Trump’s threats against nation

[Glennfs]

You always deflect for Trump. Pretending he’s no worse than anyone else.

No I deflect for the truth and have one standard.
If I deflected for Trump why did I agree with you about the judge.

[gounion]

No I deflect for the truth and have one standard.
If I deflected for Trump why did I agree with you about the judge.

“Trump” and “truth”?

That’s delusional.

[Drak]

I was commenting on politicians who use violent rhetoric that weak minded people might take as a call to action.
Which is why I have the same opinion about Trump doing it as I have when Waters did it.

Because as a general rule I attempt to have one standard for all. Not wanting to be a hypocrite like those who defend one and condemn the other

I get that you like to fabricate both sides in an attempt to distract and level out the playing field, that’s the Republican way. But the discussion isn’t about Maxine Waters and Maxine Waters isn’t indicted for serious crimes. It’s about the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, sending out threats to TAMPER with jurors, witnesses, the judge and prosecutors, and after he was told and agreed to his bond terms.

[gounion]

I get that you like to fabricate both sides in an attempt to distract and level out the playing field, that’s the Republican way. But the discussion isn’t about Maxine Waters and Maxine Waters isn’t indicted for serious crimes. It’s about the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, sending out threats to TAMPER with jurors, witnesses, the judge and prosecutors, and after he was told and agreed to his bond terms.

Glenn is fine with it, and watch him attack Judge Chutkan when she comes down on The Donald.

[Drak]

Again one standard for Republicans a different standard for democrats

How stupid are you? This is about tampering with a serious case of crimes.

[gounion]

How stupid are you? This is about tampering with a serious case of crimes.

Except that Trump didn’t commit any crimes!

[Drak]

Except that Trump didn’t commit any crimes!

Yep. He’s been pushing that one for years, too. He’s wrong about absolutely everything. A complete fool. He should just start posting there’s no such thing as gravity or that the sky isn’t blue. That’s the delusional world he lives in.

[gounion]

Yep. He’s been pushing that one for years, too. He’s wrong about absolutely everything. A complete fool. He should just start posting there’s no such thing as gravity or that the sky isn’t blue. That’s the delusional world he lives in.

Yeah, and now he’s pretending that Trump never called anyone a racist. He’s an idiot.

[Drak]

Yeah, and now he’s pretending that Trump never called anyone a racist. He’s an idiot.

Trump’s entire life is steeped in racism. It’s well documented.

[Glennfs]

Yeah, and now he’s pretending that Trump never called anyone a racist. He’s an idiot.

No I was wrong he definitely has. However I don't know if he has about the federal judge or county prosecutor.

[Glennfs]

Trump’s entire life is steeped in racism. It’s well documented.

Even when he was getting awards from the NAACP?

[gounion]

Even when he was getting awards from the NAACP?

Yup.

You sure are always there to come to The Donald’s rescue, aren’t you?

[Libertas]

That’s nice. This thread isn’t about Maxine Waters, and Maxine Waters isn’t indicted or sending out threats while indicted, to the prosecutor, the judge, jurors or witnesses.

If traitor takes power again, if destan does, we will not be safe. Board cons will say NOTHING about it.

Which makes them ACCOMPLICES. Anyone who does not yet realize how much harm's way trump/destan opponents will be in if it happens, is either lying or not paying any attention.

NOW is when we talk about it, NOT after it happens. As you know.

NOTHING any democratic pol does put cons in direct harm's way.



__________________________________________

Just the damage to the environment alone, contribution to GLOBAL BOILING by cons is more harm than we can even calculate at this time.

[gounion]

So you tell me, Glenn, what will Trump do if he wins the Presidency again?

[Libertas]

So you tell me, Glenn, what will Trump do if he wins the Presidency again?

I know, he will invite all his enemies and opponents (anyone who didnt vote for him) to a tea party with little cookies.

Cuz, you know, he isn't known for things like revenge.

Oh wait, just ask him


https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... a-kingship

On Monday, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump and his advisers are planning to radically change the functioning of the executive branch, if he recaptures the Presidency next year. Trump has long referred to the federal bureaucracy as the “deep state” and, as President, sought to exert greater authority over it. According to the Times, for a potential second term, the Trump team is planning a “sweeping expansion of presidential power,” focussing on several specific areas: establishing more control of semi-independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C.) and the Federal Reserve; firing government employees at will, even those with civil-service protections; and “impounding” funds allocated by Congress. Taken together, the result would be the greatest reshaping of the relationship between the executive branch and the federal government in recent American history.

To talk about what all this could mean, I spoke by phone with Noah Rosenblum, an assistant professor and legal historian at New York University School of Law. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed how Trump might put these various proposals into effect, the ways in which this effort serves the larger conservative project to dismantle the “administrative state,” and how the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, is likely to respond to Trump’s plans.

Broadly speaking, how would these plans reshape the federal government if they were enacted?

Sign up for Daily.
Receive the best of The New Yorker, every day, in your in-box.
E-mail address
E-mail address

Sign up
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

So I think Donald Trump genuinely believed, as he has said, that he had “an Article II” and that lets him do whatever he wants. And so that being President of the United States was something like being the monarchical ruler of a kingdom. But that’s not how the United States government has operated, ever. And when I read that Times story, my first thought was that it seems like he is now trying to put together legal plans that would make the Presidency into more of a kingship and bring it a little bit closer to realizing what he understands the office to be.

Can you talk a little bit about Article II of the Constitution and what it means and what Trump’s ideas have in common with ideas that have been circulating in the conservative movement and the Republican Party since at least the Reagan Administration, if not going back all the way to the Nixon Administration?

I think your periodization is exactly right. The roots of the Reagan Administration theories are found in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Nixon Administration. One key figure who bridges those periods is, of course, Antonin Scalia, who, when he becomes a Supreme Court Justice, writes this dissent that’s become a touchstone for champions of what’s called the Unitary Executive theory.

But in terms of Article II, there is what everybody agrees on, and then there’s the space of argument. We all agree on the words that are in the Constitution, and the Constitution doesn’t say a ton. Article II of the Constitution explains most of what the President can do. And in Article II it says, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” and the President of the United States “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” There’s a lot of other stuff that Article II says about the President’s power, including that he’s Commander-in-Chief and that he can request in writing the opinion of the heads of the various departments.

But the key language that most of the fighting about different theories of executive power rests on are these two clauses. So the executive power vests in the President of the United States, and the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Reagan Administration theories that you are referencing read those two clauses to give the President tremendous power to control how the United States government goes about doing things.

The argument goes something like this: there are three kinds of powers that the government exercises—legislative power, judicial power, and executive power. Legislative power is what Congress does. Judicial power is what courts do. That means everything that isn’t legislative power or judicial power must be executive power. But the executive power vests in the President of the United States. That means the President of the United States must have the power to execute all the laws of the United States. And remember, executive power according to this reading means everything that’s not what Congress does or what the judiciary does. So you get a theory according to which everything that the government does that isn’t either an act of Congress or an act of a judge should be more or less directly under the control of the President of the United States.

The theory then goes on to say, well, that’s not just a power the President has. It’s actually a duty that the President has because the President must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And how can the President do that if the President doesn’t have control over everybody in the government who’s not either part of Congress or part of the judiciary? I’ve just reconstructed for you a simplified version of what I understand to be the Reagan Administration’s unitary-executive argument. But that position has been rejected for all of American history up until very recently, including by some really conservative people like former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER

The Diamond: The Cost of a Fortune


Right, but at the same time it melded with conservative concern about what they like to call the administrative state, correct?

Absolutely. And the kinds of concerns that people have had with the so-called deep state have varied a little bit based on the Republican President in charge. And it also varies a little bit based on agency. Nixon famously was very concerned that he was being resisted by the federal bureaucracy. Trump’s concern seems to have been threefold. I think he was afraid that the bureaucrats were liberals who were resisting him. And so he wanted to deconstruct the deep state in order to overcome the perceived resistance that he was getting from the government workforce.

That’s connected to the second point, which is that many of the agencies through which the government exercises power were created to fulfill social-democratic goals or social-welfare goals. So the Environmental Protection Agency or the Social Security Administration, or the Office of Medicare and Medicaid Services, these are agencies that exist in order to fulfill the goals of the New Deal and the Great Society, although, of course, the E.P.A. was actually created by Nixon. And so if you’re ideologically opposed to the policy programs those agencies are pursuing, then you might want to limit those agencies’ ability to exercise power, either by staffing them with your own appointees or by controlling what they’re doing.

And then the third reason—and this is maybe a more philosophical one, and this is where I think Trump’s interests have kind of dovetailed with the broader conservative project—is the way in which a lot of these agencies were set up, with a certain amount of insulation from direct Presidential control. There are several different tools that Congress has used over the years to establish that. But some of those tools were thought by conservative legal intellectuals to run afoul of the strict separation of powers. And so they developed arguments to explain why those tools were unconstitutional. And the Roberts Court has embraced some of those arguments. And those arguments don’t have to go hand in hand with the second bucket of arguments trying to destroy the power of perceived liberal agencies. But they do dovetail with the interests of a strong president who’s afraid of resistance from the federal bureaucracy.

So I want to talk about some of the specifics of the Trump plan. There are a bunch of quasi-independent agencies that operate with different mandates and different rules, from the F.T.C. to the Federal Reserve to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (C.F.P.B). So how do these agencies broadly function, and what do you see as the way a White House that wanted to bring them under control would try and change that?

[Libertas]

Anybody else including former prez's are in jail today in this same situation.

Trump for some reason, the dumbest and most corrupt human alive, is not subject to American law. Watch, I hate to predict this but his threat could not be more violative of the order yet he will not suffer any consequences. And I PRAY I am wrong.

Where would he go? How long would it take for the prison system and SS to set up a suitable place where he can be protected, which they have to do.

Cons, including those here, support his threats. They are just as dangerous as he is.

As to my last line here, trump personally will never harm anyone because he is a coward. Cons in general are not going to either, but they are JUST AS DANGEROUS because they wont denounce him or the gop...

[gounion]

As to my last line here, trump personally will never harm anyone because he is a coward. Cons in general are not going to either, but they are JUST AS DANGEROUS because they wont denounce him or the gop...

Trump told cops that it was okay to beat up Black Lives Matter protestors. And Glenn is fine with that.

[Libertas]

Trump told cops that it was okay to beat up Black Lives Matter protestors. And Glenn is fine with that.

Con is pretending that both sides did something here.

ONE SIDE supports VIOLENT FASCISM and the other does not. HE IS GUILTY of being an accomplice more and more everyday, as we watch him deflect and refuse to denounce.

[Glennfs]

LOCK HIM THE FUCK UP!!! RIGHT NOW!

Will ANYONE on this board disagree with me?

No not one conservative will agree with your extreme belief.

[Glennfs]

Trump told cops that it was okay to beat up Black Lives Matter protestors. And Glenn is fine with that.

Can you provide a link to that? I found this but can't find Trump actually saying to police to beat up protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ack-skulls

[gounion]

No not one conservative will agree with your extreme belief.

Ah but they'll scream to lock up Hillary Clinton.

Whose beliefs are extreme? What's extreme about jail for the crimes that Donald Trump has committed?

And you tell me you don't support him.

[gounion]

Can you provide a link to that? I found this but can't find Trump actually saying to police to beat up protesters

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ack-skulls

hell, that's worse! But keep defending him.

[Glennfs]

Ah but they'll scream to lock up Hillary Clinton.

Whose beliefs are extreme? What's extreme about jail for the crimes that Donald Trump has committed?

And you tell me you don't support him.

Once again except in the fairy land world of your mind there is no practical way to lock up a former president. Especially for crimes related to politics.

That being said here is an interesting read.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2023/08/06/d ... mpt-coming

I agree that Trump is a sick in the head man. I wish we knew exactly what his malady is.
It could be dementia it could be mental illness it could be physiological. One thing not debatable is the guy isn't right between the ears.

[gounion]

Once again except in the fairy land world of your mind there is no practical way to lock up a former president. Especially for crimes related to politics.

That being said here is an interesting read.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2023/08/06/d ... mpt-coming

I agree that Trump is a sick in the head man. I wish we knew exactly what his malady is.
It could be dementia it could be mental illness it could be physiological. One thing not debatable is the guy isn't right between the ears.

I love how you play both sides. First, you say Trump has mental problems. Yet you support all the people that do whatever he says, and supports everything he wants. WTF? That doesn’t make any sense.

I mean, your Senator and former Governor are campaigning to be his Vice President. That’s what’s insane.

So you support him and you parrot his statements. A mentally ill man. Why?

[Drak]

Trump committed unprecedented serious crimes. Therefore times call for unprecedented measures. Locking Trump up isn’t the hard part. A special prison could be easily built. Or some sort of nursing home hospital. SS detail if he’s still entitled to it, could be easily minimized.