Trump Trainwreck - Ongoing diary of betrayal and evil

[Warren Dew]

(12-10-2016, 07:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 02:21 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Playwrite: Most Xers and Millies opposed the Iraq war (and Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed) because boomers refused to allow the troops to fight with the gloves OFF.

I can't speak for all Boomers, just for this one, but when Bush 43's "surge" occurred as the 2008 election cycle was gearing up, there was a shift in tactics that came with it.  The early battle against the insurgency focused on killing bad guys.  As in Vietnam, the Army kept score with a body count.  It was presumed that if we killed more people than we lost, we must be winning.

With the surge, came a shift in tactics from killing Iraqis to protecting Iraqis.  They built a lot of walls and tried to protect the people within the walls.  There was no small amount of racial cleansing.  If the different tribal and religious factions lived in separate neighborhoods separated by walls with various forces covering the perimeter, the civilian deaths at least became less.  The phrase 'hearts and minds' was thrown around.  The new thought was that if you killed people, they'd get mad and try to kill you back.  If you protected people, they might start treating you as a friend.  This approach was called counterinsurgency.  It didn't pacify Iraq, but it did significantly better than the initial 'increase the bodycount' approach.

Protecting people, trying to end the fighting, might be less gratifying to the young boots on the ground than killing people.  It might be more fun, if a hostile sniper starts shooting at US troops from a village, to call in an air strike on the village.  Entertaining the troops isn't the general's job, though.  If you want to entertain the troops, you call in the USO.  If you want to end an insurgency, you use counterinsurgency tactics.

But even with the new tactics, if you are fighting an insurgency, you really want a certain ratio of occupying troops to boots on the ground.  LBJ was told that the troop level he was intending to use in Vietnam would not be sufficient if the opposition went to insurgent warfare.  LBJ went in anyway, the enemy went insurgent, and the US didn't have the will to escalate.  The exact same thing happened in Iraq.  If you don't have the will and the funds for a lot of boots on the ground, the tactics don't matter a lot, you are going to get a quagmire.  After years of trying to make it work with inadequate force, and knowing full well that they were fielding an inadequate force, even Bush 43 recognized that it was time to start bringing the troops home.

Anyway, this Boomer at least favors counterinsurgency tactics when fighting insurgencies because expending ammunition with the goal of maximizing the bodycount just helps the insurgents recruit.

I was going to post most of the same thing - all except that protecting ordinary Iraqis was actually a goal from the beginning; it was just that the surge was needed to have enough troops to do it.  Iraq would ultimately have been a success had the US followed through on ensuring democratic traditions were established, rather than corrupted.

However, I disagree that "will" would have been sufficient to do the same in Vietnam.  Human nature is such that it's difficult to make people enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing for the benefit of people who are on the other side of the world.  It's far easier to make them enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing to fight against the evil of people on the other side of the world.  In that respect, Cynic Hero's view is much closer to what most people could feel emotionally, even if logically it's a mistake.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-10-2016, 11:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 07:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 02:21 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Playwrite: Most Xers and Millies opposed the Iraq war (and Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed) because boomers refused to allow the troops to fight with the gloves OFF.

I can't speak for all Boomers, just for this one, but when Bush 43's "surge" occurred as the 2008 election cycle was gearing up, there was a shift in tactics that came with it.  The early battle against the insurgency focused on killing bad guys.  As in Vietnam, the Army kept score with a body count.  It was presumed that if we killed more people than we lost, we must be winning.

With the surge, came a shift in tactics from killing Iraqis to protecting Iraqis.  They built a lot of walls and tried to protect the people within the walls.  There was no small amount of racial cleansing.  If the different tribal and religious factions lived in separate neighborhoods separated by walls with various forces covering the perimeter, the civilian deaths at least became less.  The phrase 'hearts and minds' was thrown around.  The new thought was that if you killed people, they'd get mad and try to kill you back.  If you protected people, they might start treating you as a friend.  This approach was called counterinsurgency.  It didn't pacify Iraq, but it did significantly better than the initial 'increase the bodycount' approach.

Protecting people, trying to end the fighting, might be less gratifying to the young boots on the ground than killing people.  It might be more fun, if a hostile sniper starts shooting at US troops from a village, to call in an air strike on the village.  Entertaining the troops isn't the general's job, though.  If you want to entertain the troops, you call in the USO.  If you want to end an insurgency, you use counterinsurgency tactics.

But even with the new tactics, if you are fighting an insurgency, you really want a certain ratio of occupying troops to boots on the ground.  LBJ was told that the troop level he was intending to use in Vietnam would not be sufficient if the opposition went to insurgent warfare.  LBJ went in anyway, the enemy went insurgent, and the US didn't have the will to escalate.  The exact same thing happened in Iraq.  If you don't have the will and the funds for a lot of boots on the ground, the tactics don't matter a lot, you are going to get a quagmire.  After years of trying to make it work with inadequate force, and knowing full well that they were fielding an inadequate force, even Bush 43 recognized that it was time to start bringing the troops home.

Anyway, this Boomer at least favors counterinsurgency tactics when fighting insurgencies because expending ammunition with the goal of maximizing the bodycount just helps the insurgents recruit.

I was going to post most of the same thing - all except that protecting ordinary Iraqis was actually a goal from the beginning; it was just that the surge was needed to have enough troops to do it.  Iraq would ultimately have been a success had the US followed through on ensuring democratic traditions were established, rather than corrupted.

However, I disagree that "will" would have been sufficient to do the same in Vietnam.  Human nature is such that it's difficult to make people enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing for the benefit of people who are on the other side of the world.  It's far easier to make them enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing to fight against the evil of people on the other side of the world.  In that respect, Cynic Hero's view is much closer to what most people could feel emotionally, even if logically it's a mistake.

There was a significant change of tactics that came with the surge.  Whether the numbers was more important or the tactics seems to be tied in with values.  Conservatives seem to think it was a matter of will and brute force.  Progressives tend to think how one interacts with the people whose front yards are being turned into battlegrounds is important.  I wouldn't neglect either factor.  I doubt there will be agreement on such.

But we weren't going to do well in either Vietnam or Iraq with just numbers.  Whether it is money or political capitol, we just weren't willing or able to put enough boots on the ground to get critical mass given the local population levels.  From day one, the Democrats were telling the Bush 43 administration that they weren't putting in enough troops.  The Democrats were listening to the Pentagon's briefings.  Thus, the Democrats correctly predicted quagmire.  It took Bush 43 far too many years and lives before he finally accepted that fighting insurgency isn't easy and started pulling out, pulling the rug out of McCain's "stay the course" presidential run.  

Bush also had the "Read my lips, no new taxes" problem.  He wanted to fight wars but not pay for them.  This limited numbers available and will continue to limit numbers as long as Reagan unravelling era economics continues to dominate Congress.

At the same time, the surge did change the situation.  Before the surge, the "stay the course" vs "cut and run" debate was divisive and values locked, both sides convinced and not listening.  The surge started to work.  I went from a full 'quagmire' position -- saying that you can't get there from here -- to saying you can do nation building at gunpoint, but it is very expensive in gold, iron and blood.  It just isn't worth it.  

I do believe the Iraq war changed US values at a national scale.  The "stay the course" v. "cut and run" debate was to a great degree a reprise of the Vietnam War debates.  I see this debate as essentially settled.  It is now understood that fighting insurgency is a tough tough thing, that occupying territory requires lots of effort and lives, that it should be avoided if one doesn't have a clear path to victory and an exit strategy.

I'm concerned that Trump might not get it.  I worry that his call for more aggressive use of force wasn't just another of his empty campaign promises, that he will try to sell a 'short victorious war' that will be anything but.

I don't get the feeling that "Cynic Hero's view is much closer to what most people could feel emotionally, even if logically it's a mistake."  Then again, I live in a predominantly blue region.  It's a values thing.  (Yes, I know you are from Massachusetts as well.)  Most people I talk to would fight a war to win rather than to gratify emotions, and if they aren't fighting to win they would rather not fight at all.  While there is much to be prideful regarding Scotts-Irish heritage and values, their tendency to embrace violence isn't shared in the Whig Yankee tradition.  The country is very much split.

[Warren Dew]

(12-11-2016, 02:41 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 11:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-10-2016, 07:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-09-2016, 02:21 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Playwrite: Most Xers and Millies opposed the Iraq war (and Afghanistan after Bin Laden was killed) because boomers refused to allow the troops to fight with the gloves OFF.

I can't speak for all Boomers, just for this one, but when Bush 43's "surge" occurred as the 2008 election cycle was gearing up, there was a shift in tactics that came with it.  The early battle against the insurgency focused on killing bad guys.  As in Vietnam, the Army kept score with a body count.  It was presumed that if we killed more people than we lost, we must be winning.

With the surge, came a shift in tactics from killing Iraqis to protecting Iraqis.  They built a lot of walls and tried to protect the people within the walls.  There was no small amount of racial cleansing.  If the different tribal and religious factions lived in separate neighborhoods separated by walls with various forces covering the perimeter, the civilian deaths at least became less.  The phrase 'hearts and minds' was thrown around.  The new thought was that if you killed people, they'd get mad and try to kill you back.  If you protected people, they might start treating you as a friend.  This approach was called counterinsurgency.  It didn't pacify Iraq, but it did significantly better than the initial 'increase the bodycount' approach.

Protecting people, trying to end the fighting, might be less gratifying to the young boots on the ground than killing people.  It might be more fun, if a hostile sniper starts shooting at US troops from a village, to call in an air strike on the village.  Entertaining the troops isn't the general's job, though.  If you want to entertain the troops, you call in the USO.  If you want to end an insurgency, you use counterinsurgency tactics.

But even with the new tactics, if you are fighting an insurgency, you really want a certain ratio of occupying troops to boots on the ground.  LBJ was told that the troop level he was intending to use in Vietnam would not be sufficient if the opposition went to insurgent warfare.  LBJ went in anyway, the enemy went insurgent, and the US didn't have the will to escalate.  The exact same thing happened in Iraq.  If you don't have the will and the funds for a lot of boots on the ground, the tactics don't matter a lot, you are going to get a quagmire.  After years of trying to make it work with inadequate force, and knowing full well that they were fielding an inadequate force, even Bush 43 recognized that it was time to start bringing the troops home.

Anyway, this Boomer at least favors counterinsurgency tactics when fighting insurgencies because expending ammunition with the goal of maximizing the bodycount just helps the insurgents recruit.

I was going to post most of the same thing - all except that protecting ordinary Iraqis was actually a goal from the beginning; it was just that the surge was needed to have enough troops to do it.  Iraq would ultimately have been a success had the US followed through on ensuring democratic traditions were established, rather than corrupted.

However, I disagree that "will" would have been sufficient to do the same in Vietnam.  Human nature is such that it's difficult to make people enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing for the benefit of people who are on the other side of the world.  It's far easier to make them enthusiastic about fighting and sacrificing to fight against the evil of people on the other side of the world.  In that respect, Cynic Hero's view is much closer to what most people could feel emotionally, even if logically it's a mistake.

There was a significant change of tactics that came with the surge.  Whether the numbers was more important or the tactics seems to be tied in with values.  Conservatives seem to think it was a matter of will and brute force. 

Speak for yourself, please.  As an actual conservative, it looks from my side like it's the progressives who think it's a matter of will and brute force, and indeed, you're the one who wants to talk in those terms.  Conservatives understand a lot more of the nuances of different missions, the force levels needed to achieve them, and how they fit together into a geopolitical strategy.  Policing and pacification for the benefit of the locals is a very different mission from simply invading to remove an evil dictator and then leaving the locals to fend for themselves.

Quote:Progressives tend to think how one interacts with the people whose front yards are being turned into battlegrounds is important.  I wouldn't neglect either factor.  I doubt there will be agreement on such.

But we weren't going to do well in either Vietnam or Iraq with just numbers.  Whether it is money or political capitol, we just weren't willing or able to put enough boots on the ground to get critical mass given the local population levels.  From day one, the Democrats were telling the Bush 43 administration that they weren't putting in enough troops.  The Democrats were listening to the Pentagon's briefings.  Thus, the Democrats correctly predicted quagmire.  It took Bush 43 far too many years and lives before he finally accepted that fighting insurgency isn't easy and started pulling out, pulling the rug out of McCain's "stay the course" presidential run.  

Bush also had the "Read my lips, no new taxes" problem.  He wanted to fight wars but not pay for them.  This limited numbers available and will continue to limit numbers as long as Reagan unravelling era economics continues to dominate Congress.

At the same time, the surge did change the situation.  Before the surge, the "stay the course" vs "cut and run" debate was divisive and values locked, both sides convinced and not listening.  The surge started to work.  I went from a full 'quagmire' position -- saying that you can't get there from here -- to saying you can do nation building at gunpoint, but it is very expensive in gold, iron and blood.  It just isn't worth it.

I agree that it wasn't just numbers:  Johnson's approach, predicated as it was on racist assumptions about the pointlessness of helping "gooks" govern themselves, could never have worked.

However, your narrative about force levels doesn't match up with the numbers.  During the initial invasion, the desired invasion troop levels by the military - presumably the levels you characterize as what the Democrats wanted - were around 300,000.  This was just for the invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein.  Rumsfeld eventually got the military to cut this back to 140,000 by embracing modern military techniques and weapons, rather than sticking to the WWII style operations and tactics used in Powell's 1991 invasion.

Then after the Bush administration realized that a western democracy wasn't going to magically grow from the ashes of war and there would have to be some nation building involved, the "surge" happened, and as you yourself pointed out, started to work.  However, the "surge" involved only a modest increase in force levels, an increases of 20,000 from 140,000 to 160,000, still barely more than half of what the old guard though would be required just for the initial invasion.  I you looked at the graph of US force levels without knowing that the "surge" had happened, you might not even be able to identify it:



(from the English language Wikipedia - don't ask me why they label the graph in German)

From a budgetary standpoint, this was virtually invisible; the same $200 billion a year that the invasion had cost was enough to sustain the surge.  The reason it wasn't "worth it" was not that it was any more expensive than the invasion; it was that, as I said, the public was much more enthusiastic about spending the money to topple an evil dictator than about continuing to spend the money to help the people the evil dictator has left behind, and they made that clear with their rejection of McCain and his "stay the course" strategy in 2008.

Then of course Obama also kept spending the money, moving the resources to Afghanistan and who knows where, but that's another story.

Quote:I do believe the Iraq war changed US values at a national scale.  The "stay the course" v. "cut and run" debate was to a great degree a reprise of the Vietnam War debates.  I see this debate as essentially settled.  It is now understood that fighting insurgency is a tough tough thing, that occupying territory requires lots of effort and lives, that it should be avoided if one doesn't have a clear path to victory and an exit strategy.

I'm concerned that Trump might not get it.  I worry that his call for more aggressive use of force wasn't just another of his empty campaign promises, that he will try to sell a 'short victorious war' that will be anything but.

Trump generally prefers no intervention at all.  If you're talking about his promises regarding the Islamic State, I'm hoping they're just hot air.  However, if there's anything he doesn't understand, it's not the point you are saying, but rather that exiting after victory is likely to result in losing any gains from the victory.  And that's a lesson that hasn't sunk in with the public at all.  They may think the Iraq War was a bad idea in retrospect, but faced with the same situation as we had in 2001, the AUMF would still be passed with barely a dissenting vote, and faced with the same situation as we had in 2003, tomorrow's equivalent of the Iraq invasion would likely be just as popular.  Military intervention plans always look better before they are executed.

Quote:I don't get the feeling that "Cynic Hero's view is much closer to what most people could feel emotionally, even if logically it's a mistake."  Then again, I live in a predominantly blue region.  It's a values thing.  (Yes, I know you are from Massachusetts as well.)  Most people I talk to would fight a war to win rather than to gratify emotions, and if they aren't fighting to win they would rather not fight at all.  While there is much to be prideful regarding Scotts-Irish heritage and values, their tendency to embrace violence isn't shared in the Whig Yankee tradition.  The country is very much split.

It's definitely not a blue/red thing.  The thing is, fighting "a war to win" is exactly gratifying emotions.  Logical reasons for fighting a war would be things like increasing US or world security, and those objectives are likely to require indefinite participation, rather than withdrawal after the war is "won" militarily.

[Eric the Green]

The point that Warren misses, among others, is that Bush went into Iraq with the notion that we could leave when the new government asked us to leave. He and his minions gave the new Iraqi government that we installed the notion that they were sovereign. Bush worked out the timetable for leaving; Obama just followed it.

World War Two was fought to win, not to gratify emotions, but because those governments were deadly, genocidally dangerous and could not be permitted to exist any further. And because the goal of unconditional surrender was necessary to hold the alliance with Russia together.

I don't know if Trump can get away with what Bush did to Iraq. My guess is no, but no-one should underestimate Trump's persuasive powers. He has a friendly congress which is gerrymandered in the same states with which he won the presidency, so it's possible. I doubt he could persuade a majority of the people though; he's down by over 2,700,000 votes. So no doubt it would be unpopular. So was Bush's Iraq invasion; he nearly lost the 2004 election over it, and the opponents fought as hard as they (we, I should say) did to stop the war. The published literature on it alone was mountainous.

I dread Trump taking over the war on IS. His plans to kill civilians and torture the enemy as well as steal the oil may or may not be campaign rhetoric. For sure he knows nothing about war strategy, and yet he thinks he knows more than the generals do and can win because he has a good brain (genetics and racism, you know; his eugenic fascist belief system). I just hope Obama can take Mosul before he leaves office. The rest will be fairly easy and Trump won't be able to do as much damage.

The error you mention Warren, is exactly the error NATO made in Libya. Hillary explained that the same thing occurred as in Iraq; the Libyans didn't want NATO troops in their country on the ground.

USA conservatives don't know much about waging war; but neither have USA liberals. Liberals have had sense enough since Vietnam to stay out of needless wars. Republicans did not learn the lesson at all; precisely the opposite. They still resent the hippie peaceniks and see the anti-war movement and Democratic presidential behavior as weakness and betrayal of American greatness. Trump presents an ambiguous appeal, but so far his appointments suggest that at least in his first years he's going to yield to the most-typical right-wing conservatism possible. That means, it appears, that his foreign policy will be interventionist.

Fortunately, the astrology cycle that you don't believe in comes into play, making another major USA intervention under the Trump administration unlikely. But this cycle is as reliable as the saeculum touted here on this site, as you would have known if you watched my video.





In any case, a war cycle is common sense. America is not ready now for another "just cause" invasion "to save the world for democrac." or "spread democracy around the world." We are still war weary. Trump and the conservative militarists he has appointed will have to give that consideration, because the people will make it very clear. That's why things happen in cycles. It takes a while for people to forget what happened "the last time."

[pbrower2a]

Here's what a retired CIA officer, Glenn Carle, has to say about Donald Trump:

Quote:...Trump’s temperament had played into Russia’s hands and put the president-elect on a collision course with the CIA.

He said: “Look, in my professional assessment as an intelligence officer, Trump has a reflexive, defensive, monumentally narcissistic personality, for whom the facts and national interest are irrelevant, and the only thing that counts is whatever gives personal advantage and directs attention to himself.

“He is about the juiciest intelligence target an intelligence office could imagine. He groans with vulnerabilities. He will only work with individuals or entities that agree with him and build him up, and he is a shockingly easy intelligence ‘target’ to manipulate.”

Were Trump an intelligence officer himself, Carle said, “he would be removed and possibly charged with having accepted the clandestine support of a hostile power to the harm of the United States”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...ump-russia

My comment: this may be far worse than the extremist positions that the President-Elect has taken on domestic issues. Those can be undone in 2021.

If Donald Trump had in some alternate universe won the Democratic nomination and spouted out boilerplate left-wing stances on domestic issues, then I would have had to break my usual partisan tendency and vote for the Republican.

I would be perfectly satisfied with Mitt Romney as President.

[Eric the Green]

That's pretty drastic! Romney was pretty bad, and although he is more sane and more of an adult, he is also a crony capitalist who preys on people just like Trump.

But it's pretty big news that Trump is denouncing the CIA, after they confirmed that they interfered in our election to get Trump in. I agree he can be easily manipulated. Exactly what will happen will be interesting to see. A lot of us will be out in the street if he pulls a George W Bush and invades somewhere. I doubt that will happen, fortunately. But international relations could be seriously harmed; we just don't know by how much. It could lead to serious trouble later on for us, as well as much harm to others sooner. What his trade rhetoric will lead to is also unclear. It is unlikely to work in the way he promised.

I did have some hope Hillary's policies in Syria, which is what I wanted, could have helped end the genocidal tyranny there by Assad, Russia and Iran. So at the very least, we can expect Assad to win there and more refugees to flee. That's a disaster, but one already in the works because of Obama's cautious and ambiguous policies there. And I shudder at how he will manage what's left to do against the IS.

I do think the chief damage will be domestic. It won't be that easy to repair, since even Reagan's policies were never really reversed after 35 years, and Trump is just more of the same. The Supreme Court is obviously likely going to be a big obstacle to progress in the 2020s; enough possibly to lead to secession, revolution or civil war. Can 83-year old Ruth Ginsberg hold on during the next 4 years, and will Democrats them recover enough so that the congress can at least block an extreme right-wing appointee after 2020?

I hope Warren doesn't get what he wants on that score. But it's certainly possible that he will.

[Odin]

A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-11-2016, 02:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: It's definitely not a blue/red thing.  The thing is, fighting "a war to win" is exactly gratifying emotions.  Logical reasons for fighting a war would be things like increasing US or world security, and those objectives are likely to require indefinite participation, rather than withdrawal after the war is "won" militarily.

I'm simply going to disagree here. Cynic Hero is an extreme representative of the Scotts Irish Hillbilly tradition of glorifying violence. I'd recommend The Cousins Wars as an historical review of the English Civil War, American Revolution, American Civil War eras presented from the point of view that the three conflicts were a continuation of one conflict. It covers how the Scotts Irish perspective came to America. Hillbilly Eulogy shows a more immediate and modern view of what became of the Scotts Irish tradition since. Trump's vague and unspecific hints that direct action could get better results than what Obama has been doing seem to play to the sort of attitude Cynic Hero pushes.

I'd push the use of counterinsurgency tactics against insurgencies, an awareness of the politics of the region the war is being fought over, while keeping the Powell Doctrine always in mind. These are the more rational approach to fighting and winning wars, if indeed there is something worth fighting for and a possibility of achieving such. Tactics are important. Occupation of territory invites hostility and resentment and should be avoided. Fighting factions such as Al Qaida and ISIS that export terror are to my mind futile, but I don't think the American People are ready to abandon the War on Terror. Perhaps because of this, Obama and Hillary have slower to withdraw than I'd prefer.

I'm not saying that Cynic Hero represents the typical Republican or that all Republicans embrace the Scotts Irish Hillbilly culture, but you seem to be flipping things upside down. I find it similar to calling Hillary and Obama a neocons, when the neocons were 'stay the course' while the Democrats were 'cut and run'. So much of the arguments about the war involves considerable doublethink.

[Eric the Green]

Former Bush Counsel: Electoral College Can’t Vote For Trump if He’s in Violation of Constitution
by Justin Baragona | 10:19 am, November 23rd, 2016 VIDEO 1831
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-bush-c...stitution/

While meeting with the New York Times yesterday for an on-the-record interview, President-elect Donald Trump stated that the president cannot have conflicts of interest and that the law was on his side. This comes in response to numerous concerns over Trump using his position to further enrich himself and his personal businesses.

During a discussion on CNN this morning, former White House lawyer Richard Painter made the case that if it appears that Trump will be in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution, then the Electoral College must decide to not vote for him next month.

After he and fellow guest Jan Baran agreed that there isn’t an actual law that prevents Trump from being involved in his businesses while in the White House but that it does present numerous ethical issues, Painter said that he informed Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway of concerns around the emolument clause.

(The clause states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”)


Stating that Trump could ease worries if he were to submit to an audit that clause could at least be dealt with, even if other conflicts of interest concerns would still be apparent, Painter insisted Trump would be sending a message that he doesn’t care if he ignores this. He then said the Electoral College would need to take action.

“He needs to comply with the constitution at a bare minimum,” Painter said. “And either recognize the problem and address it.”

“And if he doesn’t do that before the Electoral College meets,” the attorney continued. “I don’t think the electoral college can vote for someone to become president if he’s going to be in violation of the constitution on day one and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation.”

Painter, who served as President George W. Bush’s ethics counsel from 2005 to 2007, also took a shot at Trump over his past birtherism.

“This is just as important as your birth certificate. more important than your birth certificate or proof of age, whatever other requirements there are to be President of the United States,” Painter concluded.

Watch the clip above, via CNN.

[pbrower2a]

(12-12-2016, 03:45 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Former Bush Counsel: Electoral College Can’t Vote For Trump if He’s in Violation of Constitution
by Justin Baragona | 10:19 am, November 23rd, 2016 VIDEO 1831
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-bush-c...stitution/
 
While meeting with the New York Times yesterday for an on-the-record interview, President-elect Donald Trump stated that the president cannot have conflicts of interest and that the law was on his side. This comes in response to numerous concerns over Trump using his position to further enrich himself and his personal businesses.

During a discussion on CNN this morning, former White House lawyer Richard Painter made the case that if it appears that Trump will be in violation of the emolument clause of the Constitution, then the Electoral College must decide to not vote for him next month.

After he and fellow guest Jan Baran agreed that there isn’t an actual law that prevents Trump from being involved in his businesses while in the White House but that it does present numerous ethical issues, Painter said that he informed Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway of concerns around the emolument clause.

(The clause states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”)


Stating that Trump could ease worries if he were to submit to an audit that clause could at least be dealt with, even if other conflicts of interest concerns would still be apparent, Painter insisted Trump would be sending a message that he doesn’t care if he ignores this. He then said the Electoral College would need to take action.

“He needs to comply with the constitution at a bare minimum,” Painter said. “And either recognize the problem and address it.”

“And if he doesn’t do that before the Electoral College meets,” the attorney continued. “I don’t think the electoral college can vote for someone to become president if he’s going to be in violation of the constitution on day one and hasn’t assured us he’s not in violation.”

Painter, who served as President George W. Bush’s ethics counsel from 2005 to 2007, also took a shot at Trump over his past birtherism.

“This is just as important as your birth certificate. more important than your birth certificate or proof of age, whatever other requirements there are to be President of the United States,” Painter concluded.

Watch the clip above, via CNN.

What would happen would be that the electoral votes for Hillary Clinton would be valid and those for Donald trump would not be.

The optimal solution would be to re-do the Presidential and Senate elections, but without Donald Trump.

[Odin]

(12-12-2016, 04:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-12-2016, 07:51 AM)Odin Wrote: A puppet of the Russian state cannot be allowed to become president. The electoral college must do it's duty as Hamilton described in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers and chose someone else. I don't care if it's another Republican. Romney, Jeb, or McMullen would be fine, just not Trump.

If the Trumpistas want to revolt over it, kill them.

I hope you did not really mean killing people who oppose you in thought.

I mean people fomenting violent rebellion against their own country. The Confederacy was not put down in the American Civil War by kind words.

[Eric the Green]

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-12-2016, 03:55 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: What would happen would be that the electoral votes for Hillary Clinton would be valid and those for Donald trump would not be.

The optimal solution would be to re-do the Presidential and Senate elections, but without Donald Trump.

Assuming The Donald's electoral votes became invalid, and unless enough electors thought it their prerogative to change their votes, Hillary would likely be unable to get an electoral majority. At that point the Congress takes over. I do not believe there is anything in the Constitution that allows a new election, but there is a clear path through the Congress when the Electoral College cannot get a clear winner.

But I also think it would take a court decision to declare The Donald's votes invalid. It can't be done by a consensus of Sunday morning talk shows. For this to happen, somebody will have to lawyer up and file some objections. Not a lot of time left.

Impeachment seems like the most likely path. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague. The Congress would also be more inclined to act after Trump actually does something. He'd have to outrage his own party, though, as well as the Democrats.

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-12-2016, 07:12 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Impeachment seems like the most likely path.  "High crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty vague.  The Congress would also be more inclined to act after Trump actually does something.  He'd have to outrage his own party, though, as well as the Democrats.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" =  speeding on a mountain top, man.   Also, getting caught with a joint also qualifies.

[pbrower2a]

Would a loan from a foreign government constitute an emolument or present?

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-12-2016, 08:03 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Would a loan from a foreign government constitute an emolument or present?

Dunno.  I also wonder if an  emolument by proxy [Clinton Foundation] falls under that category as well?
  1001 donations is a bunch!

And... all this talk about Ruskies, is getting old. Look at what I just found.

Is the NYT one of those "fake news sites" ?

1001 is a whole lot of 100 spots.

 

[Eric the Green]

There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-12-2016, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: There is no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/clinton...atar-gift/  

So There!

[Eric the Green]

I have no more time for stupid lies about Hillary Clinton; case closed. Anyone who believes these lies is a fool.

I wonder if Democrats can filibuster Trump's appointments. I thought it was court appointments they couldn't. Maybe there are quorum requirements. Trump is the worst outrage since Adolf Hitler. There is no substitute for total resistance. Time for patience is over. I say if the congress needs a quorum, then the Democrats should just stay home. What's the point of them coming? It's time for total resistance.

[Eric the Green]