Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

That article should be soon for what it is, pre-emptive rehabilitation. They want to come back in 2020 saying "wow he was crazy, wasn't he" while we have no healthcare, no roads, and an even bigger incarceration machine. The GOP should be seen for what it is, a reactionary foundation that holds up what is essentially a Russian style oligarchy. They are going to keep pushing fear until everything is monetized and the mass of humanity below them can't complain because they are worked to the bone. Trump is merely the culture wars proverbial Id.

There is no reason to vote for anyone with an R next to their name if you value a cohesive society.

Agreed. And if you were ever curious on how they plan to maintain this vision of america, look up the Liberty Amendments.

[Xiahou]

It wouldn't be a "constitutional crisis", it's in the Constitution. They just know they wouldn't get the 2/3rds vote from Congress when Trump objects.

The 25th amendment option is a fantasy on multiple levels...
First, as you say, it ultimately would fall to Congress to decide and they would never declare him incapacitated.
Second, on the merits, it's difficult to rationalize in what way he's incapacitated. Like him or not, his fitness is in no way different that what it was when he was elected by the people. He's not incapacitated. Declaring him incapacitated would be overturning an election, nothing less.
Third, removing Trump would leave Pence as President. I'd view this as an improvement- but it would satisfy few of Trump's detractors. Aside from Trump's verbal diarrhea, little would be likely to change (policy-wise certainly) under President Pence.

[Montmorency]

As mentioned much earlier in the thread, the 25th Amendment is more difficult to engage than the impeachment process. You need 2/3 of both chambers, while impeachment requires 2/3 only of the Senate (with the simple majority of the House).

If, as established, even impeachment is impossible this term... one reason the 25th Amendment was mooted only early on may be that it took little time to realize that no Republican Congressperson would ever vote against their President.

More importantly, they have different purposes. Impeachment reflects personal and chronic culpability in some way, while the 25th reflects an episodic or unanticipated change in status.


The office-holder is a criminal tinpot idiot piece of with probable intellectual, emotional, and personality deficits? Impeachment.

The office-holder looked upon the Mountains of Madness from Air Force One and can't stop screaming? 25th Amendment.

Even if by some stretch the 25th Amendment criteria ("unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office") could arguably have been met from the outset, there is no scenario in which it is either preferred or available over impeachment in the case of Trump.


@Xiahou - Pence was elected on the same ticket as Trump, so in no way could the application of any Constitutional process of removal be construed to "overturn" the results of an election. If Pence is proved dirty in his own right, well, that's called a healthy immune response.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Section 4, which is the only one wherein the President may be declared incapable without her consent, would require the VP and a majority of the cabinet to accede to the President being defined as incapable of executing the office and submitting this declaration to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The sitting President would then, in all likelihood, respond that such a declaration was inaccurate, whereupon Congress, by 2/3 vote in both houses, would have to support the declaration of incapacity in order to relieve the President from executive function as President.

This clause was put in, more or less, to prevent a repeat of the Edith Wilson scenario (It has been alleged that Wilson did far more than act as a de-facto White House Chief of Staff during some phases of Wilson's post-stroke recovery and that she was actively making decisions for a President who was not functional).

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Invoking the 25th against the will of a sitting President would be virtually impossible, in practice, save where the incapacity was manifestly obvious to a degree where no party supporter could afford to "vote party," in the face of public opinion about the issue.

So where is this line?

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So where is this line?

That's the whole issue, really. I think a President who had a severe stroke but refused to invoke the 25th during rehabilitation would have it invoked for her. Clear and obvious signs of mental illness would get treated the same.

Yet anything short of the blatantly obvious would be arguable, and a 2/3 in both houses is NOT easily or frequently achieved if the issue is at all contentious.

[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

[Idaho]

No comment on the world leaders collectively laughing at trump's UN speech?

[rory_20_uk]

Does it really need one?

[Beskar]

No comment on the world leaders collectively laughing at trump's UN speech?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...neral-assembly

Though fox news cut all the laughing out when they tweeted clips, really clipping them short.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gack. I just watched most of the press conference.

I am now longing for the vocal clarity of Dubya.

[Xiahou]

Gack. I just watched most of the press conference.

I am now longing for the vocal clarity of Dubya.

The famous Billy Madison "no points" scene comes to mind.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard one of the reporters mislabeling Trump's discussion of the women making allegations against Kavanaugh as a condemnation of all women and attacking the victims. Trump was rambling, semi-coherent, and trying to hedge all of his statements just like Bill Clinton (though in no way as glibly).

Who needs that level of sleazy and shoddy reporting. Just put up a two minute clip of Trump himself. Trump does NOT need the services of spun media coverage to come out looking like a jackhole. He's got that down.

[Montmorency]

I heard one of the reporters mislabeling Trump's discussion of the women making allegations against Kavanaugh as a condemnation of all women and attacking the victims. Trump was rambling, semi-coherent, and trying to hedge all of his statements just like Bill Clinton (though in no way as glibly).

Who needs that level of sleazy and shoddy reporting. Just put up a two minute clip of Trump himself. Trump does NOT need the services of spun media coverage to come out looking like a jackhole. He's got that down.

Mm, Trump has gone after Ford for sure, the others I'm not aware of (yet).

In this press conference? Dunno what your reporter claimed. The conference is 14K words (!) transcribed, and I don't want to watch Trump speak too often, but skimming Trump accused his own accusers of being paid plants. Somehow more remarkably he stated

It doesn’t mean they had to report it, because in some instances, people keep it quiet. It’s a very tough situation for a woman. There’s no question about it. And in some cases, they do report it. Frankly, had they reported it, it would have been pretty amazing, wouldn’t it? But I guess they didn’t. And that’s okay. I’m not saying they had to report it. Because it’s a very personal thing. It’s a very big problem. There’s no question about it. Go ahead.

Perspicaciously explaining why a woman might not report, contradicting his own tweet

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”

and 1 of the like 3 defense plays Republicans have for Kavanaugh.

Jesus fuck what is with this guy, it's like all reality is a maelstrom of the Billy Madison clip and Hades gifs. All the gifs, really.

Anyway, if this is all Trump getting cold feet about Kavanaugh there is actually a chance the Republicans will replace him with someone less of a dirtbag. They can still fasttrack a nominee before 2019, so no problem for them, right? No need to confirm seemingly the worst available candidate as a naked show of contemptuous power. Maybe the optimists will be right about this one.

[Strike For The South]

That press conference was brutal. I suppose that is what happens when all the GOP handlers are ousted and the enormity of the job has crashed down upon him.

The Kavanaugh stuff is mind blowing. He has seemingly totally rejected everything. Him and Ford apparently live in two separate realities. No story out of this presidency has laid bare the two realities people seem to be cordoning themselves off in.

On some level I think this is deliberate by Kavanaugh et al. Cop to the drinking or any number of things that are literally laid out in his best friends book and Ford becomes that much more believable. Instead you stake out a position that is totally opposite, have your people at the Federalist and NRO nit pick her statement for any inconsistencies, and people become so swamped with information they throw up their hands and say I don't know.

That's how you win in a information war when you are wrong. You don't have to convince people you are right. You have to confuse them enough in that little bit time between their job and their chores that they check the news.

I would hope this liar gets jettisoned. Because he is at very least that. We will know more today.

[Strike For The South]

Well this is a disaster in real time. Maybe a good thing will happen today.

[Csargo]

That press conference was brutal. I suppose that is what happens when all the GOP handlers are ousted and the enormity of the job has crashed down upon him.

The Kavanaugh stuff is mind blowing. He has seemingly totally rejected everything. Him and Ford apparently live in two separate realities. No story out of this presidency has laid bare the two realities people seem to be cordoning themselves off in.

On some level I think this is deliberate by Kavanaugh et al. Cop to the drinking or any number of things that are literally laid out in his best friends book and Ford becomes that much more believable. Instead you stake out a position that is totally opposite, have your people at the Federalist and NRO nit pick her statement for any inconsistencies, and people become so swamped with information they throw up their hands and say I don't know.

That's how you win in a information war when you are wrong. You don't have to convince people you are right. You have to confuse them enough in that little bit time between their job and their chores that they check the news.

I would hope this liar gets jettisoned. Because he is at very least that. We will know more today.

It's a bit ridiculous that this guy is still even being considered at this point in my mind. After numerous allegations have been put forward, he should have been taken out of consideration. At the very least, he is as SFTS described a liar, and at worst just a terrible human being. A person like that has no place on the Supreme Court.

[Montmorency]

The 6-figure debts maintained for many years, the disappearing debts as of this year, the extremely bizarre excuses for the debts, the lifelong career as a partisan operator, the multiple perjuries or conscious sub-perjury dissemblage, being a lecherous sot as confirmed by many witnesses and friends, lying about being a lecherous sot, submitting that he was a virgin as a canard, coordinating with the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and the White House to push a doppelganger narrative... and I'm sure I'm missing a lot, beyond, obviously, the direct allegations of assault and misconduct. Claims which he has denied categorically, yesterday I hear in written testimony on penalty of felony.

All because Kennedy wanted him as a replacement and because Trump appears to believe he will rule in his favor on investigative or separation of powers matters. This is astronomical-tier corruption on the level of embezzling tens of millions from the government, at least. This is the type of thing many believed could only happen in a banana republic, or Russia. A truck has to be driven over Kavanaugh at this point, or else there is admitted no limit to the capacity for power to erase truth.

I've been listening to the hearing since 10 AM. Prosecutor Mitchell seems nice, at least. Striking that no Republicans other than Grassley seem to have addressed Ford.