Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[Thirteen]

Yes, he is trying to jam up the legal system but the states run elections so it's extremely unlikely that any but the most MAGA secretaries of state would ignore the constitution on the basis of an EO that would inevitably be struck down.

This is why this idea that there won't be elections need to nipped in the bud as is replacing Trump with his son or Elon Musk.

 

[OuterDistant]

I think every ATC in the US should go in immediate and indefinite strike, bring all flights to a standstill and that includes military and Trump's own flights, until he goes.

For what it's worth, they tried that in 1981. Reagan fired them all and their union got decertified.

 

[robbob700]

I think every ATC in the US should go in immediate and indefinite strike, bring all flights to a standstill and that includes military and Trump's own flights, until he goes.

It's illegal for federal employees to strike in the US

 

[Howardh]

It's illegal for federal employees to strike in the US

Perhaps the pilots can then, as their safety, let alone that of the passengers is at stake?

 

[najaB]

This is why this idea that there won't be elections need to nipped in the bud as is replacing Trump with his son or Elon Musk.

I agree that there's zero chance of Musk becoming president since it would require a constututional amendment, but there's nothing stopping Don Jr becoming president other than the fact he's Don Jr.

 

[brad465]

I'm sure that Trump would happily sign an executive order to make an exception in Musk's case.

Trump is as big an egomaniac as Musk. Trump is not going to help someone else achieve the power he'd rather keep for himself, therefore I think if he's going to try and change the constitution, it's more likely he'll attempt to abolish the term limit or postpone an election in the face of a "state of emergency." Allowing foreign-born citizens to run for top office is of no benefit to him.

 

[WelshBluebird]

since it would require a constututional amendment

Since when does MAGA care about what the constitution says?

 

[Senex]

Okay. I was a bit confused. Don't worry, any right thinking person would be shocked by his actions on a daily basis.

But haven't the majority of the USA people got exactly what they voted for? They can scarcely now be surprised.

 

[najaB]

But haven't the majority of the USA people got exactly what they voted for? They can scarcely now be surprised.

The majority of the 64% of the electorate who voted.

 

[SuspectUsual]

there's nothing stopping Don Jr becoming president other than the fact he's Don Jr.

If his father is still alive and not in a looney bin, you could argue that should be

there's nothing stopping Don Jr becoming president other than especially the fact he's Don Jr.

 

[ainsworth74]

As he's found out, EOs do not override the Constitution.

I admire your confidence that this Supreme Court won't find that any EO that Trump signs is somehow constitutional no matter how twisted and tortured the reasoning.

 

[ainsworth74]

With regards to the horrible air crash in Washington DC if we can try and keep this thread to be about Trump's response rather than wider issues relating to the accident that would be helpful. To discuss the air crash itself please use the thread here in Aviation Discussion. Appreciate that there might be some overlap and drift but if we can try and keep the thread in Aviation Discussion to the actual facts and then this thread to deal with the Trump and his sycophants deranged ramblings that would be appreciated.

 

[Thirteen]

I agree that there's zero chance of Musk becoming president since it would require a constututional amendment, but there's nothing stopping Don Jr becoming president other than the fact he's Don Jr.

I mean of all of the Trump children, Ivanka would be more palpable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

Trump is as big an egomaniac as Musk. Trump is not going to help someone else achieve the power he'd rather keep for himself, therefore I think if he's going to try and change the constitution, it's more likely he'll attempt to abolish the term limit or postpone an election in the face of a "state of emergency." Allowing foreign-born citizens to run for top office is of no benefit to him.

Amending the Constitution is very difficult because of the levels of approval. I cannot see them getting the approval from the states for it to happen.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But haven't the majority of the USA people got exactly what they voted for? They can scarcely now be surprised.

49.8% of those who voted. So not even a majority of those.
And then consider turnout was only 63.9%.
So yeah defo not a majority.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==

The majority of the 64% of the electorate who voted.

As above, not even a majority of that given the popular vote for Trump was 49.8%.

 

[sor]

If that were a British PM or minister - and even the worst wouldn't say that - they'd be gone before they reached the door. I think every ATC in the US should go in immediate and indefinite strike, bring all flights to a standstill and that includes military and Trump's own flights, until he goes. Not apologises, not sympathises (he doesn't appear to do sympathy) but a full-on resignation.

That's probably what would happen in France, almost certainly.

American ATC can't strike, if I remember correctly. Though during the last "government shutdown" there were increasing levels of sickness among air traffic controllers as the longer they went without pay. Since Trump is threatening another "shutdown" I'd expect it to reoccur.

Given the "fork in the road" stuff I'd imagine Trump would treat such an unofficial strike as a resignation as a sort of Reaganism on steroids. It seems Musk and co are trying again with mass emails to all government employees that are calling them "low productivity workers". One wonders if it was a private sector "high productivity worker" who set up the mass email address that has no protections on it so anyone can spam every federal employee. Perhaps the most amusing non-lewd email is the one signing up to the Scientology daily newsletter...

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps the pilots can then, as their safety, let alone that of the passengers is at stake?

Wouldn't that just be expressing lack of confidence in ATC and thus expressing some agreement with Trump's views on them?

I think he said at one point that any Federal employee could resign and walk away with 8 months pay. Perhaps the controllers might take him up on that.

 

[dgl]

American ATC can't strike, if I remember correctly. Though during the last "government shutdown" there were increasing levels of sickness among air traffic controllers as the longer they went without pay.

Given the "fork in the road" stuff I'd imagine Trump would treat such an unofficial strike as a resignation as a sort of Reaganism on steroids. It seems Musk and co are trying again with mass emails to all government employees that are calling them "low productivity workers". One wonders if it was a private sector "high productivity worker" who set up the mass email address that has no protections on it so anyone can spam every federal employee. Perhaps the most amusing non-lewd email is the one signing up to the Scientology daily newsletter...

Well all of this is going to cause a lot of stress for ATC workers and I bet there will be a good few more off with stress now.

I don't get why Trumps complaining about "disabled" people in air traffic control when Trump is clearly mentally disabled. Anyway there is history with leaders demonising disabled people, and one of them is probably a hero of Trumps (though he did lose in the end).

 

[OhNoAPacer]

The only way Trump could serve a third term is by getting the Supreme Court to interpret the 12th amendment in such a way that its eligibility exclusions for vice president does not include the 22nd amendment presidential term limits. He could then run as vice president on, say, a vance-trump ticket and then tge president either resigns or invokes the 25th amendment, leaving Trump as president or acting president.
Not that I think this would happen.
The only likely way Trump could stay in power would be to act as power behind the throne and have a figurehead president appoint him to an executive role where he would be the one making the decisions.

 

[Senex]

49.8% of those who voted. So not even a majority of those.
And then consider turnout was only 63.9%.
So yeah defo not a majority.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2025 ==


As above, not even a majority of that given the popular vote for Trump was 49.8%.

Absolutely! Which takes us straight back to how one should interpret election results (including our EU referendum and our last general election). Do you say that those who either chose not to vote or simply didn't bother to vote just don't matter and the only ones who should count are those who form a simple majority, or do you try and find some method of measuring more accurately the will of the people. Simple majorities and voting mobs blindly following a Great Leader do not have a great history! The damage that Trump II is already doing is interestingly discussed today in a Guardian article accessible here: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...p-has-already-remade-our-constitutional-order.

 

[m0ffy]

The only way Trump could serve a third term is by getting the Supreme Court to interpret the 12th amendment in such a way that its eligibility exclusions for vice president does not include the 22nd amendment presidential term limits. He could then run as vice president on, say, a vance-trump ticket and then tge president either resigns or invokes the 25th amendment, leaving Trump as president or acting president.
Not that I think this would happen.
The only likely way Trump could stay in power would be to act as power behind the throne and have a figurehead president appoint him to an executive role where he would be the one making the decisions.

With the decision handed down in Trump vs United States last year giving the president absolute immunity for all official acts (and defining official acts so broadly as to include any act performed under the auspices of being president), Trump could declare himself president for life and command the military to enforce and defend this. Under the law, as the Supreme Court has written it, this would be perfectly legitimate. The case which produced this alarming ruling was originally deciding upon whether Trump could face prosecution for January 6th.

 

[DustyBin]

Firstly, please don't interpret this post as somehow justifying Trump's comments; I condemn them absolutely and unreservedly.

I wasn't aware however that the FAA is currently subject to a class action lawsuit for allegedly rejecting candidates to meet DEI targets. This presumably is what's behind his rant (along with being a total **** of course).

Again, I'm posting this simply as I wasn't aware of it and it's relevant.

 

[Gloster]

I don’t think that Trump can postpone an election, nor can the Senate but I think it is possible for individual states to postpone the election in their state. It has to be said that the law is not entirely clear about this. The problem is that Trump could cancel elections and the only legal route to challenging it would be in court, which would end up in the Supreme Court. This already has a pro-Trump majority, although not as much as he would like as Coney Barrett has sometimes voted against MAGA wishes. However, if he presented a fait accompli it would take years of challenges, by which time everything would have been fixed.

But that is nearly four years in the future. Let us worry about present problems.

 

[Thirteen]

With the decision handed down in Trump vs United States last year giving the president absolute immunity for all official acts (and defining official acts so broadly as to include any act performed under the auspices of being president), Trump could declare himself president for life and command the military to enforce and defend this. Under the law, as the Supreme Court has written it, this would be perfectly legitimate. The case which produced this alarming ruling was originally deciding upon whether Trump could face prosecution for January 6th.

I don’t think that Trump can postpone an election, nor can the Senate but I think it is possible for individual states to postpone the election in their state. It has to be said that the law is not entirely clear about this. The problem is that Trump could cancel elections and the only legal route to challenging it would be in court, which would end up in the Supreme Court. This already has a pro-Trump majority, although not as much as he would like as Coney Barrett has sometimes voted against MAGA wishes. However, if he presented a fait accompli it would take years of challenges, by which time everything would have been fixed.

But that is nearly four years in the future. Let us worry about present problems.

If individual states cancel elections which they wouldn't, they would find themselves foul of their own state laws as well as federal laws. This is why this idea Trump will declare himself President for life is super unlikely.

 

[najaB]

With the decision handed down in Trump vs United States last year giving the president absolute immunity for all official acts (and defining official acts so broadly as to include any act performed under the auspices of being president), Trump could declare himself president for life and command the military to enforce and defend this. Under the law, as the Supreme Court has written it, this would be perfectly legitimate. The case which produced this alarming ruling was originally deciding upon whether Trump could face prosecution for January 6th.

It's more nuanced than that. The decision doesn't make any official act legal but rather provides immunity from prosecution for any official act.

 

[dangie]

The majority of the 64% of the electorate who voted.

But that’s how elections work. You count the votes of the electorate who voted. The majority wins.
The alternative is to have an Election ‘Pools Panel’ who sit and guess how the non voting 36% would have voted if they could have been bothered. That would be interesting.

 

[dcbwhaley]

Since when does MAGA care about what the constitution says?

When it comes to the right to bear arms

 

[Ghostbus]

Trump can do whatever he wants due to having the House, Senate and Supreme Court. He's already busy using his power to extract loyalty from the key positions in the government.

Why would he need to do anything that would be unambiguously illegal like declare himself President for Life?

He will simply need to point out the two thirds majority needed to change the Constitution is preventing him from enacting the will of the People, such as by giving him as many Terms as God wishes.

His people will do the rest. It's how it's done these days.

Get it done before the mid-terms, and it's Goobye America.

All because the Democrats became fixated on issues that the voters really didn't care about. Including Trump’s fascist tendencies, having wrongly assumed he would be the same Trump he was in 2016. A bumbling man limited by his weak support and lack of any real clue what he wanted to do with the car once he caught it.

But he knew what he was doing when he let the Dems back in and took aim at 2024. He knew he wanted to drive the car. Missed the feeling of the wind whistling through his hair. The adulation. The power. The attention. And now someone has given him a map too.

All that you can hope for is the jostling to be his natural successor causes such a distraction or mess that he can't secure their succession when he rides that Gold Cart into the Heavens. But they're probably smart enough to wait before beginning the ankle biting and hair pulling for real. But the dance had already begun before the inauguration. That was how obvious it was the Democrats had handed America to him on a plate.

If they're really smart they're already planning his assassination, glorious funeral and Eternal Tomb. He's more use to them dead.

 

[najaB]

But that’s how elections work. You count the votes of the electorate who voted. The majority wins.

Not disputing that at all*. However, the statement I was responding to was:

But haven't the majority of the USA people got exactly what they voted for?

There's a sizeable portion of "'the USA people" who aren't part of the electorate, and less than half the electorate voted for either candidate.

*Edit: Actually, I am going to dispute that. If that was true (the person who got the most votes wins) then we would have had Presidents Gore and Clinton rather than Bush and Trump.

 

[Buzby]

If that was true (the person who got the most votes wins)

Doesn’t the Electoral College make things somewhat murkier?

 

[dangie]

Whatever the voting system is, it's never fair, or it's wrong, if the result doesn't go the way you want it to.