched earth tactics, it will spread and we will see further destabilization once the young progressives get into power.
I have no doubt that if this apparent rapist Kavenaugh gets pushed through, there will be a 12 to 15 person SCOTUS packed by the Democrats.

[Montmorency]

Which would you rather live in? Single-party Republican America, or single-party Democratic America torn between 3 or 4 factions?

Don't pack courts until you can guarantee in the long-term that Republicans will not regain the federal government, or you'll end up redeeming your sins against the Motherland through blood.

It's a pure fantasy anyway until the Vichy Democrats lose enough power.

[Hooahguy]

Impeachment in this tribal environment will ultimately be considered usurpation of political power and not because of the systematic destruction of the Senate rules/conduct under McConnell.
Republicans will not consider impeachment by a Democratic Congress legitimate.

Now that some Democrats have gotten a taste of scorched earth tactics, it will spread and we will see further destabilization once the young progressives get into power.
I have no doubt that if this apparent rapist Kavenaugh gets pushed through, there will be a 12 to 15 person SCOTUS packed by the Democrats.

Agreed. I recently read the book "How Democracies Die" and they made a compelling point for why the Democrats should not keep breaking congressional norms once they get back in power. But the problem is, since its obvious that the GOP has no qualms breaking the norms to retain power, why should the Democrats play nice? After 6 years of obstruction the Democrats have no reason to work with the other side of the aisle. I mean, besides maintaining our Democratic Norms but lets face it, its going to take a huge shift in our political culture to get us back to both sides working with each other again.

[Strike For The South]

I see no reason to vote for the GOP ever, in any capacity. At this point I can not fathom why anyone would, barring millionaire status.

[Montmorency]

Donald Trump is a chode.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

He knows he has an unusual penis. It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool…

I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart...

It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.

I assure you there is no other Trump content worth posting.

[Xiahou]

Agreed. I recently read the book "How Democracies Die" and they made a compelling point for why the Democrats should not keep breaking congressional norms once they get back in power. But the problem is, since its obvious that the GOP has no qualms breaking the norms to retain power, why should the Democrats play nice? After 6 years of obstruction the Democrats have no reason to work with the other side of the aisle. I mean, besides maintaining our Democratic Norms but lets face it, its going to take a huge shift in our political culture to get us back to both sides working with each other again.

And I hear the same thing from the other side almost daily. "We had to elect Trump, because we needed a fighter! McCain and Romney were too soft and that's why they lost! We can't play nice and lose to Democrats that fight dirty!".. and so on. Thus we slowly circle the drain. Each side excuses bad behavior in their own tribe because they have to stand up to the real or imagined dirty tricks of the other.

OTOH, when I think things are getting worse than ever I just remember things like this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Shaka_Khan]

When a president got impeached or left office early, it usually happened quickly. I think Trump will finish his term.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The only President to have left office early is Nixon, by resignation, nearly halfway into his second term of office. He would likely have been impeached and convicted had he not.

Clinton was impeached during the middle of his 2nd term, but won the vote easily in the Senate.

Johnson was impeached during the last year of the term he was completing for the assassinated Lincoln. He won a narrow vote in the Senate to avoid removal from office.

The only other President's to leave office early have done so as a result of fatal illness or assassination.


History does not support your belief in impeachments occurring quickly within an administration. You may well still be correct that he finishes his term, but not because impeachments happen quickly or not at all. Impeachment moves fairly slowly and with good reason.

[Beskar]

It’s a bit late for anyone not to have figured this out yet, but the skeleton key to understanding American conservatism is this: At bottom, it lacks absolutely any moral or ideological underpinning beyond the reactionary protection of moneyed white men—of their station, their wealth and power, and their egos. Its supposed ideas and abstractions are just a framework for spasmodic lashing-out against anything that can be interpreted as a threat to rich white dudes. It likes supply-side economics because the supply side is made of rich white dudes. It likes tax cuts because the taxes are mostly cut for rich white dudes. It likes cops and soldiers because cops and soldiers uphold a social order with rich white dudes at the top. It likes “traditional family values” because social, economic, and sexual dominion over women are the most traditional family values of all. It likes “Make America Great Again” because rich white dudes used to roll through society and over everyone else with even greater impunity than they do now. All of these things are just proxies for reiterating, over and over and over, forever, the power and security and primacy of rich white dudes.

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/br...ind-1829225731