[US-Politics] Will Trump turn out to be a "two-week President?"
 

Let's just say that Donald Trump, in his first full week in Office, "made the most of it." :rolleyes:

The immigration travel ban, sprung on the country late Friday afternoon, and subsequent public talk defiant of a Federal Court order, could call into question whether this man will successfully enjoy two weeks in that Office.

At the moment, anger is so high ... within the Country and now also within the Congress ... that it has become reasonable to question whether the Country will not say to him, just as he on-screen said to so many people: It can happen. It takes a simple majority of members of the House, and two-thirds of the members of the Senate. And, it takes a common consensus that things simply cannot be permitted to continue the way they are. If the decision is made that "something must be done at once," it can happen just that fast.

In spite of what the sparse one-page text of the Constitution describes, there is an "unwritten Constitution" that proscribes how the various Branches work together. This decorum can be looked-upon as "quite maddening" by those who want the Government of the United States to ... y'know ... "actually get work done," but it nevertheless serves an essential purpose of building and maintaining consensus among the three governmental units.

Donald Trump, and the minions of unapologetic spokespeople with whom he has surrounded himself, appears to be a genuine rogue, who has no idea how his Office actually works and who simply doesn't care. He now appears to have drawn the growing conclusion among both of the other two Branches that, "this man must be fired, and quickly."

Strange thing is, he himself has sat on Boards who were faced with a runaway CEO, and those people simply did what had to be done: they formally convened, and formally passed a corporate resolution removing the CEO from office effective immediately. "Mischief Managed.™"

The US Government can do it, too. (In fact, to any Federal officer of any Branch.)

It will be very interesting to see if "the first time that Impeachment was actually carried out" happens within two weeks of a President taking Office. Wouldn't that give the future historians plenty of juicy things to write about! :study:

I suppose if you were to believe whatever the media tells you - though he seems to be more active his first few days 'down to business' than other presidents. As rough around the edges as he is, and his unpopularity so far - that is not really enough. He hasn't really done anything to warrant an impeachment.

I likewise would like to "see what happens" at least a little bit longer ... but it is never good to say that you don't intend to follow what a Federal Judge says. (If only for the very pragmatic reason that, in order to perform your Office, you can't be seen as defying the prerogatives nor the responsibilities of the other two Branches.) If you get enough people "enough pissed-off at you," no matter how good and earnest your intentions may be (according to you), you can still lose your job.

And DT, first among all people, ought to know that sort of thing. But, does he?

The " Gods " can do no wrong; just ask them!!

I think this is just initial shock, because Trump is seen to be diving into it head on. The media and populace are not used to this - all politicians that enter office usually at any level 'take things slow' so-to-speak, so this sudden fast paced acceleration is catching everybody off guard.

I am prepared for the consequences, as was Socrates.



This is also interesting:



-edit

What is the problem??

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/e...icle-1.2959293

People may be missing what many of the folks in New York suffered when 9-11 happened. I think that many of those close to the towers destruction have been greatly affected by that day and aftermath. Similar to PTSD in many ways.
I can see why he and many others wish to protect the US by vetting people wishing to visit or stay in the US.

What kind of kook would let any old scum just wander in?? Really. You wouldn't let some of these people in your house.

The media always gets it wrong along with the unemployed that have time to protest. The ban is only a very small group of people from statistically high probability of issues. What kind of kook wouldn't listen to statistics and let any old scum in the US?

Sure, plenty of home grown terrorists but ask the folks in California who were murdered by the kooks that shot up the office a few years ago and the nonsense about getting data off a mass murders phone. Mass murders don't deserve privacy over law abiding honest citizens.

Maybe a too-weak president in the long run.

Croak.

How do you like me now?

It would be very nice to think that it is somehow possible to identify the sources of evil, in foresight, by something as convenient-and-easy as racial profiling. But, "evil lies in the heart of Man."

We do not know – and, publicly, probably will should never know – who actually rigged those three(!) WTC buildings to collapse into their own footprint on that day. But we can – if we dare – recognize it to be a demolition job of the highest technical excellence, which necessarily was many weeks in the making and installation.

(Okay, okay, "not the official story." "You do not believe me." Got it. I know. Been there. Hashed that. Please indulge my premise, whether you believe it or not, in reference to the point I am trying to deliver.)

"Keeping people from this-or-that nation out at the border" is a grimly-non-humorous misappropriation of what such a "line in the sand" is actually good for. Defense against such a caper requires vigilance of the highest order, and no pre-supposition of what sort of person actually pulled it off nor where those persons live.

There are only a small handful of companies on Planet Earth who possess the know-how and the access to materials needed to do this (the specific scenario that I, perhaps alone, claim to have happened), and for the setup to have occurred right under the noses of the unwilling victims, for weeks and perhaps months in advance, is truly unbelievable. And, terrifying in a way that no "hijacked airliner" could ever hope to match. (What good are armies and navies against the total penetration of your civil infrastructure – by an enemy whose heart is so opaque that he would even conceive of something like this?)

"Two hijacked airliners" would be oh, so nice by comparison ... :eek:

It's one thing to propose a cathartic – "feel good, feel safe" – policy. Quite another to successfully defend against an attack scenario such as this one, which is totally unlike anything these "military professionals" ever studied at West Point. National defense has become much harder than it ever was – and, might I suggest, a great deal more exotic.

Speaking of being potentially a very short-termed president, this was mentioned too on Crosstalk, interdasting debate:


Crosstalk - Trumpology

Will he be driven out by either party, will he quit due to frustration or even have a cardiac episode maybe.

Some food for thought:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...craig-roberts/

Y'know, I still am very impressed by CrossTalk, observing very carefully which country it comes from.

Perhaps the American media should "learn a thing or three" from these j-o-u-r-n-a-l-i-s-t-s.

I mean: "Howcum the Russian media (including(!) Pravda) seems to have discarded "Cold-War Pravda", while the American media seems to have done precisely the opposite?" :mad:

Pardon this citizen for "feeling extremely ill-served" here!

Howcum the content and the objectivity of this news-source is so much better? Howcum they are seeking-out and soliciting contrary points of view ... like journalists(!) used to do?

- - -
I mean: in this video, "the (Russian!) moderator had to 'go to a hard break' to sort out the conflicting opinions among three (American!) participants." Where-the-hell is this dynamic in what is left of American (sic ...) media? :mad:

"C'mon! Bring it on!!" ... uhh :confused: ... where is it?

Peter Lavelle isn't Russian though, he is an American that just happens to have lived in Russia for a while. The thing about RT also, is that I know it has a Russian view point, I wouldn't be looking at RT for any REAL criticism of Russia perhaps, but it does offer a real analysis of the US - even though it is a non-US entity. It is ironic that one has to look towards a foreign news source, to now get an actual fair and balanced view of the US - because the US media is effectively WHAT Pravda would be. The same way I don't look for any impartial views or actual criticism on the US from either CNN, FOX, NBC etc.

Also when it comes to a fair assessment of foreign events and affairs, any of the US media is pretty much a joke - besides RT I might again look at either BBC , or now Reuters - but nothing from the US I can ever take seriously.

I agree: US media has been a Propaganda Ministry for a long time, and they still have no idea what to do with someone in the Oval Office who is not a career politician. Or, who "Tweets."

Judging how the democrats still keep shooting themselves in the foot - I actually think at this point Trump will be here for a while - so suck it up buttercup :)

Democrats Still Don't Understand Why They're Wiped Out


Maybe the dems need a Trump strategy too, someone from the outside, other wise - Trump 2020, at this point, I may as well vote Trump this time. Give me a reason not to?