Donald Trump Appreciation Thread

[revolution saint]

On 29/06/2024 at 10:32, Fan The Flames said:

If Trump wins, I can see a lot of chatter about him being able to run for a third term, legitimately.

Both Reagan and Clinton thought the 22 Amendment should be changed and so does Trump. Part of his argument will be that he didn't lose the 2020 election and so was denied the benefits of consecutive administrations.

 

 

TBF I've always thought the 22nd amendment was a weird one - as long as it's democratic and fair then I don't see the problem with people being able to serve more than two terms.  

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

TBF I've always thought the 22nd amendment was a weird one - as long as it's democratic and fair then I don't see the problem with people being able to serve more than two terms.  

Talk of changing or revoking the 22nd Amendment does show one important thing; Amendments to the US Constitution are not sacrosanct.

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

TBF I've always thought the 22nd amendment was a weird one - as long as it's democratic and fair then I don't see the problem with people being able to serve more than two terms.  

Franklin Roosevelt served 4 terms in office but the amendment was brought in to prevent anyone else from doing so. It reflects the idea of checks and balances, in theory limiting the power of the President, which is the basis of the American constitution. 

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, revolution saint said:

TBF I've always thought the 22nd amendment was a weird one - as long as it's democratic and fair then I don't see the problem with people being able to serve more than two terms.  

It's a sensible amendment imo. It's really hard to maintain touch with reality when you're responsible for big decisions, live in a grace and favour house with servants, your MPs tell you what you want to hear in exchange for a ministers job and you dont have to spend hours waiting on a call centre to get the utility company to stop overcharging you or the mail order company to credit your return. 

People seem to lose it after about 8-10 years, either cease being effective because they've burned out and run out of fresh ideas or they develop a King complex and think they are solely right.  As Thames says above it also stops you becoming a fixture and people dont develop loyalty to you personally rather than the job you're doing. 

Edited June 30 by buctootim

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, buctootim said:

It's a sensible amendment imo. It's really hard to maintain touch with reality when you're responsible for big decisions, live in a grace and favour house with servants, your MPs tell you what you want to hear in exchange for a ministers job and you dont have to spend two hours waiting on a call centre to try and get thew utility company to read the meter and stop overcharging you or the mail order company to credit your return. 

People seem to lose it after about 8-10 years, either cease being effective because they've burned out and run out of fresh ideas or they develop a King complex and think they are solely right.     

But if you're of the opinion that people "lose" it then you'd trust democracy to boot them out?  22nd amendment came out about in the 50s because the republicans were concerned they would never have another president elected again and it wasn't really about checks and balances.

In most cases people get sick of someone after 8 years so it probably wouldn't be an issue anyway.  Personally find it strange that people try to defend something fundamentally undemocratic just because Trump is advocating changing it.  The flip side is you could have Obama back and I'd take that every day of the week. 

[buctootim]

On 30/06/2024 at 13:11, revolution saint said:

Personally find it strange that people try to defend something fundamentally undemocratic just because Trump is advocating changing it.  

But it's in place in most countries in the world for a reason and those reasons remain valid whether or not Trump is challenging it. The dangers of someone being in power for unlimited periods and using that time to accumulate more power and abolish checks and balances far outweigh the benefits of keeping someone for extra terms just because they seem nice and quite competent. There are always new nice and quite competent people you can elect. 

 

Edited July 2 by buctootim

[Tamesaint]

8 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

But if you're of the opinion that people "lose" it then you'd trust democracy to boot them out?  22nd amendment came out about in the 50s because the republicans were concerned they would never have another president elected again and it wasn't really about checks and balances.

In most cases people get sick of someone after 8 years so it probably wouldn't be an issue anyway.  Personally find it strange that people try to defend something fundamentally undemocratic just because Trump is advocating changing it.  The flip side is you could have Obama back and I'd take that every day of the week. 

The amendment was passed in the 1950's but the 2 term tradition goes back to the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Until FDR in 1940 no president had served more than 2 terms. The amendment formalised a previous convention. 

[revolution saint]

5 minutes ago, buctootim said:

But it's in place in most countries in the world for a reason and those reasons remain valid whether or not Trump is challenging it. The dangers of someone being in power for unlimited periods and using that time to accumulate more power and abolish checks and balances far outweigh the benefits of keeping someone in power for extra terms just because they seem nice and quite competent. There are always new nice and quite competent people you can elect. 

 

Nah, it's undemocratic whichever way you dress it up.  You either trust the electorate or you don't.  Presidents would only remain in power as long as they were attractive to voters - there's your check right there.

[revolution saint]

7 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

The amendment was passed in the 1950's but the 2 term tradition goes back to the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Until FDR in 1940 no president had served more than 2 terms. The amendment formalised a previous convention. 

Cheers, I'm aware of that but thanks anyway.

[Dark Munster]

On 29/06/2024 at 02:32, Fan The Flames said:

If Trump wins, I can see a lot of chatter about him being able to run for a third term, legitimately.

Both Reagan and Clinton thought the 22 Amendment should be changed and so does Trump. Part of his argument will be that he didn't lose the 2020 election and so was denied the benefits of consecutive administrations.

Plus the Orange Mussolini will have the Supreme Court, with their 6-3 fascist supermajority, to back him up. Just like they are doing currently in delaying his stolen classified documents and insurrection cases.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Dark Munster said:

Plus the Orange Mussolini will have the Supreme Court, with their 6-3 fascist supermajority, to back him up. Just like they are doing currently in delaying his stolen classified documents and insurrection cases.

It could be argued that Donald Trump really is playing a blinder then?

[Fan The Flames]

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It could be argued that Donald Trump really is playing a blinder then?

Shame the blinder is for himself and not the citizens of the US.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Shame the blinder is for himself and not the citizens of the US.

It's the mantra of politicians isn't it?  Look after number 1.  Undeniable that he's doing a good job of that.

[badgerx16]

Steve Bannon, before his jail term begins, says there is an army of MAGA supporters ready to ensure that the correct result comes ou of the Presidentisl election.

[Fan The Flames]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's the mantra of politicians isn't it?  Look after number 1.  Undeniable that he's doing a good job of that.

Not Sir Keir, it's country first.

[Weston Super Saint]

35 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Not Sir Keir, it's country first.

Just like it was with Sunak.

Eventually though, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Dark Munster]

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just like it was with Sunak.

Eventually though, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

US presidents don’t have absolute power. But Trump and his fascist Republicans are goose stepping toward that. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

US presidents don’t have absolute power. But Trump and his fascist Republicans are goose stepping toward that. 

😂😂😂

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just like it was with Sunak.

Eventually though, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Did Sunak ever say it was country first? It has been party first (in more ways than one) with the Tories for years.

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Did Sunak ever say it was country first? It has been party first (in more ways than one) with the Tories for years.

He shouldn't need to 'say it'.  It should be a prerequisite for the Prime Minister to put the country first.

[Guided Missile]

Trump may be able to claim immunity over Jan 6, Supreme Court rules. Hell, I think this means Trump may actually be allowed to assassinate his political opponents in future. (or at least cheat at golf)

[whelk]

I genuinely cannot fathom what sort of twisted immoral fucker you have to be to be enamoured with Trump. Sort of person who must fiddle insurance claims, would never go to the aid of others and basically a selfish cowardly cunt.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Trump may be able to claim immunity over Jan 6, Supreme Court rules. Hell, I think this means Trump may actually be allowed to assassinate his political opponents in future. (or at least cheat at golf)

What a stupid ruling - the President is effectively God and free to do whatsoever he/she wishes.

How does telling a mob to march on the Capitol to overturn the legitimate result of an election fall under the definition of acting in his official capacity ?

Biden needs to use this SC ruling to squash MAGA with extreme prejudice, as it must apply to him as well.

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

US presidents don’t have absolute power. But Trump and his fascist Republicans are goose stepping toward that. 

Looks like they do now.

[pingpong]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Trump may be able to claim immunity over Jan 6, Supreme Court rules. Hell, I think this means Trump may actually be allowed to assassinate his political opponents in future. (or at least cheat at golf)

Or Biden could do it now...

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Or Biden could do it now...

Imagine JB encouraging a mob march to prevent the certification of a Trump victory amidst Social Media claims of ballot fraud.

[Guided Missile]

16 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Or Biden could do it now...

The man that finally beat Medicare.🤣

[Fan The Flames]

My little understanding of the American constitution is that it was constructed to stop anyone getting absolute power. This goes against that and surely goes against the Republicans desire to have laws that reflects the historical aspirations of the founding fathers. 

[Guided Missile]

5 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

My little understanding of the American constitution is that it was constructed to stop anyone getting absolute power. This goes against that and surely goes against the Republicans desire to have laws that reflects the historical aspirations of the founding fathers. 

The American Constitution contains several mechanisms designed to prevent any individual or group from gaining absolute power. These mechanisms include:

1. Separation of Powers

The Constitution divides the federal government into three distinct branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each branch has its own functions and powers:

Legislative Branch (Congress): Makes laws.

Executive Branch (President and administration): Enforces laws.

Judicial Branch (Supreme Court and lower courts): Interprets laws.

2. Checks and Balances

Each branch of government has the ability to check the powers of the other branches to ensure a balance of power:

Congress: Can pass laws, override presidential vetoes with a two-thirds majority, and has the power of the purse (control over funding). It can also impeach and remove the president and federal judges.

President: Can veto legislation, appoint federal judges (with Senate approval), and has the power to pardon.

Supreme Court: Can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional through judicial review.

3. Federalism

The Constitution establishes a system of federalism, dividing power between the national government and the state governments. This division ensures that power is not centralized and that states retain significant authority.

4. Bill of Rights and Amendments

The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, protect individual liberties and rights from government infringement. Subsequent amendments have continued to expand and protect these rights. Key provisions include:

First Amendment: Guarantees freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition.

Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Provide rights related to due process, fair trials, and protection against self-incrimination.

Tenth Amendment: Reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

5. Regular Elections

The Constitution mandates regular elections for public officials, including:

House of Representatives: Every two years.

Senate: Every six years, with one-third of seats up for election every two years.

President: Every four years.

Local and state elections: Vary by state but ensure frequent turnover and accountability.

6. Impeachment Process

The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of federal officials, including the president, for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The process involves:

House of Representatives: Can impeach with a simple majority vote.

Senate: Conducts the trial and can remove the official with a two-thirds majority vote.

7. Amendment Process

The Constitution can be amended, but the process is deliberately difficult, requiring broad consensus:

Proposal: By a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.

Ratification: By three-fourths of state legislatures or state conventions.

8. Independent Judiciary

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life (subject to good behavior), ensuring they are insulated from political pressure and can make decisions based on the Constitution rather than popular or political considerations.

Conclusion

The American Constitution employs a combination of structural mechanisms, rights protections, and procedural safeguards to prevent the concentration of power and protect democratic governance. These measures ensure that power is distributed and that no single entity or individual can easily dominate the government or infringe upon the rights of citizens.

[Guided Missile]

God bless America.

[badgerx16]

"8. Independent Judiciary

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life (subject to good behavior), ensuring they are insulated from political pressure and can make decisions based on the Constitution rather than popular or political considerations."

 

Yeah, right.

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

God bless America.

God gave up on that shitshow decades ago.

[Tamesaint]

I suppose that GM has to get excited about Donnie. His boys in the UK are going to get one helluva beating on Thursday .... and Deutsche Bank are still going strong. 😁😁😁😁

Edited July 2 by Tamesaint

[sadoldgit]

14 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

"8. Independent Judiciary

Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life (subject to good behavior), ensuring they are insulated from political pressure and can make decisions based on the Constitution rather than popular or political considerations."

 

Yeah, right.

There will be many people today thinking that the Supreme Court have made a political decision not a lawful decision. If only there was a higher, totally  impartial court of appeal.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

There will be many people today thinking that the Supreme Court have made a political decision not a lawful decision. If only there was a higher, totally  impartial court of appeal.

They are the 'higher and totally impartial court'. If there was a next level, who is to say they coul not be compromised in turn ? How many layers of appeal judiciary are required ?

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

They are the 'higher and totally impartial court'. If there was a next level, who is to say they coul not be compromised in turn ? How many layers of appeal judiciary are required ?

Impartial, when Trump chose several of the judges?

As to how many layers, that is the argument for/against something like the ECHR. One of the arguments in favour of the ECHR is that it provides checks and balances to state legislature and provides protection against government interference into state legislation.

Many Americans themselves accept that this is an abuse of power and that the decision is biased and wrong. The problem they have is that they have no where else to go. There are no checks and balances and it opens the door to future Presidents having the absolute power of a dictator. In answer to your question, one, an independent international court of appeal where the best legal minds on the planet sit in judgement and as a final arbiter of justice.

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Impartial, when Trump chose several of the judges?

As to how many layers, that is the argument for/against something like the ECHR. One of the arguments in favour of the ECHR is that it provides checks and balances to state legislature and provides protection against government interference into state legislation.

Many Americans themselves accept that this is an abuse of power and that the decision is biased and wrong. The problem they have is that they have no where else to go. There are no checks and balances and it opens the door to future Presidents having the absolute power of a dictator. In answer to your question, one, an independent international court of appeal where the best legal minds on the planet sit in judgement and as a final arbiter of justice.

Yes they were appointed by Trump, but the majority were appointed by Dubya or Democrat Presidents. Whoever put them in position, Article 8 defines their constitutional role.  Whether they are being a-political in their considerations is open to question, but we must now wait for the lower Courts to work out how the SC declaration can be interpreted, implemented, and possibly challenged.

The checks and balances you mention are created by the Constitution and theoretical separation and independence of the 3 branches.

As for asking for something akin to the ECHR, that initially requires such an organisation to exist, then you have to sign up to it and accept it's judgements, and at the end of the day there is nothing to stop a member country that disagrees with one of it's rulings leaving it's jurisdiction and ignoring it.

Edited July 2 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

I had forgotten the U.N’s International Court of Justice. I thought that they just dealt with issues between countries but apparent they also give legal advice/rulings for individual country’s internal affairs as well. 

Edited July 2 by sadoldgit
Amended

[badgerx16]

31 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I had forgotten the U.N’s International Court of Justice. I thought that they just dealt with issues between countries but apparent they also give legal advice/rulings for individual country’s internal affairs as well. 

Do you think that if the UN Court ruled against the US the American Government would pay it any attention ?

 

Edit; as the US has never signed up to the Court, as accepting it's authority would be in breach of the US Constitution, they wouldn't. In any case, the UN Security Council is the enforcement body, so it would never get past a US veto.

Edited July 2 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

I saw this different take on twitter....

America, I'm very happy for you. Supreme Court just ruled that Biden can pass Executive Orders to forgive student loans, abandon the Electoral College, ban convicted fraudsters and liable rapists from running for the Presidency, and make himself or VP Harris President for life.

[Dark Munster]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Yes they were appointed by Trump, but the majority were appointed by Dubya or Democrat Presidents.

6 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans (3 by the orange Mussolini). Of the 6 fascists, 5 were appointed by a Republican who lost the popular vote. Not to mention the other (Thomas) being the most corrupt having pocketed millions from a billionaire.

The electoral college which gave us these 6 fascists, along with a real possibility of another Trump presidency (despite again losing the popular vote) is the root of how the USA can soon turn into a fascist dictatorship.

GM and other right wing zealots may think this is wonderful, but having the world’s only superpower a fascist dictatorship should scare every sane person on the planet shitless.

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

There will be many people today thinking that the Supreme Court have made a political decision not a lawful decision. If only there was a higher, totally  impartial court of appeal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

There are no checks and balances and it opens the door to future Presidents having the absolute power of a dictator.

Fucking hell, what a load of old pony. There’s probably more checks and balances than in  any other democracy. 

[Guided Missile]

20 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

6 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans (3 by the orange Mussolini). Of the 6 fascists, 5 were appointed by a Republican who lost the popular vote. Not to mention the other (Thomas) being the most corrupt having pocketed millions from a billionaire.

The electoral college which gave us these 6 fascists, along with a real possibility of another Trump presidency (despite again losing the popular vote) is the root of how the USA can soon turn into a fascist dictatorship.

GM and other right wing zealots may think this is wonderful, but having the world’s only superpower a fascist dictatorship should scare every sane person on the planet shitless.

I think you're confusing the US with Russia, mate. Take an aspirin and have a lie down.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Guided Missile said:

I think you're confusing the US with Russia, mate. Take an aspirin and have a lie down.

Trump is a Putin wannabe.

[Dark Munster]

48 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, what a load of old pony. There’s probably more checks and balances than in  any other democracy. 

When the highest court in the land says presidents can do whatever unlawful acts they like if it’s an “official act” then checks and balances have gone out the window.

This is exactly what happened in pre war Germany. 

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

When the highest court in the land says presidents can do whatever unlawful acts they like if it’s an “official act” then checks and balances have gone out the window.

This is exactly what happened in pre war Germany. 

what do you think will happen in the next 4-5 years relating to the USA?

 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

what do you think will happen in the next 4-5 years relating to the USA?

 

 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, what a load of old pony. There’s probably more checks and balances than in  any other democracy. 

How many other democracies have a head of state who is above the law? You won’t find anyone who doesn’t have a hard on for dictators who thinks this is kosher.

Edited July 2 by sadoldgit

[egg]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fucking hell, what a load of old pony. There’s probably more checks and balances than in  any other democracy. 

Absolute pony. The supreme court decision tells us that any checks and balances they had can be manipulated by having politically appointed judges. The country is a complete shit show.