The Trump Presidency - an analysis

[facthunter]

God and money ... What else do you need?  Cherish the right to vote. People fight and die to get it. THEY (who would screw you) want to deprive you of it so it MUST be good for you and Bad for THEM Being compulsory stops them stopping you. They don't want it compulsory..  By saying it was all a  steal Trump lost votes. Why vote if it's corrupt.? Trumps a genius, right? Then He's a great actor. 'Cause he behaves DUMB. Putin grins like Cheshire Cat when He's with Trump.. ALL his Christmases have come at once. The gift that never stops giving. Trump treats his allies like $#!t. Dog's gotta be having a great Joke, right? There's no other explanation. Nev

 

[onetrack]

It always amuses me that American Christian fundamentalists have so little real faith in God, they take their guns to church. God must be appalled.

 

And just the other day, a pastor in his church, armed with a gun, apprehended a crim hiding in the church.

 

Rather than take the Godly approach of assisting with the crims problems and sitting down and talking to him, and getting him to think about what he was doing - he drew his gun on him!

 

So the crim promptly took the gun off the pastor, and shot him dead! So much for their total faith in their firearms! 

[Marty_d]

7 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The aged. Sick, and weary shouldn,t have to trudge down to voting place, or get fined !.

Get the pollies to make voting voluntary for seniors and those with mobility problems.

I really struggled last time, SO DESTROYED my vote, in protest !.

We only have to be seen and the name ticked off the register, so why make it compulsory? .

spacesailor

 

As Octave said, postal vote.

 

I understand your frustration, but by destroying your ballot you're not changing anything in the system, just taking your voice out of it.

The reason it's compulsory is so we don't end up with a Trump, or a Pauline, or a Clive in the top job.  If voting's not compulsory then you run the risk that only the fringe-dwellers (on any end of the political divide) will vote.  Hence you end up with all the Democrats in the US in 2016 sitting back at home because they thought everyone else would vote for Hilary.

 

With everyone having to vote I think it always tends to guide the parliament close to the centre. 

[spacesailor]

 "The reason it's compulsory is so we don't end up with a Trump, or a Pauline, or a Clive in the top job."

But as Trump say's "it's all crook ".

If the sitting tribe thinks it could lose, they change the boundaries, and lots of Pork barrelling. Lots of Lies and dirty tactics is what we get now !.

Is that what we expect of OUR government ?.

Disillusioned spacesailor 

 

[old man emu]

10 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Is that what we expect of OUR government ?.

Well, after all these years of these things happening, the answer is, "Yes. That's exactly what we'd expect."

 

Is it what we want? Definitely not.

[Old Koreelah]

11 hours ago, Marty_d said:

...If voting's not compulsory then you run the risk that only the fringe-dwellers (on any end of the political divide) will vote. 

There are several arguments for making voting compulsory, but the most convincing one is that Tony Abbott is against it...

[facthunter]

A good test of what is right. IF HE likes it, it isn't.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

One of the better statements; if not for a clause in the US constitution, this bloke could be the President to unite a divided nation.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/arnold-schwarzenegger-twitter-president-donald-trump-b809079.html

[nomadpete]

Who would have thought that it'd take this long for somebody to stand up and make a sensible, moving speech that tries to settle the nuts down? And who woulda thought it'd be Arnie that did it?

 

That's the sort of thing that I'd expect a statesman to say!

 

Not many statesman left in the 'states I'd say!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

What a wonderful speech. If only for that bit in the 18th Century Constitution Arnie would be odds-on to be President, even though he is a Republican.

 

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5 (emphasis added):

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

That was a reasonable thing to have in the Constitution just after the states united to expel British rule. They didn't want their politics swamped by pro-British English new-comers who might turn the new federation back to the British Crown. But now, nearly 250 years later, the federation has accepted and profited from masses of immigrants. The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen".  Some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.

 

The bulk of the US Constitution is 233 years old. It is high time it was given a thorough review, and those parts included to deal with current matters in the 1780s, but somewhat irrelevant in the 21st Century, should be either abandoned, or brought up to date. I wonder how many politicians who are graduates of the Harvard School of Business have forgotten the basic tenet of Management - Identify, Plan, Implement, Review. 

[nomadpete]

You suggest that a constitution that's 233 treats old, has past its use-by date.

Using your logic, ours must be due for the dust bin, too?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Harvard School of Business have forgotten the basic tenet of Management - Identify, Plan, Implement, Review. 

Are you sure about that process? I've done a few of those courses. I thought the motto was "Indemnify, Plan, Implement, Review"

 

But I might have been nodding off when they got that far into the training......

😱

Edited January 11, 2021 by nomadpete
corrected the spellchek

[willedoo]

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

You suggest that a constitution that's 233 treats old, has past its use-by date.

Using your logic, ours must be due for the dust bin, too?

Some would argue that is was fit for the dustbin in 1901.

[nomadpete]

I wouldn't argue with that.

 

Although a bill of rights wouldn't go astray.

[onetrack]

Quote

The bulk of the US Constitution is 233 years old. It is high time it was given a thorough review, and those parts included to deal with current matters in the 1780s, but somewhat irrelevant in the 21st Century, should be either abandoned, or brought up to date

GASP!!! - BITE YOUR TONGUE!! Are you some kind of anarchist?? This Constitution was handed down to the Americans on two stone tablets, by God himself (not Moses!)!!

 

I've actually heard Americans intimate that, time after time. The Constitution is UNTOUCHABLE!!

 

Funnily enough, several parts of the U.S. Constitution have been amended - but you'd better not suggest any alterations to the Second Amendment, No Sirree.....!!

[onetrack]

Our Constitution was carefully drafted after lengthy study of the American Constitution and English Common Law.

 

The deficiencies in both systems were attempted to be addressed in our Constitution, by our "founding fathers" (who were largely senior lawyers).

 

They purposely excluded a Bill of Rights and a Second Amendment style of guaranteed firearms ownership - seeing how both those sections had major failings.

 

They purposely set up our Constitution so any section can be changed, any time, purely by launching legal action to change it. This has been done numerous times since Federation.

 

Our system works just fine. A Bill of Rights only sets in stone what doesn't need to be set in stone, merely addressed under current laws and practices and cultural leanings.

[spacesailor]

OUR FOUNDING FATHER,S

Featherekd the nest especially for the upper class !.

spacesailor

[Yenn]

Before a constitution is changed there should be a good reason for changing it. The fact that it is 233 years old is nowhere near good enough.

There are moves afoot to get rid of Trump and impeachment will probably be tried, but time runs out too soon.

The vice president it seems can get rid of Trump by getting him declared unfit. He would then assume the role pf President, but I cannot see that happening, Trumps mad supporters would murder Pence and he may have bodyguards, but they would have to keep him out of sight for many years. The Trump supporters are about as mad as trump himself. I reckon the Republicans consider themselves between a rock and a hard place and it is all of their own doing.

[nomadpete]

I read (it was on the Meeja, so...), That there was a noose taken to Capitol Hill for use on Pence. And there were threats that sounded serious, suggesting an intention to shoot Ms Pelosi if they could find her.

 

Of course there was a lot of BS going on, but with everyone hyping each other up, it had become a serious chant. I feel that the media had under reported the seriousness of the actual event.

Edited January 11, 2021 by nomadpete

[octave]

As I understand it, Impeachment can continue past the end of his presidency.  This would be pointless from the point of view of getting rid of him early but would mean he is unlikely to be able to stand again in 24, he also would lose many of his benefits that ex presidents are entitled to.     

 

I suspect since he may not get away with a self pardon that he may perhaps resign in the next few days. This would mean Pence would become President and thereby would be able to pardon Trump.  This is what Nixon did. 

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

One of the better statements; if not for a clause in the US constitution, this bloke could be the President to unite a divided nation.

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/arnold-schwarzenegger-twitter-president-donald-trump-b809079.html

Wasn't bad, but he did go a little silly when he picked up the Conan sword and went on about a democracy being like a tempered blade.

 

It's a MOVIE PROP, Arnie...

[facthunter]

Arnie is not as dumb as people might like to think. I'm an admirer. Rule out compulsive LIARS and we might get somewhere.. Muslims can tell lies to infidels. Americans can tell lies if there's a dollar in it. Beware of false Prophets making big Profits.  Nev

[onetrack]

I dunno, Marty - weren't you right into the sword scene, around Christmas? You mean to tell me now, that the bloke who said "the pen was mightier than the sword", was right all along? 

[Marty_d]

1 minute ago, onetrack said:

I dunno, Marty - weren't you right into the sword scene, around Christmas? You mean to tell me now, that the bloke who said "the pen was mightier than the sword", was right all along? 

I was mate and I wouldn't say "no" to the Conan sword if Arnie offered it to me... but I'm willing to bet it hasn't been folded multiple times like a Japanese katana.

 

I think we've seen in recent days that Twitter is mightier than the sword, at least on the weak-minded!

 

(And yes - Mr Bulwer-Lytton was right, except when it comes to one-on-one combat...)

[Old Koreelah]

34 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Wasn't bad, but he did go a little silly when he picked up the Conan sword and went on about a democracy being like a tempered blade.

 

It's a MOVIE PROP, Arnie...

To Aussie eyes, yes; but don't forget who he’s appealing to.

To get anywhere in US politics you need to appear in front of at least one flag and talk sincerely about “heroes” and democracy; having a preacher by your side is also almost mandatory.