Trump Presidency

[Chips]

I think what Vertigo is implying is that he wasn't obligated to follow illegal orders, nor he is required now to take orders from a dictator. And if that dictator organizers a mob to storm the capital, it's in his oath to protect the constitution and its institutions.

Technically all Americans must follow a similar oath. Immigrants, like myself, also formally took this oath as well actually. While natural born do not, but it's implied.

In contrast to a position that a take over by dictators, American neo Nazis, or fascists should be only addressed at the polls

The same allegiance says obey the orders of the President of the United States.

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html#: ... 0appointed

So, he who holds keys...?

But the reality is, someone is getting to decide at what point they feel the constitution / oath / whatever is violated and act accordingly. Declaring they're doing so motivated by *their* belief that they must, to uphold a written document upon which their belief/country is founded? (the constitution). Ignoring all others in this?

Surely that's just *not* how a democracy works; is it not conflicting with the parts about the judicial and legislative branches (articles 1 and 3) of the constitution if we refer specifically to that?

A slight parallel maybe?

How does this (if true) then differ from those who purport to interpret various Islamic laws and determine who should and shouldn't live, based upon their interpretation? "According to some historical written text, my belief is that you're violating X and therefore consequence Y." How do we now differ? How can an individual with the opinion hold a moral high ground?

It is just raising my eyebrow, as there appears to be a belief of absolute correctness and no consideration beyond their own stance. The query is... are we straying? Are we straying down a grey path in fear of a possibility, and twisting our viewpoint to attempt to avoid, and justify, the action?

If there's zero cause for concern then I'll drop it. I'll drop it anyway. If there's no point to be made I'm off on a tangent. I just found it... alarming. Maybe I'm just utterly misreading things, or maybe it gives cause for some to pause. Maybe. Bit like social media - it's easy to read too much into something; but social media also shows if you don't challenge things can easily magnify

Personally I just think it's worth exploring what's meant and challenging opinions exhibited every now and then; checks and balances type. I don't believe anyone is actually bringing out the pitchforks and the diesel. I mean, who can afford diesel these days anyway.

[fiksal]

I think what Vertigo is implying is that he wasn't obligated to follow illegal orders, nor he is required now to take orders from a dictator. And if that dictator organizers a mob to storm the capital, it's in his oath to protect the constitution and its institutions.

Technically all Americans must follow a similar oath. Immigrants, like myself, also formally took this oath as well actually. While natural born do not, but it's implied.

In contrast to a position that a take over by dictators, American neo Nazis, or fascists should be only addressed at the polls

The same allegiance says obey the orders of the President of the United States.

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html#: ... 0appointed

So, he who holds keys...?

Thanks for clarifying, I didnt recall the mention of a President and of a God.

Citizen's oath have no such allegiance. And from what I recall, some court cases long ago confirmed that one cant go against the Constitution on orders.

But the reality is, someone is getting to decide at what point they feel the constitution / oath / whatever is violated and act accordingly. Declaring they're doing so motivated by *their* belief that they must, to uphold a written document upon which their belief/country is founded? (the constitution). Ignoring all others in this?

one has to make this determination, yes. If one is unsure one can involve a Constitutional lawyer.

Surely that's just *not* how a democracy works; is it not conflicting with the parts about the judicial and legislative branches (articles 1 and 3) of the constitution if we refer specifically to that?

Democracy must function first. If democracy doesnt function, it doesnt work then. Trying to live in a fake democracy, with hopes of resurrecting it, doesnt work. See: Russia.
We can talk about specific cases perhaps if generic is becoming vague?

A slight parallel maybe?

How does this (if true) then differ from those who purport to interpret various Islamic laws and determine who should and shouldn't live, based upon their interpretation? "According to some historical written text, my belief is that you're violating X and therefore consequence Y." How do we now differ? How can an individual with the opinion hold a moral high ground?

It is just raising my eyebrow, as there appears to be a belief of absolute correctness and no consideration beyond their own stance. The query is... are we straying? Are we straying down a grey path in fear of a possibility, and twisting our viewpoint to attempt to avoid, and justify, the action?

I'd say a compass should be something about removing freedoms (granted by Constitution in US case), removal of democratic institutions (elects, electors, term limits, offices), oppression (of those who are seen unfriendly to power), stomping out opposition. That kind of stuff.

Personally I just think it's worth exploring what's meant and challenging opinions exhibited every now and then; checks and balances type. I don't believe anyone is actually bringing out the pitchforks and the diesel. I mean, who can afford diesel these days anyway.

It's always worth exploring.
It's to be noted that I've seen the result that a peaceful protest brings in Russia. More arrests.

[Vertigo 7]

I think what Vertigo is implying is that he wasn't obligated to follow illegal orders, nor he is required now to take orders from a dictator. And if that dictator organizers a mob to storm the capital, it's in his oath to protect the constitution and its institutions.

Technically all Americans must follow a similar oath. Immigrants, like myself, also formally took this oath as well actually. While natural born do not, but it's implied.

In contrast to a position that a take over by dictators, American neo Nazis, or fascists should be only addressed at the polls

The same allegiance says obey the orders of the President of the United States.

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html#: ... 0appointed

So, he who holds keys...?

Thanks for clarifying, I didnt recall the mention of a President and of a God.

Citizen's oath have no such allegiance. And from what I recall, some court cases long ago confirmed that one cant go against the Constitution on orders.

according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Which clearly states not to obey illegal orders. (articles 90 and 92)

But the reality is, someone is getting to decide at what point they feel the constitution / oath / whatever is violated and act accordingly. Declaring they're doing so motivated by *their* belief that they must, to uphold a written document upon which their belief/country is founded? (the constitution). Ignoring all others in this?

one has to make this determination, yes. If one is unsure one can involve a Constitutional lawyer.

Well, I recall some colonists that felt their beliefs were being violated, despite the denials from ol King George III. They didn't take it lying down, either.

Surely that's just *not* how a democracy works; is it not conflicting with the parts about the judicial and legislative branches (articles 1 and 3) of the constitution if we refer specifically to that?

Democracy must function first. If democracy doesnt function, it doesnt work then. Trying to live in a fake democracy, with hopes of resurrecting it, doesnt work. See: Russia.
We can talk about specific cases perhaps if generic is becoming vague?

Lets also talk about other passages of the Constitution. Like 1st amendment rights that the GOP is attempting to dismantle in schools and libraries around the country. Or 2nd amendment rights that's meant to guardrail against the rise of a fascist regime - that's okay to have on paper, ratified and all of that, but not put in practice? I know, I know, that one is supposed to be used by the GOP only to stop the evils of socialism, not to be used against the "very fine people" themselves.

A slight parallel maybe?

How does this (if true) then differ from those who purport to interpret various Islamic laws and determine who should and shouldn't live, based upon their interpretation? "According to some historical written text, my belief is that you're violating X and therefore consequence Y." How do we now differ? How can an individual with the opinion hold a moral high ground?

It is just raising my eyebrow, as there appears to be a belief of absolute correctness and no consideration beyond their own stance. The query is... are we straying? Are we straying down a grey path in fear of a possibility, and twisting our viewpoint to attempt to avoid, and justify, the action?

I'd say a compass should be something about removing freedoms (granted by Constitution in US case), removal of democratic institutions (elects, electors, term limits, offices), oppression (of those who are seen unfriendly to power), stomping out opposition. That kind of stuff.

It's easy to draw false equivalencies, but if you're being honest with yourself, you know this isn't even remotely the same thing. We're not preaching doctrine; we're trying to survive. There's a very big difference.

Personally I just think it's worth exploring what's meant and challenging opinions exhibited every now and then; checks and balances type. I don't believe anyone is actually bringing out the pitchforks and the diesel. I mean, who can afford diesel these days anyway.

It's always worth exploring.
It's to be noted that I've seen the result that a peaceful protest brings in Russia. More arrests.

No, but its coming. The chum is in the water and the sharks are circling.

I'm quite confident Cheeto Christ is going to lose this election, and I'm quite confident that his maga faithful will attempt a coup and start a civil war over it. Where will your ideals be when that happens?

[clakclak]

[…]

But the reality is, someone is getting to decide at what point they feel the constitution / oath / whatever is violated and act accordingly. Declaring they're doing so motivated by *their* belief that they must, to uphold a written document upon which their belief/country is founded? (the constitution). Ignoring all others in this?

Surely that's just *not* how a democracy works; is it not conflicting with the parts about the judicial and legislative branches (articles 1 and 3) of the constitution if we refer specifically to that?

[…]

That may not he how things work in America (or maybe it is, I certainly do not know), however there are some countries that I’d call democracies that operate under exactly that principle, just with on minor difference: It is usually eventually up to courts to decide if the act (whatever it may be) was needed to uphold constitutional order and ones personal believe about rather or not an act was justified does not really matter in figuring out if it was.

See for example the German constitution’s “right to resistance”:

1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order if no other remedy is available.

Now the issue here is the same it is in America. Ultimately if someone declares they want to use said right a court will have to decide if what they did was legal.

If the person was correct and there is a group that seeks to abolish the constitution or democracy and they win, than the courts will obviously be against them.

If said group is stopped to early, the courts of a still democratic country might come to the conclusion that there were indeed other means to stop the takeover, for example the ‘normal’ way via executive and judicial processes.

The case in which this paragraph is really potent is to absolve people of crimes committed during a civil if the democratic/constitutional loyalists win. Because technically a civilian fighting in a civil war and, for example, killing someone could still be a crime.

Or to quote someone more qualified than I am:

[…] "[The Citizens] are the last resort to protect the constitution. If nothing else helps, the constitution hands them the weapon of the right of resistance in order to ensure their own survival," writes constitutional law expert Josef Isensee in his essay "Widerstandsrecht im Grundgesetz" in the "Handbook for political violence" published in 2013.

The right of resistance thus unleashes private violence and breaches the civic duty to obey the law. The aim: Article 20(4) is about emergency aid for citizens for the purpose of fending off attacks on the constitution and the constitutional order. The object of protection is thus narrowly defined: the constitutional state.[…]

Source: https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/text ... _20-214054


I am almost certain something similar MUST exist in America.


Edit: I do not know how, but I somehow managed to not see Vertigo’s and Fiksal’s responses before writing this comment. The conversation clearly moved on so feel free to ignore it!

[matthewfarmery]

Just read that there was a delay with Trump appearing on stage at the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention, While there was some audio issues, and were corrected quickly. The real reason for the delay was Trump himself. He throw a fit when he was told that everything he said would be fact checked, so at first he refused to go on stage. However he caved in, as would it have have backfired on him, if he didn't step on the stage. (people knew he was there) But as it turns out, ther whole thing was a bad mistake anyway.

And also, Trump been having a fit over the release of American soldiers, (finally they are home) But Trump has blasted Biden for the deal, and said that it was He (Trump) that would be given credit for the exchange) And demanded details on what America would give in return. (and considering at least one hostage has been imprisoned since Trump was in the WH. and he did release a lot of Taliban prisoners on his watch and got nothing back. Trump has no grounds on attacking Biden. And Vance tried to spin this as well, and failed.

Could have just said, they welcomed the return of the soldiers, instead of saying more BS that just made both men look like fools that they are.

I would say, Vance is making himself look real bad, so, what is bad for them, good for Harris and more ammo to use against them. (plus both men are attacking her heritage and background still.

[jlehtone]

... made both men look like fools that they are.

Did it? Did it make them look like fools among loyal MAGA? Did it even among the undecided?
Is it "confirmation bias" to see foolishness where one assumes foolishness?

The case in which this paragraph is really potent is to absolve people of crimes committed during a civil if the democratic/constitutional loyalists win.

What if the undemocratic/unconstitutional win and appoint new judges? Don't you expect "not guilty, it was constitutional" verdicts for the winners then too?

[clakclak]

[…]

The case in which this paragraph is really potent is to absolve people of crimes committed during a civil if the democratic/constitutional loyalists win.

What if the undemocratic/unconstitutional win and appoint new judges? Don't you expect "not guilty, it was constitutional" verdicts for the winners then too?

Edit: Read it the wrong way around the first time.


If undemocratic forces win I’d expect guilty verdics for the democratic forces and not guilty for the undemocratic forces.

But let’s be honest no laws would stop a undemocratic regime from prosecuting it’s enemies.

[Vertigo 7]

you're also talking about a party that laws don't apply to already. The GOP only wields the law when there's opportunity to spank a democrat, but one of their own breaking the law is a witch hunt, fake news, but Obummer, wotabout Hillary, all the greatest hits.

[humility925]

I think it's all matter of "Power, united" vs whatever left would be victors, no matter what is law is, Power and people unity > ideological Law/policy, as old saying "history written by the victors" it's not matter much truth or not, when one is in power and override everything old like law or culture even.

Law or Constitutional or democratic is useless when one who do not believe or follow law/consitutional/democratic are in great power and more united than opposite group of people who might believe in law/constitutional/democratic. So in order get law/constitutional/democratic support, it's had to back up by Power/majority population, but if it support by minority then whatever old law/constitutional/democratic would slowly passed or destroyed then might got replaced by those system something like Anarchy or no government system or Dictatorship or Monarchy or Fascism, or Oligarchy or Authoritarianism or , if majority people united/power are not happy, then it's rise to Republic then Democracy repent all over again, more or less. I guess, at least history of humankind, more or less, I don't know.

Only one person can override, it's don't matter how many or majority population, is God, for obvious reasons due superpower, beyond immortal, ect. it's would be Theocracy or Dictatorship, but there is many false Theocracy (many religion group calm to spoke/voice for God (often wolf in sheep or do not had real authority/connect to God to control over mass people who believe in God but had no connect to God, basic those group would use God/religion to control people who want connect to life, beyond reasonable but unable...

Of course it's won't work on people who do not believe in God but they believe in something like system/democracy and what not, so how do group of bad people control over unbeliever people if religion don't work? It's would be Democracy/constitutional/Republic in that case, There is too many political agenda try to gave what people want to hear but not do it yet just want access to power/financial/prestigious for themself, not for whole people/living thing in similar way for people try control over other who are believe in religion by religion government system.

It's don't matter what type of government system, there is seem almost always humankind with evil mind try enter/get power to messed up whole humankind or nations to ruined due well, few people or group of people in power do not had good mind/heart, lay down and service people, Most people in power want people to service them, Great leadership do other way around, Great Leadership is one who are doing a servant, not boss around people and make people work for them, but rather acting as a Servant to help people better life, not take people's life away to increase more for people in power like we had government doing just that for long, long time as people in government getting rich while common people getting poor, that right there, is not good government system, even so called Democracy/Constiutional, it's useless when group of people abused power and financial when running system like Democracy,

Do you think many lower/majority would be happy to be in Democracy or Republic Constiutional when majority are getting poorer, suffering, not get any better for long time, at that point, Democracy/Constiutional would be event end or dead if or when people in power keep abuse, destroy, steal, murder in secret plot keep doing that for many years, it's would get people tired of it, and had a enough and not care about democracy/Republic Constiutional due people in power do not seek improve whole people getting better, because they doing other way round. Democracy would last longer, when every time people win vote and do as servant to whole people, make whole people better, not poorer. You don't win heart and mind of people when your policy or whatever your group cause people getting poorer sure as health, financial, freedom (weaker freedom due too many add law and fines beyond people can't afford it), cause confused along people, not good safe and secure ( it's not just none crime but whole more than that, it's like people able to had own home at very low cost that even lowest income people can afford it, not worry about properly tax, not worry about kick off from own home when they had no job or money but wouldn't be homeless, not had to work too many job and hours, so go on, able to afford food/cloth even no job/income, that sort of thing, I guess) So USA had nothing like that, not like used to be in 1800 where lot of people can come and get free land, build house for free (I guess downside is wild danger but free food, and fur, suppose?)

It's come down to this, not just leadership but group of people in power, do they helpful, make every citizen better life or worse? That's question that people need to asked where they live in area and noticed other people. You can learn whatever government is good or bad by look at many people that live under government system and able to see people happy or not. Suppose government find that citizen are not happy and government want to kill those citizen because that citizen wasn't happy with way thing in order make everyone happy in government system while dead citizen who are not happy do not count? It's would be evil and cruel government is it not?

[fiksal]

.
But let’s be honest no laws would stop a undemocratic regime from prosecuting it’s enemies.

exactly and that's a point of no return.

either people react to it, or fighting back after will be very much time limited

[Falcrack]

.
But let’s be honest no laws would stop a undemocratic regime from prosecuting it’s enemies.

exactly and that's a point of no return.

either people react to it, or fighting back after will be very much time limited

Laws are only as good as the people administering the laws, and the people living in that society. A corrupt society cannot govern itself effectively no matter how carefully the laws are worded.

[matthewfarmery]

Trump has decided to debate Harris, but the venue has changed to Fox news. I'm not sure this is is a good move. No doubt the mods will give Trump easy questions. But I'm sure Harris will be on her A game. Lets hope this works out for Harris.

[fiksal]

exactly and that's a point of no return.

either people react to it, or fighting back after will be very much time limited

Laws are only as good as the people administering the laws, and the people living in that society. A corrupt society cannot govern itself effectively no matter how carefully the laws are worded.

agreed, same applies to a democracy

it doesn't work when large percentage doesn't care for it to work

[jlehtone]

But let’s be honest no laws would stop a undemocratic regime from prosecuting it’s enemies.

Can we generalize?

The regime is either kind to "enemies", "opposition", and "minorities", or it is not.
Being kind includes to allow change of regime without bloodshed. (Trump, allegedly, is not kind.)

It is not important how winners treat winners, because that is obvious.
What is important is how winners treat "the others".

Even that we don't (typically) care, unless it affects "us" negatively.

[matthewfarmery]

Edit, Harris has turned down the fox channel debate offer, and still going ahead with the ABC one. Even if Donald Duck is a no show. As her campaign is calling him scared. And ABC is saying they will have have the spot open.

So if Trump is a no show, it will look real bad on him. I'm glad that Harris has turned down the Fox one, why bother doing that? consdering that Fox was recently sued for lying?

Anyway, she is clearly keeping the pressure up.

[matthewfarmery]

Well, If this isn't treason, I don't know what is.

During a campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, Trump congratulated Putin on the US hostage swap.

Congratulating Putin for this week's historic prisoner swap trumpeted by the Biden Administration, which brought home three Americans detained in Russia: Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan and Alsu Kurmasheva, Trump gave full credit to Putin for having made "yet another great deal," receiving a response of almost total silence from the crowd, which he elsewhere commented on as not being as packed as he would have liked.

If he loves his friend Putin that much, maybe he could get out of the country and go to him? It seems he hates America with a passion. The fact, there was near silence from the crowd, speaks volumes.

If that had been any other American, they would have been arrested and questioned by the FBI. Little wonder why his rallies are shrinking. Hope the trend continues.

[chew-ie]

I am all for Trump (and other friends of today's Russia) to leave the country / migrate to Russia.

But IMHO congratulating the dictator here is just the same old same old "I would have made a better deal" - as he still sees himself as the successful business man (lol).

[Alan Phipps]

As an outside observer, I've seen so many 'Another nail in the coffin' type posts in various Trump-related threads here that I wonder if there can be room left in that coffin for any more nails. It is apparent that Trump is something of a political Houdini when it comes to getting out of (or glossing over) problems, crimes and gaffes that would permanently sink pretty much any other politician. I suspect that this will continue to be a major concern until the day comes when (for whatever reason) it can no longer be relevant.

[felter]

Well, If this isn't treason, I don't know what is.

During a campaign rally in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday, Trump congratulated Putin on the US hostage swap.

Congratulating Putin for this week's historic prisoner swap trumpeted by the Biden Administration, which brought home three Americans detained in Russia: Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan and Alsu Kurmasheva, Trump gave full credit to Putin for having made "yet another great deal," receiving a response of almost total silence from the crowd, which he elsewhere commented on as not being as packed as he would have liked.

If he loves his friend Putin that much, maybe he could get out of the country and go to him? It seems he hates America with a passion. The fact, there was near silence from the crowd, speaks volumes.

If that had been any other American, they would have been arrested and questioned by the FBI. Little wonder why his rallies are shrinking. Hope the trend continues.

A couple of things worth noting about this, the first being he never mentioned those prisoners once, like he never said it's nice to see them home safe and sound or anything complementary about them, it was all just about Putin. The other thing is while he was saying this about Putin, a lot of his audience left and if you saw the audience to start with he couldn't afford for anyone to leave, as the arena was only around 60 to 65 percent full to start with, which he blamed on the school who owns the hall saying that they stopped them from giving out anymore tickets, that they could have given out 500, 600, 800 or 1000 more tickets as there were plenty more people wanted to attend, but the school wouldn't let them, he went on, there are thousands outside with all the camera's that couldn't get in, he suddenly realised the cameras were showing there weren't anyone outside with them so he quickly added, or well, they would be there if the school wasn't stopping them from approaching the building. In 33 seconds he managed to give 3 different reasons for all the empty seats, and they were all fake.

To Trump it is all just smoke, mirrors and lies. I watched a video a few weeks back with Trump cpming out of Trump tower he had a camera man preceding him as he left the building it shows him leaving and waving to the sounds of cheering Trumpers, unfortunatelly for them there was also a camera filming everything from behid him which showed him exiting the building and waving to an empty road, there was no one there the sounds of the cheering crowed were added post edditing.

Or theres a new golfing magazine he has been showing saying that he recently won a club tournament, there is a couple of problems with it, first being the tournament he says he won never existed there wasn't any kind of event or any kind of competition on the weekend he supposedly won, not just that it's public record that at the time of the alleged competition, he was several hundred miles away from the club that weekend, so even if there was a competition he couldn't have competed in it as he was nowhere near it.

Like I said he is all about smoke, mirrors and lies upon lies upon lies, nothing he says or does can be taken as being true.

[Vertigo 7]

Rember when Russia invaded Ukraine and General Bone Spurs was cheering Putin along? This is how he's always going to be.