[US-Politics] Will Trump turn out to be a "two-week President?"
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
About money from foreign governments, didn't Clinton accept funds from Morocco, Saudi Arabia? I see dems attacking Drumpf of the same thing Clinton did, the pot calling the kettle black. Clinton was under investigation too - and it is possible it might be reopened - what if it were if she were the one in office?
Nope. Actually the foundation the Clinton's started accepted money, and both Clinton's made personal appeals and held meetings, but never accepted any money for their personal use. It all went into a non-profit corporation and the money went to the causes it supported IN other countries: none of it into the Clinton businesses. They clearly avoided breaking the letter and spirit of the law, and jumped through the right hoops to ensure that they were legal.
The Donald is not jumping through hoops, and seem to care little about either the spirit or letter of the law. Without law training, he should be running everything he signs past his AG officer to ensure he is legal. Instead, he ignores his AG and fires them when they give an opinion he SHOULD have asked for in the first place.
No matter what you think about politicians and maturity, this is extraordinarily inept. He really needs someone close to him to give him better advice about his legal options and responsibilities, and he needs to LISTEN to them. I cannot see this happening. He does not really understand the difference between running a company (which he owns) and running a republic (which owns HIM), and it shows painfully.
The leftists rioting in USA have nothing in common with the Revolutionary War of 1776. IMO their ideologies are more along the lines of Hilter's rise to power in the last century based on their actions and rhetoric.
Odd, I was going to say the same thing about the rightists rioting.
On a related note:
Most of the 'protests' from both sides are NOT roting. Protests are protected under the constitution, rioting is violent crime and is not protected. Law enforcement officers are being very permissive in most of the country to be careful not to trample the rights of citizens during these times, no matter what their personal political beliefs. In those cases I admire the police, and have little respect for the rioters.
In those (very few) cases where local authorities are attempting to suppress the legal and peaceful protests, I have a lot less respect for the police and more for the protesters. We have had officers turn in their badge because they were being asked to take illegal action and violate citizens constitutional rights. I admire that, and only hope that they find other employment in law enforcement where the standards of their leadership are higher. They are our heroes.
Sorry for the tangent, but your mention of rioters pushed buttons. Thank you.
PS: Just being curious, if impeachment happens ... what happens next? (full re-elections?)
G. Clinton was impeached . Nothing happened. You gotta commit a felony of some sort is my take. I may be wrong though. Edit: Ohe yeah. Vice President becomes president. So no changes there either.
A sitting President can't be impeached for issuing an Executive Order or equivalent proclamation ... no matter how corrupt or self-serving it may be. A President must be impeached by a House of Representatives which right now is gleefully writing and passing the legislation that you feared most. Then, that impeachment must be confirmed by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
I expect that this Congress will push through a lot more corrupt legislation while it can still magically do so with a simple majority. Trump will sign it, then they can blame it all on him and sack him.
The trouble is: "he would then know where all the skeletons are buried 'round town."
Which would leave you with President Pence ... who just might be the worst to be feared.
Really, while it is a great relief to see some kind of "political awakening" in the USA, after about forty years of ignorant doldrums, there's not much point if it only turns out to be Billy Joel's The Angry Young Man.
It's going to take a lot of hardwork to change the political course of the USA (and, to a great extent, to the World of international relationships). And that hard work will take, above all else, consensus. Not division and especially not divisiveness.
Blow-hard though he might be, the President cannot, himself, enact any of the reforms(?) he is discussing, nor writing proclamations about. Only the Congress can enact law; the President can only sign them, and then only "all or nothing." He can, and should, endeavor to lead, but the 500-plus people on his Board of Directors doesn't have to follow one damned thing he says. If Trump is going to succeed in the Office that he wanted so badly, he's going to have to learn how it is done ... and then, transform it.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-06-2017 at 09:59 AM.
G. Clinton was impeached . Nothing happened. You gotta commit a felony of some sort is my take. I may be wrong though. Edit: Ohe yeah. Vice President becomes president. So no changes there either.
We've had some similar situations in Europe as well.
What mostly happened (over here) was stripping them from most power and leaving them as a puppet till next elections (except in Belgium, we always fail to elect a government/prime-minister in time).
Nope. Actually the foundation the Clinton's started accepted money, and both Clinton's made personal appeals and held meetings, but never accepted any money for their personal use. It all went into a non-profit corporation and the money went to the causes it supported IN other countries: none of it into the Clinton businesses. They clearly avoided breaking the letter and spirit of the law, and jumped through the right hoops to ensure that they were legal.
So what exactly IS the CGI? If it is a charity as it is claimed to be, why did it close if she lost? And would have remained open if she won? Win or lose, that should not affect a 'charity' - so the CGI itself is rather suspicious too. Seems a lot of people just decided to stop giving money to the CGI for some reason - funny thing for a 'charity' to just lose funding like that....
Established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world's most pressing challenges.
What is the Clinton Global Initiative?
[...]
Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges.
[...]
Does CGI provide funding of any kind?
No. CGI convenes leaders to drive action through its unique model. CGI is not a grant-making organization and does not provide funding directly to CGI members to carry out their work.[...]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz
If it is a charity as it is claimed to be, why did it close if she lost? And would have remained open if she won? Win or lose, that should not affect a 'charity' - so the CGI itself is rather suspicious too. Seems a lot of people just decided to stop giving money to the CGI for some reason - funny thing for a 'charity' to just lose funding like that....
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
