@AverageJoe1
In other words, Trump ignoring all the experts is a good thing. He is his own man, he is SO brilliant he doesn't need those stinking experts.
That is EXACTLY why we have to dump this cretin, this caricature of a human being.
He has ZERO empathy and is a flaming narcissist and you know that full well. What you DON'T know is how dangerous that is in a POTUS with that condition.
Biden KNOWS he is not an expert and will listen to real experts, whatever the field.
Trump by his mental illusions cannot EVER actually take advice.
He acts like he is the worlds foremost expert on all things, like military security and medical knowledge and intelligence reports which he doesn't even READ.
You are extremely naïve when it comes to assessing how dangerous that is in a POTUS.
AT LEAST.
@sonhouse saidMan, I wonder how much hell you would have given President Kennedy! Or how you would have gone NUTS with Truman deciding ON HIS OWN, about decisions such as killing over 100K people in Japan. I would have been saying YES!!!! while you flooded the Forum.
@AverageJoe1
In other words, Trump ignoring all the experts is a good thing. He is his own man, he is SO brilliant he doesn't need those stinking experts.
That is EXACTLY why we have to dump this cretin, this caricature of a human being.
He has ZERO empathy and is a flaming narcissist and you know that full well. What you DON'T know is how dangerous that is in a POTUS w ...[text shortened]... AD.
You are extremely naïve when it comes to assessing how dangerous that is in a POTUS.
AT LEAST.
I am being amazed by Duchess at the moment, absolutely unbelievable, ....to me, at least. Prob not to you. So, will get back to your rant #2062 in a bit. Have you seen her stuff over on mandatory education. It begs the question, what if it Biden put her in charge of mandating education. Go read it, unbelievable.
@sonhouse saidExactly......
@AverageJoe1
In other words, Trump ignoring all the experts is a good thing. He is his own man, he is SO brilliant he doesn't need those stinking experts.
That is EXACTLY why we have to dump this cretin, this caricature of a human being.
He has ZERO empathy and is a flaming narcissist and you know that full well. What you DON'T know is how dangerous that is in a POTUS w ...[text shortened]... AD.
You are extremely naïve when it comes to assessing how dangerous that is in a POTUS.
AT LEAST.
Any president can have a credible team of experts behind him/her.
Democracy will sort out which direction the country will head in, in terms of national and foreign policy, and ideologically.
But when that team spends more time managing the president than managing the country, then the effectiveness of that team suffers.
And it doesn’t matter one iota if that country is free market, socialist, communist, or anything else.
@sonhouse saidNo sugar, huh? But that's not what you told me earlier (a month ago?)
@Earl-of-Trumps
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/heres-goes-presidents-decision-launch-nuclear-weapons
There are folks lower down in the command chain who would question if POTUS say woke up in the middle of the night after a tweet storm and just arbitrarily said we are going to nuke North Korea.
So it is unlikely without provocation the lower ranks would allow such an action.
One button can hit many different targets? I don't think so! Somebody has to cooperate and aim the missile. And hitting the red button is only giving presidential approval, the actual firing is in the hands of the military to fire missileS (there may be more than one missile to be fired)
So there ya go. Glad to see you could work it out.
@mghrn55 saidyup. Trump does want yes men. He claims he likes to run questions by his team to get feedback, but in the end, he does what he wants.
Exactly......
Any president can have a credible team of experts behind him/her.
Democracy will sort out which direction the country will head in, in terms of national and foreign policy, and ideologically.
But when that team spends more time managing the president than managing the country, then the effectiveness of that team suffers.
And it doesn’t matter one iota if that country is free market, socialist, communist, or anything else.
@earl-of-trumps saidWell, in the UK the way it works is that if Boris goes totally off the rails, due to a neuropathic effect of covid-19, and orders the Navy to nuke Paris the Chief of the Defence Staff (currently General Sir Nicholas Carter, but the head of the Navy can do this too) can refuse and if Boris tries to sack him and get a yes man then he can appeal directly to the Queen, since she is the Commander-in-Chief. Since it's not in her interests to start World War III, even against the French, she'll drop a hint to the House of Commons that now might be a good time for a no confidence motion.
No sugar, huh? But that's not what you told me earlier (a month ago?)
One button can hit many different targets? I don't think so! Somebody has to cooperate and aim the missile. And hitting the red button is only giving presidential approval, the actual firing is in the hands of the military to fire missileS (there may be more than one missile to be fired)
So there ya go. Glad to see you could work it out.
In the US the President is the Chief-of-Staff, so there isn't actually a mechanism by which to prevent him from doing this. I agree that people down the chain of command can refuse the order, but they have to refuse the order from the Commander-in-Chief. It's not obvious they will - assuming the target's not actually an ally.
@deepthought saidI know the POTUS is the commander-in-chief. But I am a firm believer in checks and balances. I do not believe that one person alone should have that kind of power.
Well, in the UK the way it works is that if Boris goes totally off the rails, due to a neuropathic effect of covid-19, and orders the Navy to nuke Paris the Chief of the Defence Staff (currently General Sir Nicholas Carter, but the head of the Navy can do this too) can refuse and if Boris tries to sack him and get a yes man then he can appeal directly to the Queen, since ...[text shortened]... om the Commander-in-Chief. It's not obvious they will - assuming the target's not actually an ally.
The so-called red button that the POTUS Has access to, I always thought, was to prevent a crazed war monger from firing off missiles on his own. That is check and balances. That is good.
As far as who checks the president, I don't know. But if the military down the line does not set the missiles up to be fired, there is nothing the president can do. In other words, the red button is NOT an ignition switch, it is a permission giver. The firing is done by the military, of course.
@earl-of-trumps saidSurely the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration ought to have convinced you that the system of checks and balances has failed horribly - even though much of the problem is that Congress is refusing to exercise its powers to keep the presidency in check (which would have obviously meant instantly removing Trump from office).
I know the POTUS is the commander-in-chief. But I am a firm believer in checks and balances. I do not believe that one person alone should have that kind of power.
The so-called red button that the POTUS Has access to, I always thought, was to prevent a crazed war monger from firing off missiles on his own. That is check and balances. That is good.
As far as who ...[text shortened]... is NOT an ignition switch, it is a permission giver. The firing is done by the military, of course.
@kazetnagorra saidIf congress wanted to exercise its right to remove the president "just cuz", Obama would have been gone and so would every president.
Surely the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration ought to have convinced you that the system of checks and balances has failed horribly - even though much of the problem is that Congress is refusing to exercise its powers to keep the presidency in check (which would have obviously meant instantly removing Trump from office).
You don't change your leader because one side of the room says "I hate you". And the dems in this room seem to forget that everyone has a vote, even people you hate. And they count
@earl-of-trumps saidThat's exactly how it works in systems with a functional form of government. Merkel? Johnson? Sánchez? Conte? All can be removed by a simple majority in parliament for any reason. Not even in Italy would Trump's brazen and rampant corruption be tolerated.
You don't change your leader because one side of the room says "I hate you".
@KazetNagorra
Then, change the law. See just how much support for the Euro model there really is, or isn't.
The founding fathers made it a point to make it difficult to remove the president otherwise you would be changing presidents like you change shoes. This is why the Russians copied the American model.
@earl-of-trumps said“ This is why the Russians copied the American model.”
@KazetNagorra
Then, change the law. See just how much support for the Euro model there really is, or isn't.
The founding fathers made it a point to make it difficult to remove the president otherwise you would be changing presidents like you change shoes. This is why the Russians copied the American model.
Hahaha seriously earl are you sure you want to go with that for a ‘slam dunk’.
@earl-of-trumps saidNo sooner did I raise the issue of Joe's viability in 2024, the dems now show I was right. They are quite cognizant of where Joe may be in 4 years and are concerned. To wit:
We, the little dems and repubs have our way of looking at it, the Big Wigs have theirs.
The little d's (and others) see Joe v. Trump right *now*. The Big Wig D's are thinking about 2024, in addition to right now.
If the Dems win, they expect to hold the office for two terms, due to having the incumbent in 4 years. They look at Joe and they think... "Is this guy eve ...[text shortened]... t if so, it is an idea that is brewing and rumors of that magnitude will have to surface. We'll see.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Biden has longed to win the White House for more than three decades. If he finally makes it there after November’s election, he’s already talking about leaving.
In an effort to ease concerns about his age, the 77-year-old presumptive Democratic nominee has said he wouldn’t seek reelection if his mental or physical health declined. He has also referred to himself as a “transition candidate,” acting as a bridge to a younger generation of leadership.
The only president I can recall that voluntarily stepped down after the first term was Lyndon Baynes Johnson. (I think his bank account was stuffed with millions from the Vietnam war)
https://apnews.com/86cffc39bc70cd3f540f9dea4637c38c