But the US Constitution does not allow anarchy, and assassination never solved anything at all. It is highly inappropriate ... not to mention, illegal ... to publicly suggest it.

You can throw out any Federal office-holder who commits "high crimes" or even "misdemeanors." But you may not harm a hair on his/her head, nor may you suggest such a dreadful thing. "Rots in jail for the rest of his/her life?" Yes. But, "murder?" Absolutely not.

- - -

Like it or not, the American people did elect a President unlike any other President this country has ever had. When his opponent tried vainly to persuade the Electoral College to "fix the problem, according to her," several of them instead voted against her. The message could not be more clear.

Since we have no experience whatever in dealing with a President who comes from this background, why don't we ... ... give the man a chance? He very-earnestly sought the position, and won it fair and square. (Yes, I said, "fair and square." ...)

Who knows? This man might utterly revolutionize how the American people see "the Office of the President," and he might do it in a positive way. What exactly are we afraid of here?

I didn't vote for either one of them. But I must admit that lately I've become quite curious to see what he will do, and I'm not buying in to the notion that it will be The End Of The World As We Know It.™ "He's ... different, all right ..."

As much as I dislike Trump, I felt a strange feeling of relief when he won the election (I am Hispanic and I lean to the left of the political spectrum, so this can give an idea of how much I disliked and feared H. Clinton). The guy already has plenty of money so I don't think he's been bought by the lobbies that have traditionally controlled the politic scenario in the US. And his intention to ally with Russia in order to solve the mess the previous US administrations of Bush and Obama have created in the Middle East seems genuine so far.

That said, I don't think the relation of the US with Latin America will improve with Trump (especially with leftist Latin American governments).

3 has not happened ? Wow we're naive.?!

... "that said" ... well, "we don't really know, now do we?"

"No, we don't." Because, all the way "up until the present time," we have only (with very few notable exceptions ...) been led by "professional politicians" who dutifully ground their way up "the accepted ladder."

I mean ... "it was all 'accepted, conventional wisdom.'"

Look: I spent my time as Senator (of course ...) from New York, even though I barely lived there. Then, I 'got promoted' to Secretary of State. "'I've paid my dues, I've done my time." Now, I'm entitled to my logically-next promotion: to be President."

... but ...

... "something happened on the way to the Forum." And perhaps we should (perhaps, for the very first time in a long time) stop to consider just what that 'something' really was.

To my way of thinking, the very-most significant difference just might be: "the Press." These "august and venerable institutions" are entirely accustomed to sitting in-between "the people in Power" and "the perceptions of the Public." . . .

. . . "but this guy fuckin' TWEETS ... and, goddam it, he's still doin' it!"

Like I said, "this guy, perhaps for the very first time, is different."

Why don't we just give him a chance? Let him take office, and start to do things, and likewise give those "leftist Governments" a little time to sort their affairs out, too.

After all ... (for example) ... Fidel Castro (RIP) is now, finally, "certifiably dead." Therefore, "Cuba now needs to sort things out." And so on. (Hint: "John F. Kennedy" is dead, too.)

"The Press™" is obviously going to try very hard to "sow the seeds of 'FUD = Fear, Uncertainty., and Doubt,'" but what did we really expect from them at this point in time?

I say ... "let's wait and see what he does." If he turns out to be "everything that we are told to fear he might be, and then some," then we take thirty-six hours to sober up and then we kick him out. But .... ... "what if, instead, he very-pleasantly surprises us all??"

Just sayin' ...

- - -
"An altogether-new and perhaps "21st Century" perspective on 'the Office of the President of the United States?'"

Hey, I'm listenin' ... at least for a month or so ... although I surely do remember The Gong Show . . . After all, by now I assume that you're totally familiar with the concept of: "You're Fired™!!"

"Uh huh, of course you do." Well, goody for you ... you wanted the goddamed job, and now, poor sot, you've got it. So: "take the Oath, 'you miserable red-headed b*stard,' and Good Luck!"

The world as we know it may not make it to summertime!!

That's OTT even for you, Lucky! I'm with Sundial on this: let's see what the guy actually does to make good on his promises.

You and I are old enough to remember the Cuba crisis. We survived that, so we can certainly survive this clown.

Y'know, "we hired him." Let's see if he can actually do the job.

He's unlike every other President this country has ever had, and perhaps that will turn out to be a good thing.

Like every other Officeholder, he's entitled to be given a chance to screw up.

I am not worried about Donald Trump; what concerns me is the people that he has around him and the " neo-cons " in both houses of Congress that are beside themselves looking for foes to bomb!!

True. It looks like either-side is going to bomb someone. If it were Hillary in the White House, it would be Russia - so I wonder who the neo-cons will bomb. Given the choice, as long as it isn't Russia. Not a very good one, but then again, this last election we had choices between shit and shit - so, yea.

Then again, there are relations with China to worry about now. Trump might be trying to repair relations with the Russian Federation, but it looks like China might be a different story. I guess either way we are still screwed perhaps. Coming War with China

John Pilger - World War has already begun

Not really because if relations with Russia is in good terms, then Russia wouldn't back China I dont think, if god forbid anything were to happen..

Unfortunately, no matter what happens none of us here will ever be able to do anything about anything except to pray for the best!!

remember a bit back
when we were on GOOD terms with CCCP ( USSR) it was
" the union of the soviet socialist republic "

when we were angry it was " RUSSIA "

Actually, I daresay that no one is about to bomb anyone.

It frankly seems to me that Mr. Putin is very receptive to the idea of better relations between the two countries, and so is Mr. Trump. And to this I say, "well, it's about time!"

Now, how do we start dismantling all those infernal atomic bombs and, say, turn them into fuel for nuclear power plants? In other words, "something useful."

1960's Cold-War Insanity: "Hey, we can blow up the planet! Let's do it!"

21st Century: "Let's not, and say we did. Meanwhile, how can we turn these radioactive swords into plowshares?"

Sure, sure ... it goes without saying that heads-of-state (including our own) must be treated with "Trust, but Verify,™" but can't we pretty-please leave the 1960's behind? There used to be three-times-a-day ocean ferry service between Havana and Key West, but until recently the whole damned island was off-limits to "me, an American Citizen!"

... and for what? Because of a President who's been dead for more than fifty years? Because of a Cuban radical who's now certifiably-dead too?

"The relationship between nations," like the relationship between human beings in general, "is what we are determined to make it." If we are content to put up with "the same old sh*t," then we all live with the consequences. But, if we dare to "think different," and if we invite our "erstwhile opponents" to do the same . . .

Hey, if "the World-Wide Web" has done anything at all for us, perhaps it might promote peace by pointing out to all of us that we are really not as different as we were taught to believe ... and, neither are our respective countries.

But, nothing happens merely because someone thinks that it's a good idea. As FDR quipped: "I agree with you. Now, make me do it."

That is true, there are wildcards though. India and Pakistan, the DPRK, and the most dangerous is terrorists getting their hands on material or insecure stockpiles (probably from Russia or her former Soviet States).

This is also a rather fascinating TED-Talks: Surviving a nuclear Attack - Irwin Redlener

I have been saying this for quite some time. However as long as you have the media doing the gov'ts bidding and distracting the people through bullcrap like American Idol and their other propaganda, it will never happen.

IMHO many of these "terrorist threats" are fabricated just to keep the people fearful, and therefore "in line".