jjstraka34 I gave you an insightful there but I'm not sure that's a Nostradamos level prediction. Maybe Trump should just name himself to all cabinet positions and save us all the drama...
jj is hedging his bet that Trump himself won't last another 6 months.
Well, yeah, he'll last six months because Republicans aren't going to turn on him. Much worse stuff is coming, and it's never going to get better, but Republicans will stay in their default position. They'll express concern and say they are disturbed at least once a week, and do nothing, no matter how deep into the sewer we go.
By the way, many of those Republicans, whether caught on hot mikes or in off the record conversations, also think he is an unhinged lunatic. They are just too scared to say so.
Anybody watch Designated Survivor? I wonder if North Korea would bomb D.C. or Mar el Lago? If they took out D.C. who is the D.S.? Carson or DeVoss???
Oh lawd, there are some real doozies in this list.
After VP , then Speaker of the house, then Senate pro temp. I think it runs like this, if CNN is right:
1. Secretary of State 2. Secretary of the Treasury 3. Secretary of Defense 4. Attorney General 5. Secretary of the Interior 6. Secretary of Agriculture 7. Secretary of Commerce 8. Secretary of Labor 9. Secretary of Health and Human Services 10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 11. Secretary of Transportation 12. Secretary of Energy 13. Secretary of Education 14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs 15. Secretary of Homeland Security
Seems like a dumb system to me. Why not just hold a fresh election?!
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
There has been a lawsuit filed by one of the key players in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and not only does it reveal that FOX News essentially concocted the whole thing out of thin air for malicious intent, but that the White House was involved as well, being briefed by FOX about the story and retractions. This is no surprise to anyone who hasn't turned a blind eye to how conservative media in this country operates.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
So at its core, the same system then.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, civil service takes over temporarily, until fresh previously unscheduled elections are held instead of taking over permanently until the next scheduled election.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
So at its core, the same system then.
No, it would take at most a month to organise an election.
And the civil service is made up of apolitical career bureaucrats.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
So at its core, the same system then.
No, it would take at most a month to organise an election.
And the civil service is made up of apolitical career bureaucrats.
Also in the US system, that person who's next in the succession actually becomes the President. There's no "acting" or "provisional" in front of his title.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
The UK is a monarchy. Your head of state is the Queen, who has her own succession line.
The civil service would take over yes, but under direction of the Queen/Royal Family.
Most people think the Monarchy is just symbolic at this point in time, however, in an extraordinary situation such as this, it isn't.
There has been a lawsuit filed by one of the key players in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and not only does it reveal that FOX News essentially concocted the whole thing out of thin air for malicious intent, but that the White House was involved as well, being briefed by FOX about the story and retractions. This is no surprise to anyone who hasn't turned a blind eye to how conservative media in this country operates.
The one thing which is definitely a fact about the Seth Rich story is that his murder is as yet unsolved--no suspects, no witnesses, and no clear motive. Anything beyond that is, of course, wild speculation and fertile ground for conspiracy theories...which appears to be all they had. Did we ever get any details from the medical examiner's autopsy report which would determine the cause of death?
As far as professional civil servants being apolitical...well, are they human beings? Yes? Then they have political opinions and those opinions will guide how they perform their jobs. Compared to professional civil servants elected politicians are better, despite their lies and wavering positions, because in a worst-case scenario you are able to vote an elected official out of office. With a civil servant all you can do is wait for them to retire or die of old age.
Well, in a time of war on US ground, as @Balrog99 mentioned, particularly nuclear, holding elections would probably not be the first point of order. There needs to be a chain of command, a leader right then if that were to happen.
In the UK the civil service takes over until fresh elections can be arranged.
The UK is a monarchy. Your head of state is the Queen, who has her own succession line.
The civil service would take over yes, but under direction of the Queen/Royal Family.
Most people think the Monarchy is just symbolic at this point in time, however, in an extraordinary situation such as this, it isn't.
No, the royal family would have no official role. Indeed, thier survival would be an irrelevancy. In a crisis civil service is set up to run the country in a purely mechanistic fashion.
The "succession line" is at the whim of parliment, which can, and has, the ability to block and choose the successor. Without parliament to ratify a succession could not occur.
As far as professional civil servants being apolitical...well, are they human beings? Yes? Then they have political opinions and those opinions will guide how they perform their jobs. Compared to professional civil servants elected politicians are better, despite their lies and wavering positions, because in a worst-case scenario you are able to vote an elected official out of office. With a civil servant all you can do is wait for them to retire or die of old age.
When the UK government changes the civil servants do not. The same civil servants are expected to be willing implement right wing policies one week, and left wing policies the next. Thus they are required to leave thier own opinions outside the workplace.
And whenever a seat falls vacant there is an election as soon as is reasonable to find a replacement.
The problem in the US is it has a constitution written in the 18th century, when communication was limited to the speed of a fast horse, thus making it a difficult proposition to organise a mass election on anything other than a fixed day.
Rhetorical thoughts: When are leaks bad? Why should there be no leaks? I'd say when if there is wrongdoing, the people in charge actually do something about it I'd say leaks are unnecessary and can be bad. If something is going to be handled in house, a leak isn't needed - the situation gets handled, all is well.
But when you go around complaining about leaks when you don't actually do anything about bad behaviors, then that's different. When you just sweep things under the rug, when the truth gets out that's whistleblowing.
Consider what happened way back when with Gen Flynn. The White House knew for at least three weeks that he'd lied about and had secret meetings with Russians. They chose to leave him in charge of the NSA. Only when information got out did they do anything about it. At which point the pretext was given that he'd lied to Pence and so he was fired then.
Trump has lied repeatedly and loves to spin things a certain way. He doesn't want the truth to get out, that's why his only concern is leaks. If he controls the narrative, then he never does anything wrong.
In his businesses and private life he's gone to extreme lengths hiding. Trump campaign volunteers had to sign non disclosure agreements FOR LIFE to not discuss Trump in any possible disparaging way. Now it's come out that President Donald Trump’s global company, now run by his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, had employees at every level sign a retroactive non-disclosure agreement (NDA) after Trump entered the White House, CBS News reported Thursday after obtaining the agreement.
The NDA reportedly adheres Trump Organization employees from revealing any information about Trump family members, including extended members, and "present, former and future spouses, children, parents, in-laws."
Anybody watch Designated Survivor? I wonder if North Korea would bomb D.C. or Mar el Lago? If they took out D.C. who is the D.S.? Carson or DeVoss???
Oh lawd, there are some real doozies in this list.
After VP , then Speaker of the house, then Senate pro temp. I think it runs like this, if CNN is right:
1. Secretary of State 2. Secretary of the Treasury 3. Secretary of Defense 4. Attorney General 5. Secretary of the Interior 6. Secretary of Agriculture 7. Secretary of Commerce 8. Secretary of Labor 9. Secretary of Health and Human Services 10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 11. Secretary of Transportation 12. Secretary of Energy 13. Secretary of Education 14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs 15. Secretary of Homeland Security
Basically the VP is designated first (by Constitutional authority), then the more or less heads of both houses of Congress (with Speaker of the House being more influential), then cabinet heads of the Departments, by order of creation of the department (or the successor, since Defense was created in 1947 but was the successor of the War Department from 1789).
Ugh, looking at that list and reading about every one of them, IMO anyone in red is scum not worthy of the job. And I'm not even being partisan when I say that. The reds are uniformly either morally bankrupted individuals and/or dogged by scandals, incompetent, completely out of their depth, or all the above. The only one I'm not sure about is Acosta (Labor Secretary).
The yellow Independents and Elaine Chao are ok. Although it's never occurred to me that there might be people in the presidential succession ineligible (Chao's not native-born American).
Mattis is at least a history buff from what it says in Wikipedia. That and he's independent. Not sure why he'd be a 'scumbag'. Generals have been hit or miss as presidents though...
Mattis is at least a history buff from what it says in Wikipedia. That and he's independent. Not sure why he'd be a 'scumbag'. Generals have been hit or miss as presidents though...
The problem now is that Trump has now surrounded himself almost exclusively with family members, total sycophants, and military generals. This is the historical recipe for every authroitarian regime that has ever existed.
Mattis is at least a history buff from what it says in Wikipedia. That and he's independent. Not sure why he'd be a 'scumbag'. Generals have been hit or miss as presidents though...
The problem now is that Trump has now surrounded himself almost exclusively with family members, total sycophants, and military generals. This is the historical recipe for every authroitarian regime that has ever existed.
Of that list the generals are the least of the problems. If the choice is a Scaramucci or Conway type or a general, then yeah the general is more competent and less insane.
So you guys hear about the other Senator from Arizona? The one without brain cancer, Jeff Flake, has made a big show about writing a book and saying that "Trump bad" for Conservatism. And how Conservatism is some special thing. And then Flake has voted for Trump 95% of the time including voting for the disastrous skinny repeal bill that his colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain had to vote down. Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand the things he wrote about Trump being a "late-night infomercial" that is "free of significant thought" are true, on the other hand Flake has bent over backwards to take it from behind and do Trump's bidding.
Oh and for good measure, it looks like Jeff Sessions'/Trump's Justice Department is going to investigate 'race-based discrimination'. They are genuinely concerned about white applicants being jumped over due to affirmative action. I shit you not lol this is their concern, not enough white people in colleges.
Now Priebus' firing makes sense. Kelly moves from DHS to the White House, creating an opening in that agency, allowing Trump to move Sessions sideways from Justice to DHS without asking him to resign or firing him; either way, he is no longer Attorney General. That position can then be filled by someone who will have a reason to fire Mueller--that reason/excuse has already been found, hence the shuffling of people. When is the recess for Congress again?
1) There is no way around it- firing Mooch was an awful idea. What big name talent will want to work in the Trump White House when a man can make so many sacrifices and be gone in a week?
2) I'm getting really tired of Anti Trump leakers in the White House. I don't care how deranged amd hysterically against the man you are in your free time, but you have a responsibility to the society not to use your position of public service to undermine the elected government you work for. None of it has been genuine whistleblowing, no need to know information has come forth, 9 times out of 10 it's tawdry gossip. Mooch was making this a priority.
3) Linda Sarsour is an awful human being and i'm tired of seeing her face. Whose bright idea was it to make someone who verbally abuses converts from Islam and supports Sharia as the face of the Anti Trump movement? This isn't relevant to the other points but for the love of Ao i'm amazed she keeps a platform.
4) Trump isn't a victim. I don't buy that the leaking and sabotage is none of his fault when he hires Never Trumpers. If he wants to keep a decent talent pool or keep his base he needs to clamp down hard and soon.
I'm no mindless partisan fanboy, bashing Trump and everything he does mindlessly nor praising it mindlessly. Right now he's making a series of dumb moves and, given that the Trump Train has no breaks, he's gonna need to adjust course soon lest we're all forced to leap from it's flaming wreckage.
Scaramucci wasn't going to stop the leaks, Kelly won't stop them. No one will stop them unless they eliminate the human urge to tell other people important information that they know.
You can't stop all leaks all the time, that much is true. What simply isn't true is that the seemingly daily flood of them can not be stopped or curtailed or is, somehow, inevitable.
Obama prosecuted leakers. More leakers than any other president under the Espionage Act. I can't wait to see how the left reacts when Trump does it. I expect, immense amounts of hysteria and claims of being a tyrant and dictator and whatever else can be dreamed up.
You can't stop all leaks all the time, that much is true. What simply isn't true is that the seemingly daily flood of them can not be stopped or curtailed or is, somehow, inevitable.
Obama prosecuted leakers. More leakers than any other president under the Espionage Act. I can't wait to see how the left reacts when Trump does it. I expect, immense amounts of hysteria and claims of being a tyrant and dictator and whatever else can be dreamed up.
You're assuming he is competent enough to catch them. And we aren't even talking about classified information in most cases, just info floating around the West Wing. What is he going to do?? Bug the phones of all the staffers?? Send a tail after them when they go home at night??
What about my example of Flynn. The white House knew he was compromised. Flynn was warned not to accept Russian money after he retired, he did anyway. Trump was warned about Flynn by Yates that Russia had compromising info that hasn't been made public, so Trump hired him anyway. After he was booted out he must have remembered something important so he retroactively registered as a foreign lobbyist for Turkey. He must have forgotten about that while he was NSA chief right. The white House did absolutely nothing they knew he was dirty acting for foreign governments and left him in charge of our national classified information. Until it 'leaked' and flynn was forced to resign.
But according to Trump the real crime here was the leak because Flynn is a good guy. Not a problem the white House was covering for this foreign lobbyist squatting in our government. That's not even covering the Russia stuff with him they knew about.
Healthcare is a total disaster and Trump could turn his young presidency completely around and generate a ton of goodwill if he just said "enough is enough" and came out in favor of single-payer. Whatever happened to, "I don't care if it costs me votes, I'm going to take care of everyone."???
The future of the right-wing is populism and the future of the left wing is progressivism. It's been that way in Europe for decades now and that's the reality of America today. Trump pretended to be a populist and that's the only, and I mean ONLY reason he was elected. Conservatism is completely dead and liberalism will soon follow. Most right-wing voters under 40 and virtually all left-wing voters want to nationalize healthcare. The dinosaurs in government are the ones that don't want it. That's a fact.
Healthcare is a total disaster and Trump could turn his young presidency completely around and generate a ton of goodwill if he just said "enough is enough" and came out in favor of single-payer. Whatever happened to, "I don't care if it costs me votes, I'm going to take care of everyone."???
The future of the right-wing is populism and the future of the left wing is progressivism. It's been that way in Europe for decades now and that's the reality of America today. Trump pretended to be a populist and that's the only, and I mean ONLY reason he was elected. Conservatism is completely dead and liberalism will soon follow. Most right-wing voters under 40 and virtually all left-wing voters want to nationalize healthcare. The dinosaurs in government are the ones that don't want it. That's a fact.
Unfortunately the baby boomers, like Trump, are still in power. Things should get better when they are not.
Trump could come out for single payer but it wouldn't end well at this point. Conservatives in the House and Senate don't want it and Democrats don't trust him for good reason.
Democrats have no reason to trust Trump and Republicans especially after the secret way this Healthcare crap has gone so far. Not to mention Trump's constant lying and flip flopping - he'd just as likely say I support single payer today and change his mind tomorrow same as he's done before. It actually sounds like something he'd do promise single payer only after repeal Obamacare then just stop after repealing Obamacare.
As I mentioned months ago, there is ALREADY a law that prevents immigrants from receiving welfare for the first 5 years they are in the country. How long has it been on the books?? Only 2 entire decades, but I suppose that won't stop most Trump supporters from thinking it's something new.
After the wages of the so-called white-working class continue to not go up, it'll be interesting to see who they blame next, though I'm 100% sure it won't involve what is most needed, which is a mirror.
Comments
By the way, many of those Republicans, whether caught on hot mikes or in off the record conversations, also think he is an unhinged lunatic. They are just too scared to say so.
And the civil service is made up of apolitical career bureaucrats.
The civil service would take over yes, but under direction of the Queen/Royal Family.
Most people think the Monarchy is just symbolic at this point in time, however, in an extraordinary situation such as this, it isn't.
As far as professional civil servants being apolitical...well, are they human beings? Yes? Then they have political opinions and those opinions will guide how they perform their jobs. Compared to professional civil servants elected politicians are better, despite their lies and wavering positions, because in a worst-case scenario you are able to vote an elected official out of office. With a civil servant all you can do is wait for them to retire or die of old age.
The "succession line" is at the whim of parliment, which can, and has, the ability to block and choose the successor. Without parliament to ratify a succession could not occur.
And whenever a seat falls vacant there is an election as soon as is reasonable to find a replacement.
The problem in the US is it has a constitution written in the 18th century, when communication was limited to the speed of a fast horse, thus making it a difficult proposition to organise a mass election on anything other than a fixed day.
Rhetorical thoughts: When are leaks bad? Why should there be no leaks? I'd say when if there is wrongdoing, the people in charge actually do something about it I'd say leaks are unnecessary and can be bad. If something is going to be handled in house, a leak isn't needed - the situation gets handled, all is well.
But when you go around complaining about leaks when you don't actually do anything about bad behaviors, then that's different. When you just sweep things under the rug, when the truth gets out that's whistleblowing.
Consider what happened way back when with Gen Flynn. The White House knew for at least three weeks that he'd lied about and had secret meetings with Russians. They chose to leave him in charge of the NSA. Only when information got out did they do anything about it. At which point the pretext was given that he'd lied to Pence and so he was fired then.
Trump has lied repeatedly and loves to spin things a certain way. He doesn't want the truth to get out, that's why his only concern is leaks. If he controls the narrative, then he never does anything wrong.
In his businesses and private life he's gone to extreme lengths hiding. Trump campaign volunteers had to sign non disclosure agreements FOR LIFE to not discuss Trump in any possible disparaging way. Now it's come out that President Donald Trump’s global company, now run by his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, had employees at every level sign a retroactive non-disclosure agreement (NDA) after Trump entered the White House, CBS News reported Thursday after obtaining the agreement.
The NDA reportedly adheres Trump Organization employees from revealing any information about Trump family members, including extended members, and "present, former and future spouses, children, parents, in-laws."
Does the information expose wrongdoing which can be corrected?
This is the difference between what opponents like to call a "leak" and what supporters like to call "whistleblowing."
Basically the VP is designated first (by Constitutional authority), then the more or less heads of both houses of Congress (with Speaker of the House being more influential), then cabinet heads of the Departments, by order of creation of the department (or the successor, since Defense was created in 1947 but was the successor of the War Department from 1789).
Ugh, looking at that list and reading about every one of them, IMO anyone in red is scum not worthy of the job. And I'm not even being partisan when I say that. The reds are uniformly either morally bankrupted individuals and/or dogged by scandals, incompetent, completely out of their depth, or all the above. The only one I'm not sure about is Acosta (Labor Secretary).
The yellow Independents and Elaine Chao are ok. Although it's never occurred to me that there might be people in the presidential succession ineligible (Chao's not native-born American).
Mattis is at least a history buff from what it says in Wikipedia. That and he's independent. Not sure why he'd be a 'scumbag'. Generals have been hit or miss as presidents though...
So you guys hear about the other Senator from Arizona? The one without brain cancer, Jeff Flake, has made a big show about writing a book and saying that "Trump bad" for Conservatism. And how Conservatism is some special thing. And then Flake has voted for Trump 95% of the time including voting for the disastrous skinny repeal bill that his colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain had to vote down. Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand the things he wrote about Trump being a "late-night infomercial" that is "free of significant thought" are true, on the other hand Flake has bent over backwards to take it from behind and do Trump's bidding.
Oh and for good measure, it looks like Jeff Sessions'/Trump's Justice Department is going to investigate 'race-based discrimination'. They are genuinely concerned about white applicants being jumped over due to affirmative action. I shit you not lol this is their concern, not enough white people in colleges.
1) There is no way around it- firing Mooch was an awful idea. What big name talent will want to work in the Trump White House when a man can make so many sacrifices and be gone in a week?
2) I'm getting really tired of Anti Trump leakers in the White House. I don't care how deranged amd hysterically against the man you are in your free time, but you have a responsibility to the society not to use your position of public service to undermine the elected government you work for. None of it has been genuine whistleblowing, no need to know information has come forth, 9 times out of 10 it's tawdry gossip. Mooch was making this a priority.
3) Linda Sarsour is an awful human being and i'm tired of seeing her face. Whose bright idea was it to make someone who verbally abuses converts from Islam and supports Sharia as the face of the Anti Trump movement? This isn't relevant to the other points but for the love of Ao i'm amazed she keeps a platform.
4) Trump isn't a victim. I don't buy that the leaking and sabotage is none of his fault when he hires Never Trumpers. If he wants to keep a decent talent pool or keep his base he needs to clamp down hard and soon.
I'm no mindless partisan fanboy, bashing Trump and everything he does mindlessly nor praising it mindlessly. Right now he's making a series of dumb moves and, given that the Trump Train has no breaks, he's gonna need to adjust course soon lest we're all forced to leap from it's flaming wreckage.
Obama prosecuted leakers. More leakers than any other president under the Espionage Act. I can't wait to see how the left reacts when Trump does it. I expect, immense amounts of hysteria and claims of being a tyrant and dictator and whatever else can be dreamed up.
But according to Trump the real crime here was the leak because Flynn is a good guy. Not a problem the white House was covering for this foreign lobbyist squatting in our government. That's not even covering the Russia stuff with him they knew about.
The future of the right-wing is populism and the future of the left wing is progressivism. It's been that way in Europe for decades now and that's the reality of America today. Trump pretended to be a populist and that's the only, and I mean ONLY reason he was elected. Conservatism is completely dead and liberalism will soon follow. Most right-wing voters under 40 and virtually all left-wing voters want to nationalize healthcare. The dinosaurs in government are the ones that don't want it. That's a fact.
Trump could come out for single payer but it wouldn't end well at this point. Conservatives in the House and Senate don't want it and Democrats don't trust him for good reason.
Democrats have no reason to trust Trump and Republicans especially after the secret way this Healthcare crap has gone so far. Not to mention Trump's constant lying and flip flopping - he'd just as likely say I support single payer today and change his mind tomorrow same as he's done before. It actually sounds like something he'd do promise single payer only after repeal Obamacare then just stop after repealing Obamacare.
After the wages of the so-called white-working class continue to not go up, it'll be interesting to see who they blame next, though I'm 100% sure it won't involve what is most needed, which is a mirror.