Thoughts on the Trump presidency

[ainsworth74]

So, the Constitution is pretty clear on this: if the Vice-President and a majority of the cabinet rule him to be incapacitated, then a message is submitted to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. At that moment, the Vice-President immediately takes control of the Presidency, and Trump would be immediately removed from power. If he attempted to hold onto power regardless, the Supreme Court would likely hold an emergency sitting to make it clear beyond doubt that Vance is the President and that Trump no longer holds executive power.

Not quite. Once the letter is transmitted to the Senate and House of Representatives then yes, by automatic operation of the Constitution Vance becomes Acting President and Trump loses his power. However, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment also provides that if the President sends his own declaration that he is fit to undertake his duties then he, again automatically, regains the powers and duties of the office of President. Vance and a majority of the Cabinet would then need to send, again, a declaration that the President is not fit to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency which would then kick the matter to Congress to decide by a 2/3rds vote of both Houses whether or not the President is fit.

It is not completely clear to me whilst waiting for Congress to decide the issue who is undertaking the duties of President. The draft might imply that the VP is Acting President during this time:

determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

But equally you could read the Amendment as a whole as implying the President continue to be President whilst Congress is resolving the issue. Either way it would certainly get messy...

 

[brad465]

Not sure if anyone caught the weekend horror show photo of Liz Truss alongside Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Him standing there with rictus grin in place and a tiny thumb raised while presumably wondering why the Doordash driver was wearing a red dress and why she'd forgotten his McDonald's order. Her, looking rather too Liz Truss for her own good.

Content warning; photo is just..awful.

If what Truss did with the late Queen is anything to go by, Trump has only 48 hours left.

 

[najaB]

If what Truss did with the late Queen is anything to go by, Trump has only 48 hours left.

One lives in hope...

 

[Cloud Strife]

However, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment also provides that if the President sends his own declaration that he is fit to undertake his duties then he, again automatically, regains the powers and duties of the office of President. Vance and a majority of the Cabinet would then need to send, again, a declaration that the President is not fit to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency which would then kick the matter to Congress to decide by a 2/3rds vote of both Houses whether or not the President is fit.

I believe that the Presidency doesn't bounce back to the President, but rather the VP remains Acting President until the expiry of a four day deadline. So, it works like this:

- President is removed by VP and majority of the Cabinet through their inability to hold office, confirmed by writing to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate
- President declares that they are fit to hold office by declaration to the Speaker / President
- A four day waiting period begins, in which the VP remains the Acting President and that a second confirmation of the President's inability to hold office is awaited.
- The Speaker / President summon their respective chambers.
- The chambers sit within 48 hours of transmitting the letter, and they then have 21 days to confirm (by 2/3rds vote) that the President is indeed unable to hold office. If Congress is already in session, then it's 21 days from the moment of transmitting the letter.

During this time, the VP continues as Acting President. In essence, if the President contests the decision to remove them, then they need to either win a majority of the Cabinet or at least 1/3rd of one chamber in order to resume the Presidency.

But equally you could read the Amendment as a whole as implying the President continue to be President whilst Congress is resolving the issue. Either way it would certainly get messy...

I believe that the transfer of power to the VP occurs at the moment of transmission, not receipt. Essentially, it seems clearly designed that the President is no longer holding office at the moment that the decision is made by the VP/majority of the Cabinet, and that the President can only resume their duties after the 4 days / 21 day deadline passes. I'm guessing that the authors of the Amendment framed it this way to prevent a rogue President from seizing power after being stripped of it, as four days is enough to get Congress to sit so that the President can be permanently removed.

But I think it's very academic. They might remove Trump after a beating in the midterms, but it will be done with his consent, perhaps with a subtle reminder to his family that it's not in their best interests to have him contest it.

 

[edwin_m]

But I think it's very academic. They might remove Trump after a beating in the midterms, but it will be done with his consent, perhaps with a subtle reminder to his family that it's not in their best interests to have him contest it

And a promise that Vance's first act will be to pardon Trump for all crimes he might have committed, might currently be committing, or might commit in the future.

 

[Gloster]

And a promise that Vance's first act will be to pardon Trump for all crimes he might have committed, might currently be committing, or might commit in the future.

But if Vance is really tricky, would he do that? Leave Trump to face the barrage of law suits that will suddenly appear, now that Trump is no longer the flavour of the month. All the attention will be on Trump and his problems, leaving Vance to get on with his agenda and blame any problems on his deeply enmired predecessor.

 

[martin butler]

But if Vance is really tricky, would he do that? Leave Trump to face the barrage of law suits that will suddenly appear, now that Trump is no longer the flavour of the month. All the attention will be on Trump and his problems, leaving Vance to get on with his agenda and blame any problems on his deeply enmired predecessor.

I think Trump will refuse to leave, and incite another insurrection, telling his base that he has been betrayed by spineless republicans, that Vance, Johnson, and anyone else are traitors, and should be killed,

His base of course will do just that, then there will be open warfare between all branches of the administration, In the end, the military will have to step in, park their tanks on the white house lawn, barrels facing the oval office and Trump, he will be spirited away overnight, and reappear in some country that has no extradition treaty

 

[brad465]

I think Trump will refuse to leave, and incite another insurrection, telling his base that he has been betrayed by spineless republicans, that Vance, Johnson, and anyone else are traitors, and should be killed,

His base of course will do just that, then there will be open warfare between all branches of the administration, In the end, the military will have to step in, park their tanks on the white house lawn, barrels facing the oval office and Trump, he will be spirited away overnight, and reappear in some country that has no extradition treaty

Yes Vance would do well to remember why he was Trump's VP pick for his second term and why his first VP did not vote for Trump second-time round.

 

[dosxuk]

But if Vance is really tricky, would he do that? Leave Trump to face the barrage of law suits that will suddenly appear, now that Trump is no longer the flavour of the month. All the attention will be on Trump and his problems, leaving Vance to get on with his agenda and blame any problems on his deeply enmired predecessor.

There's no way Trump would go down without taking everyone else with him. His very first words to the prosecution camp would be "let's make a deal, who do you want?".

 

[brad465]

If Trump makes it to the start of the GOP primaries alive and still in office, the primaries are going to be an almighty popcorn fest. Trump will not want anyone else succeeding him, so will seek to force his way onto the ballot again. If, as I hope is the case, he fails, he will severely undermine whoever the GOP candidate is in 2028, especially if said candidate even mildly attacked Trump's behaviour.

The best hope for them is Trump dies before the primaries begin, so he cannot in any way intervene or undermine, or go down fighting. Even then the primaries will be a huge squabbling match as the party decides on who Trump's successor should be.

 

[nw1]

Even though his handlers will be trying to keep under control, he will still have opportunities to follow the dictates of his scrambled mind. Time to read On the Beach again.

If you are seriously suggesting there's a remote possibility that he might start a nuclear war, he must be removed immediately. That would make him many millions of magnitude more evil than even Hitler. That said, Vlad seems to be his friend so presumably he would not try to bomb Russia.

Besides, would people follow his orders to destroy the world? Given a choice between being fired and annihilation, I'm sure most would choose being fired, and the ultimate hero status that would follow.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If Trump makes it to the start of the GOP primaries alive and still in office, the primaries are going to be an almighty popcorn fest.

If the Democrats do win the House this year and push the Republicans into a very narrow majority in the Senate, the primaries are going to be absolutely brutal. It's very plausible that everyone will try and distance themselves from Trump, while Trump is still in power and taking revenge on anyone that he perceives to have insulted him. Meanwhile, the Democrats will hammer anyone too close to Trump, so they'll be forced to distance themselves even more.

I think Trump will walk away though, because he will have succeeded in stealing an astronomical amount of money in the process.

 

[brad465]

The Supreme Court has made a rare move against Trump and struck down his global tariffs:

Trump raises global tariffs to 15%, day after Supreme Court ruling

After most of his tariffs were outlawed on Friday, Trump announced new global tariffs of 10% - which he says he has now increased to 15%.

www.bbc.co.uk

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's tariffs
​

The top court in the US has ruled against US President Donald Trump's global tariffs, which went into effect last year.

We're reading through the ruling now, and we will bring you updates shortly. Stay with us.

 

[Annetts key]

The Supreme Court has made a rare move against Trump and struck down his global tariffs:

Trump raises global tariffs to 15%, day after Supreme Court ruling

After most of his tariffs were outlawed on Friday, Trump announced new global tariffs of 10% - which he says he has now increased to 15%.

www.bbc.co.uk

The orange one is apparently rather angry. What a shame

 

[dgl]

Someone doesn't like being told no, and especially from people with the power to make him abide by them.
I bet some countries must be rubbing their hands with glee over this.

 

[brad465]

The orange one is apparently rather angry. What a shame

Nothing a few million tonnes of bombs dropped on Iran this weekend can't "fix".

 

[Annetts key]

Someone doesn't like being told no, and especially from people with the power to make him abide by them.
I bet some countries must be rubbing their hands with glee over this.

What will be interesting is to see what other people and / or companies go to the courts on other executive orders that are in contravention of the constitution. Now, where did I put my tub of popcorn...

 

[Gloster]

If the Democrats do win the House this year and push the Republicans into a very narrow majority in the Senate, the primaries are going to be absolutely brutal. It's very plausible that everyone will try and distance themselves from Trump, while Trump is still in power and taking revenge on anyone that he perceives to have insulted him. Meanwhile, the Democrats will hammer anyone too close to Trump, so they'll be forced to distance themselves even more.

I think Trump will walk away though, because he will have succeeded in stealing an astronomical amount of money in the process.

I think it is unlikely that Trump will walk unless forced or carried because he has gone too obviously and permanently ga-ga. Just because he has grifted a massive amount of money is not going to make him stop: he always wants more as he is incapable of saying,”That’s it it, I’ve got enough”. He just can’t do it as greed is too deeply ingrained in his nature.

For that matter, his ego will also keep in him in the Whitehouse. The thought of being yesterday’s man and no longer the centre of attention would hurt him too much. Nor would he be happy to lose the opportunity to do down whoever is the latest victim of his vindictiveness: like an eternal funfair new targets are always popping up.

 

[martin butler]

Trump will have to be removed by force, He's going to ignore the rule of law, He will bomb Iran, just to prove that he can, and he will no doubt send ICE to terrorise Voters in blue states, and governors will be forced to mobilise the national guard to protect voters, It won't end well,

Assuming the Democrats win, and take the senate, Trump will become even more unhinged and unlawful, the 25th will be enacted, but he will still not give up power. and he will try a second incitement, to hold back justice even from his own party.

 

[brad465]

Basically Trump is punishing ordinary Americans for a court ruling that he lost in favour of ordinary Americans:

Trump announces increase of new global tariffs from 10% to 15%

After most of his tariffs were outlawed on Friday, Trump announced new global tariffs of 10% - which he says he has now increased to 15%.

www.bbc.co.uk

US President Donald Trump has said that he will impose global tariffs of 15%, as he continued to rail against a Supreme Court ruling that struck down his previous import taxes.
Trump said on Friday that he would replace the tariffs scrapped by the court with a 10% levy on all goods coming into the US.
But on Saturday, he announced on Truth Social that this would be increased to the maximum allowed under a never-used trade law.
That law allows these new tariffs to stay in place for around five months before the administration must seek congressional approval.
The 10% tariffs were set to come into force on Tuesday, 24 February. It's unclear if the increased 15% would also be imposed starting then. The BBC has contacted the White House.
The new 15% tax rate - a temporary solution under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act - raises questions for countries such as the UK and Australia, which had agreed a 10% tariff deal with the US.
Trump said his administration had reached the decision to raise the levy following a review of the Supreme Court's "ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday".
In a 6-3 decision, justices on the highest US court found that the president had overstepped his powers when he introduced sweeping global tariffs last year using a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using IEEPA, according to the most recent government data.
Immediately following the ruling, Trump said that he was "ashamed of certain members of the court" and called the justices who rejected his trade policy "fools".
The ruling to strike down the tariffs was decided by the court's three liberal justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative nominated by George W Bush and two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.
Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

 

[Krokodil]

Oh, no disagreement there. However, it's worth noting that the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. So it can happen, even in the current environment.

An act that the administration has evaded complying with. Files were late, there were massive blocks of redactions and millions of them are still missing (makes you wonder how bad they must be, given what was in the ones we've already seen).

If what Truss did with the late Queen is anything to go by, Trump has only 48 hours left.

One lives in hope...

To be really sure, he needs a visit from JD Vance as he had the same effect on the Pope.

But I think it's very academic. They might remove Trump after a beating in the midterms, but it will be done with his consent, perhaps with a subtle reminder to his family that it's not in their best interests to have him contest it.

Vance wouldn't move until there's less than two years left in office. That way he can get two full terms in as well as the part one.

And a promise that Vance's first act will be to pardon Trump for all crimes he might have committed, might currently be committing, or might commit in the future.

Like Ford did for Nixon. Your phrasing reminds me of the Trump impersonation in Private Eye's Year in Review: "Russia will be found innocent of all war crimes that they didn't commit, and all the war crimes that they are about to not commit"

Meanwhile, the Democrats will hammer anyone too close to Trump

Assuming that Schumer has the stomach for it. The Democrat leadership have been pretty weak throughout.

 

[Cdd89]

Even if I don't go, avoiding the hassle of disclosing social media accounts and email accounts (those for ten years, rather than five for social media!) makes it worth doing now.

I have been filling that in voluntarily tbh, I've never been asked about it so I'm pretty sure they don't care and will continue not to care. I intentionally keep my social media extremely apolitical - partly for this reason, and also because what's the point in getting involved in arguments on social media?

This site is one of the few places I'm willing to put my actual views - and I don't see the US having the wherewithal to start linking profiles on here (although it's a thought, especially given how many sites are moving to social sign-on...).

 

[najaB]

I have been filling that in voluntarily tbh, I've never been asked about it so I'm pretty sure they don't care and will continue not to care.

I believe that would have been the case in previous years but, given that they've made it mandatory to set social media profiles to public as part of the visa application process, I do think that they are taking more active approach. This suspicion is bolstered by much anecdotal evidence that people's social media has played a role in immigration actions.

I intentionally keep my social media extremely apolitical - partly for this reason, and also because what's the point in getting involved in arguments on social media?

My concern is less that they will find anything objectionable in my social media, since I know that they won't. It been literally years since I posted anything myself to any of the major platforms, and what comments I have made to other people's posts have been few and far between. My reluctance to provide my social media handles and email addresses is more driven by principle than fear for myself: there are others who will be deemed 'undesirable' by the administration because of who they are or because of what they believe and I don't intend to normalise the idea of them having to hide.

 

[nw1]

I have been filling that in voluntarily tbh, I've never been asked about it so I'm pretty sure they don't care and will continue not to care. I intentionally keep my social media extremely apolitical - partly for this reason, and also because what's the point in getting involved in arguments on social media?

This site is one of the few places I'm willing to put my actual views - and I don't see the US having the wherewithal to start linking profiles on here (although it's a thought, especially given how many sites are moving to social sign-on...).

Then again why should you self-censor your political views?

There are plenty of countries that are more easy going and accepting of differing political views, and it's those that deserve our visit.

We want to avoid moving to a world where we feel unable to express our own personal political views for fear of consequences (as long as they're not extremist, of course).

 

[Cdd89]

There are plenty of countries that are more easy going and accepting of differing political views, and it's those that deserve our visit.

While it's a close-run thing (which is itself astonishing for the supposed "land of the free"), I can think of lots of countries that are at least as regressive as the US:

• China / Hong Kong with evidence of sentiments against the PRC government
• Turkey with evidence of posts insulting political leaders
• Saudi Arabia / UAE / Malaysia with evidence of belonging to or support for LGBTQ
• Pakistan with evidence of blasphemy
• Singapore / Indonesia with evidence of advocacy of recreational drug use
• UAE / Singapore / India with evidence of pornography / personal pornography

I fully agree that it's shocking that the US is on this list of countries, but unless you're prepared to write off all these countries (I am not!), it isn't really a burden to add the US to the list of countries requiring digital sanitation.

 

[najaB]

I fully agree that it's shocking that the US is on this list of countries, but unless you're prepared to write off all these countries (I am not!), it isn't really a burden to add the US to the list of countries requiring digital sanitation.

I have no problem at all giving any or all of those countries a miss. There are still over 180 others.

 

[cb a1]

While it's a close-run thing (which is itself astonishing for the supposed "land of the free"), I can think of lots of countries that are at least as regressive as the US:

• China / Hong Kong with evidence of sentiments against the PRC government
• Turkey with evidence of posts insulting political leaders
• Saudi Arabia / UAE / Malaysia with evidence of belonging to or support for LGBTQ
• Pakistan with evidence of blasphemy
• Singapore / Indonesia with evidence of advocacy of recreational drug use
• UAE / Singapore / India with evidence of pornography / personal pornography

I fully agree that it's shocking that the US is on this list of countries, but unless you're prepared to write off all these countries (I am not!), it isn't really a burden to add the US to the list of countries requiring digital sanitation.

I'm genuinely surprised at how short that list is.
No problem avoiding those (and other countries where being a tourist supports an oppressive regime).

 

[nw1]

I'm genuinely surprised at how short that list is.
No problem avoiding those (and other countries where being a tourist supports an oppressive regime).

"Belonging to or support for LGBTQ" is worrying indeed.

Malaysia in particular does sound like it's run by an extremist regime on this matter, and is thus worthy of giving a wide berth.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is perfectly allowable and indeed possible to visit Saudi and the UAE if you support LGBT issues. You just cannot outwardly display it there.

Saudi is surprisingly open to western tourism and the religious police are nowhere to be seen.

 

[najaB]

Saudi is surprisingly open to western tourism and the religious police are nowhere to be seen.

My understanding is that depends very much on where in the country you go. Once you get out of the main tourist areas your mileage may very. There have been examples of LGBT people being denounced for private acts for example.