Trump

[Chips]

Freedom of speech, sometimes is great sometimes not so great, but always good to have it. The behaviour of a country President, this is something that keeps coming back up, it is time to realise that America did elect toothless Joe McHomeless as President, but in his billionaire version. Trump is a very well known person not only in America but the rest of the world too. Everybody knew about his character, bullying, lying, scrapes with Obama, womanising etc. And he got elected as President of the USA. Being Trump has been very successful for Trump, so there is no reason for him to change.

A few points...
1) Freedom of Speech is to protect the citizens from the Government. In this instance, Trump *is* the Government.
2) Trump has, and continues, to lie repeatedly and blatantly.
3) Trump puts himself and his popularity above the nation he is supposed to serve.

So for point 1 - Freedom of Speech is a fine defence. But, that wasn't the point I was making. The point was how you would like your leaders to behave. I guess you've low expectations and are satisfied with his conduct. Fair do's.
For point 2 - again, most people would expect the leader to not lie repeatedly. Again, I guess you are happy with serial lying leaders. Okay.
For point 3 - with points 1 and 2, you should demand the leaders attention is upon the country, not themselves. Standing there and lying outright to the citizens (as per links provided previously) isn't in their best interest nor the countries. It is in his own best interest, for him. Again, if you are happy a leader behaves as such, then great for you.

I don't think Trumps behaviour is admirable, in anyone, let alone a President. I guess you do. I believe he should be criticised and called out on it - which is again where I guess we differ; I don't believe in excusing his behaviour - whether it's a "freedom" to do so or not. I think that's why I found it, almost like morbidly interesting, to come back to this thread. Some people excuse any transgression he has despite his position. It's okay to criticise someone... but they won't

So upon that note, we'll just part.

Regarding decisions, so far his decision making has been great for America, sure, not for the rest of the world, but he got elected under an "America First" pledge and so far he has been very successful with his campaign promises, jobs reports are very good, Bank of America figures for economic growth has been revised upwards, stock market has been going bonkers and are in need of a correction as the spread with the rest of the world markets is surreal, it has create the framework for the unwinding of the "easy monetary policy" that is kind of the white elephant on the room.

And he is fighting the corner of his core supporters with a lot of energy, If he was so incompetent then, you will not have this results.

Time will tell; remember the bankers? It took a few years before their "great results" came home to roost. Indeed, it took nearly a decade.

[Skism]

Until the UK Supreme Court was created in 2009, the highest court in the UK were the Law Lords--who, as their name suggests, were actually appointed by the House of Lords. So, it's quite recent that we had our highest judiciary and government all mixed up as well.

Indeed, there was also that business of the home secretary being able to overrule the decisions of judges if there appeared to be political capital to be gained from doing so. A power which was also stripped away relatively recently.
I also rather liked that if UK supreme court ever tried to do anything especially stupid, authoritarian or just plain illegal then the ECJ would almost certainly step in and stop them. A protection that we will sadly shortly be losing.

I'm under no illusions that the UK state is any kind of well designed equitable democracy, quite the opposite in fact. The Brexit argument I've always found the most inexplicable is the idea that the UK state is somehow democratically superior to that of the EU. A truly laughable proposition.

well its true frankly! the EU is an evil undemocratic institution which needs to die for progress to be made!

And likely it will be the Poles Hungarians, and possibly Swedes leading the charge sad that it will not be the UK but Lions lead by donkeys does describe our leadership...

#how many foe lists am I on now...

[Hank001]

Skism ponders:

#how many foe lists am I on now...

Well I'm sure Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump absolutely love another loyal drone, but you can probably expect a lump of coal in your stocking for Christmas and I wouldn't walk into a church and not fear the stray bolt of lightning. Then there's babies crying at the barest glimpse of you and the growls of dogs and so on. But to mention the unfortunate consequences if there does happen to be an afterlife. Of course, there also might be the off chance you're high enough in esteem there they put you in charge of something. Who knows? Good Luck!

[Mightysword]

- absolutely no sense at all, mate..
- it's the most idiotic comment I have ever read..

Wasn't n comment, just stating fact:
- Bosco the dog, a black Labrador-Rottweiler mix, was elected mayor of Sunol, California (1981–1994). There is a statue of him erected in front of the local post office.
- In 1997, a cat named Stubbs was elected mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska. Although his title as mayor was honorary, he was featured as a write-in candidate for the 2014 U.S. Senate race in Alaska.
- In August 2014, seven-year-old Duke The Dog won an election and became the new mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota.
- In July 2018, a cat named Sweet Tart (b.2009) won the title of mayor of Omena, Michigan. This term is her first.

Now of course, whether you want to be a residents living in these towns is a whole other discussion. Again, I lost count on how many times I had said this: democracy doesn't guarantee good choices, it just guarantee you the choices, including the one that screw yourself up.I think the problem that you and yours have is kind of a first world entitlement problem. People want the empowerment of choice, but don't want the responsibility that comes with it. Good choice exists, but you have to put in efford to realize it like get on your arse and vote on election days, it requires one spending the efford of finding a good choice like staying informed, making your own judgement instead of listening to propaganda ...etc... I have a feeling that people want to be able to make choice, but at the sametime want that their ideal choice always come to realization regardless of how little afford they put in.

Again, my perspective is difference because I don't have this first world entitlement sense. I came from a country where the government believe they can make the choice for us, that the general mass is too chaotic to make a choice for our own good. Funny to, what my government did is somewhat similar to what people had suggested in this thread. All I will say on this matter is: be careful with what you wish for.

[Mightysword]

The lifetime appointment thing is bad ...

Not really. While not all countries have a supreme court system, AFAIK most countries that have one give the judge a life time term, for GOOD reason. Sure, the appointment process is highly political, but the idea that once confirmed the judge will become his or her own person. Sure, a judge will still left/right/centrist leaning, but as a personal belief rather out of obligation or loyalty to individual or parties like normal politician. The latest example of why this work is actually very recent: the reason Obama care survived and went into full effect was due to a Supreme Court decision. Chief Robert was a Bush's appointee, putting on the bench as a voice for conservative. 4 years later, it was him who cast the deciding vote that struck down the lawsuit that tried to stop Obama care from Republican. Traitor, turncoat, Bush's biggest mistake ...etc... were among the conservative outcry, their chief justice just legalized the biggest nightmare for conservative in decade, and it's because he isn't their chief justice. You follow most politicians long enough and you know their voting habit change depending on how close they are to re-election, how vulnerable they feel. That's why they vote along party line - to keep their job. A few years ago there was something that was infuriating me: a good chunk of republican representative signed the Tax Pledge by Greenwich. Greenwich is a very influential figure, and most did that to get the support they need, to get the current and future vote. Imagine that, representatives agree to be hold hostage to an outisder's pledge instead of the pledge of their office. The life time tenure is meant to free the Justice of any external influence and pressure, and for the most part, it works as intended.

The only reason this is a mess because of not the individuals involved, but just a reflection of the hyperpatisan of current politic, frankly I expect the next one to be even worse. But over 400 years, there was only 1 Judge that was impeached in office for misconduct. For the most part, after things calm down, all Justice that ever graced the bench had serve the nation with dignity and integrity, and respected by everyone. So yes, the system does work.

but the real issue with the US system is that you do not separate your branches of government in any meaningful way.
The fact that your Executive and Legislative are allowed to appoint the Judicial (and moreover are allowed to do so in a partisan fashion!!) is perhaps the most glaring flaw in the entire US state.

Define what you mean as "meaningful" ways. The system is completely neutral, and it serves as a check balance. But like I said, ultimately it's the voter who need to decide how they want to maintain it. If you think a party can push through an appointment because they control both branches, then remember that's because they were voted in with enough seat. Because the exact opposite can also happens like under Obama, where one branches can stonewall another. Ultimately, it's down to the voters, how we gonna make our choice, and be ready to accept consequence. Other than that, most of the excuse I heard can be simplified down to as "loser's excuse". You never hear Democrat complaining about the electoral colleges on the year they win by landslide, only when the lose. You don't hear anyone party complain about the system is rig when they can push their appointee to the bench, only when the other party did. The system is a good car, but if the human factor decide to run it off the cliff, than you can't really blame the car.

One way I related to this is my effort in learning Japanese, for years I spend a lot of time and money in searching for a "good way" to study it. Try it out, have fun with it, but grow bored thinking it's not effective, hearing someone else talking about a better method, so switch ...etc... and that process lasted for 3 years. I think I spent more time trying to find a good way to study than actually spent in the studying itself. Ultimately, I realize the problem isn't the method, it's me. I picked the most basic form of study (one out of the many that I tried and discard) and simply throw 3 times the amount of effort at it, and it worked.

[Bishop149]

well its true frankly! the EU is an evil undemocratic institution which needs to die for progress to be made!

And likely it will be the Poles Hungarians, and possibly Swedes leading the charge sad that it will not be the UK but Lions lead by donkeys does describe our leadership...

My favourite question for Brexiteers, coming up:

- Explain to me in exactly what ways the EU is "undemocratic" (I'll let "evil slide by as a hyperbole) and moreover how you believe sole governance by the UK state represents an improvement upon any flaws you identify.

[Usenko]

but the real issue with the US system is that you do not separate your branches of government in any meaningful way.
The fact that your Executive and Legislative are allowed to appoint the Judicial (and moreover are allowed to do so in a partisan fashion!!) is perhaps the most glaring flaw in the entire US state.

Define what you mean as "meaningful" ways. The system is completely neutral, and it serves as a check balance. But like I said, ultimately it's the voter who need to decide how they want to maintain it. If you think a party can push through an appointment because they control both branches, then remember that's because they were voted in with enough seat. Because the exact opposite can also happens like under Obama, where one branches can stonewall another. Ultimately, it's down to the voters, how we gonna make our choice, and be ready to accept consequence. Other than that, most of the excuse I heard can be simplified down to as "loser's excuse". You never hear Democrat complaining about the electoral colleges on the year they win by landslide, only when the lose. You don't hear anyone party complain about the system is rig when they can push their appointee to the bench, only when the other party did. The system is a good car, but if the human factor decide to run it off the cliff, than you can't really blame the car.

One way I related to this is my effort in learning Japanese, for years I spend a lot of time and money in searching for a "good way" to study it. Try it out, have fun with it, but grow bored thinking it's not effective, hearing someone else talking about a better method, so switch ...etc... and that process lasted for 3 years. I think I spent more time trying to find a good way to study than actually spent in the studying itself. Ultimately, I realize the problem isn't the method, it's me. I picked the most basic form of study (one out of the many that I tried and discard) and simply throw 3 times the amount of effort at it, and it worked.

I would actually argue that no congress member should have any direct say whatsoever in the appointment of judges at any level. That's what Bishop means when he says that the branches are not meaningfully separated.

In Australia, judges are appointed by a completely non-political process. The Prime Minister does not have the right to interfere in the process. The only way that the Parliament can intervene in the appointment or continued work of a judge is by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament, a sufficiently rare event on its own; I have never heard of the Parliament getting involved in any matters of judicial appointments. The Governor-General can sack a judge on evidence of wrongdoing, but the idea is that the parliament shouldn't be able to influence judicial decisions (i.e. exactly what congress members have done in the USA by railroading the appointment of Kavanaugh).

[pjknibbs]

- Explain to me in exactly what ways the EU is "undemocratic"

I'm no Brexiteer, but I can answer that one: the main legislative power of the EU rests in the hands of the European Commission, whose members are appointed by the member states and only subject to an "all or nothing" vote in the European Parliament--so there's no democratic method of removing a sitting member of the Commission, and no method of disallowing a member in the first place without voting against the whole thing and starting again.

The main difference between me and a Brexiteer is that I'd rather try and change the European system from within rather than dumping it entirely and going alone.

[Santi]

@Chips

It is not about my standards or that I like lying politicians, it is that I think all politicians are liars, actually it is a big part of being a politician, of course it is called nowadays something along the lines of "narrating the facts as to show the most positive side of them while meaningfully engaging our voters empathy" or such nonsense. Lying all the same. Bush, Blair and Aznar lied about the weapons of mass destruction and we went to war. Brexit, the amount of lies on both sides was staggering, back to America, The Vietnam War, the recent USA elections, Putin and his "these are not the Russians you are looking for" in Ukraine etc.
The problem with Trump is that he is a terrible liar with the same skill at it as a 5 year old so it grates a lot more than your usual smooth liar that has the help of a huge PR (public relations) machine. He does lie a lot I must admit.

Again, I do not think Trump behaviour is admirable, and it now gets a bit tiresome that you keep trying to shame or morally judge me for my opinions. My point is that someone with the behaviour of Trump managed to get elected, that is food for thought. Millions of Americans ignored his behaviour as they thought that he will be more effective at solving their problems than Hillary Clinton, a much more "polished" candidate. Latest example, Brazil elections, check the future President.

@Usenko

This is the supreme court and it pretty much works the same for all countries, the High Court of Australia, wiki==>"Appointments are officially made by the Governor-General in Council. In practice, appointees are nominated by the Prime Minister, on advice from the Cabinet, particularly from the Attorney-General of Australia."

This is because all branches of government need to have balances an checks, that is why the government and the judiciary are so intertwined as to be able to cancel each other out in case of abuse of their powers.

[Bishop149]

- Explain to me in exactly what ways the EU is "undemocratic"

I'm no Brexiteer, but I can answer that one: the main legislative power of the EU rests in the hands of the European Commission, whose members are appointed by the member states and only subject to an "all or nothing" vote in the European Parliament--so there's no democratic method of removing a sitting member of the Commission, and no method of disallowing a member in the first place without voting against the whole thing and starting again.

The main difference between me and a Brexiteer is that I'd rather try and change the European system from within rather than dumping it entirely and going alone.

As I understand it the Commission represents the EUs executive rather than its legislative but you description of the democratic deficit is accurate.
This is a deficit that is 100% replicated within the UK state, in fact it rather worse. Our executive consists of the Prime Minister and their cabinet neither of which are directly elected by the public but rather appointed by those that (often but not always) are. Further more the process by which these positions are appointed are internal to the political parties involved and thus vary substantially depending on who happens to be in power.
I as a voter have exactly the same amount of power to remove a member of the EU commission as I do to remove Jeremy Hunt from the excutive on account of the fact he's a walking disaster. That is to say, none at all.

But I hear you say, there are two things you could do to kick out Mr Hunt
1) If you happen to live in his constituency, vote him out.
2) Vote down the government.

1) Ministers do not have to be elected officials or a member of the ruling party, they can be literally anyone. There is nothing (legal) to stop the PM appointing me as Chancellor if she so chose. So related to this if Mr Hunt was voted out as an MP this would not necessitate his removal from the executive, what would likely happen is there would be a weird limbo suspension period before his party got him elected elsewhere parachuted into a safe by-election (which they could generate by pressuring a "retirement")
2) If I did this there would be nothing to stop the incoming government deciding that they thought Mr Hunt was awesome and appoint him to the exact position he held under the last government. This is admittedly unlikely but just to make the point that even removing the government can not guarantee the removal of a member of the executive. Also the limits on my powers to even vote down the government at all are another subject for discussion!

I agree with your last statement entirely, both the UK and EU systems are heavily flawed and both could act to inform and improve each other.
IMO when taken as a whole the the UKs system is actually worse that the EUs and we'd have more to gain learning from them than visa versa but this is somewhat more debatable, as it's essentially comparing degrees of awful.

[Hank001]

Ever so sorry to toss some hard news in, but the US Ambassador to the UN just handed her resignation to Donald Trump:



(BBC)Nikki Haley: US ambassador to UN 'resigns'

[Morkonan]

Haley and Trump are hosting a fireside-chat press conference, ATM.

There's speculation that she's leaving in order to prepare for "higher things," perhaps another run for an elected office. Right now, she's praising Jerod and Ivanka... She say's she's not running in 2020 and will campaign for Trump.

"It's important for government officials to realize when it's time to step aside" is about the only reason she gives for her resignation. She will stay through the end of the year.

[Hank001]

Well it might have to do with Trump setting there praising Kim to the high heavens and saying he'll "Do spectacular things". Which to Trump's mind probably means something like tossing his nukes at blue states, because as sure as hell Kim's NOT going to give them up and if Trump and Pompeo have one brain cell between them they'll know it. (Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) So they probably actually believe PDRK will cave.

[Morkonan]

Well it might have to do with Trump setting there praising Kim to the high heavens and saying he'll "Do spectacular things". Which to Trump's mind probably means something like tossing his nukes at blue states, because as sure as hell Kim's NOT going to give them up and if Trump and Pompeo have one brain cell between them they'll know it. (Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity) So they probably actually believe PDRK will cave.

It just seems so... weird. She resigns, stating no specific reason other than "let's give someone else a chance" and then praises Trump, Jerod and Ivanka, the Trump admin, everything Trump has done, and voices her enthusiastic support for Trump and all things Trump...

I dunno about Federal Administration Politics, but "in the real world" you resign from a choice position because you wake up one day and said to yourself "@$%$@ this @##%, I'm not taking this @%@@ anymore. And, @$%$ that person and that other person and that a$$hat in Admin and that other guy, that one time...$@@ THIS @%@%!" Then, you calmly turn in your two-weeks notice and wait for the inevitable security escort and your two-week paid vacation.

You don't fight and claw your way up the political ladder to a choice high-profile position and then say, "Well, golly. It's time someone else had a shot at my job!" At least not after just two years, right? Eleven years - Sure! Two? I dunno... Is that job really that stressful? /shrug

[Hank001]

@ Morkonan:

@$!# well put.

Old Probably wants to give the job to someone more in line with his administration (meaning some mean old white guy) or (If you didn't get a hint) Jarod.

[Morkonan]

...
Old Probably wants to give the job to someone more in line with his administration (meaning some mean old white guy) or (If you didn't get a hint) Jarod.

There was some interesting commentary on CNN a few minutes ago. Haley was offered, at one time, the post of Ambassador to India. One of the reasons people believed she refused was that being the ambassador to India is very expensive. It costs a bit more for an Ambassador to live there and operate in that environment, despite the salary and perks.

She's got two kids in college. The rumor is that she actually needs/wants a job that pays more... IOW - Our Ambassador to the United Nations doesn't have a salary that can allow them to send their kids through college without undue financial stress. :/

Well, that's one possibility as well as the other of her eventually running on a conservative ticket for President. She's young enough to start now and be able to run after Trump's tenure is over. We'll see. If she takes a high-paying job with a commercial think-tank, then we'll know.

[RegisterMe]

The "India thing" is interesting if only because her given name is Nimrata Randhawa (born of Indian Sikh, immigrant (to the US), parents by the way).

I wonder how comfortably the whole anti-immigrant / wall rhetoric sits with her, even given her Rep // (delayed) Trump background.

I'm also curious about her name change. Not in any way critical, just wondering about her story.....
I've not even read Wikipedia yet.

[BugMeister]

rumours of financial difficulties are circulating..
could it be that the recent coverage of Trump's illegal financial dealings has forced her hand.. (?)

- is Trump actually bankrupt..(??)

[Hank001]

BugMeister wonders:

- is Trump actually bankrupt..(??)

Read "The Art of the Deal". Trump says NOT being in debt up to his eyeballs bothers him. He gets anxiety attacks if he ends up solvent.

Though as we know he's as about as MORALLY bankrupt as it gets.

[Morkonan]

...- is Trump actually bankrupt..(??)

It's doubtful, but we can't really know his complete financial situation until we actually get the information. There's some potentially interesting bits of foreign investment that have yet to see light, too.

The "India thing" is interesting if only because her given name is Nimrata Randhawa (born of Indian Sikh, immigrant (to the US), parents by the way).

I wonder how comfortably the whole anti-immigrant / wall rhetoric sits with her, even given her Rep // (delayed) Trump background.

I'm also curious about her name change. Not in any way critical, just wondering about her story.....
I've not even read Wikipedia yet.

This was sort of spoken about on CNN during the announcement, but I didn't catch most of that bit. Her wiki entry describes a pretty interesting background and, to be honest, not one that reflects the sort of "political power-hungry" background of a lot of other notables. Sikh heritage, which is cool IMO, and a good practical work-experience degree, Accounting, and some real "work" in a "real job." Overall, a fairly practical resume' that includes experience in State legislatures and a Governorship. Now, she has UN experience.

It's not surprising that there are some Presidential bid rumors concerning her.