General Chat

He's a bored egomaniac who's playing the electorate. If the people are as dumb as Trump has claimed, they will get the boss they deserve. Unfortunately, this affects the rest of the world.

Just a couple of points Rollo.

The US Supreme Court is split 4-4, and the reason Obama has declined to nominate a replacement is that the Republicans in Congress announced that he had no legitimate right to do so within the last year of his presidency, and they would outright refuse to hold hearings on any nomination he made.

For general info, the Supreme Court appointments are of particular significance when it comes to gun control, since the court has recently made a number of decisions striking down rational gun control measures, and particularly the ability of cities like Chicago and Washington to make rules about guns kept in homes. A Clinton appointment to the court would undoubtedly take a much narrower view of the 'right' to possess guns, and a much broader view of the government's authority to limit it in the public interest.

The other significance is of course 'Roe v. Wade' and how easy it would be for a new court to approve draconian restrictions on women's reproductive rights.

These are the two issues on which the right wing in the US rallies its base ... even though there is no threat to any normal person's guns, and no Republican president or Congress has ever seriously interfered in abortion.

Trump himself historically supported gun control and abortion rights and most other 'liberal' causes. Then when he went for the Republican nomination, he started saying things like women who have abortions should be punished by law. He exposed the ugly right-wing underbelly they don't like to talk about.

AnnCardiff you are exactly right that he sounds like Hitler. Not that he is saying the same things, but that he is appealing to the same public and same sentiments ... encouraging supporters to beat up protesters, scapegoating minorities, inflaming grievances, playing on supporters' feelings of being victims of nefarious forces ... it's all right there in the speech he gave in New Hampshire that set his tone, I heard it then and said 'Hitler' before he was finished.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/09/the-anatomy-of-a-donald-trump-victory-speech/

As far as silly subterfuges ... he was a long-time enthusiast of the 'birther' camp, the ones who claim that Obama was born in Kenya and is therefore not eligible to be the president.

And his business acumen ... he has bankrupted more small businesses and ripped off more workers, and of course students at his 'Trump university', than any decent person can think decent. It beggars belief that ordinary people can think that someone born a multi-millionnaire who has made more millions by doing nothing productive ever, not even creating jobs (well except for the illegal immigrant workers he employed), has their interests at heart.

It speaks so badly of people in the US that so many of them even approve of him. Yes I feel strongly :-D

This is an entertaining piece about all the candidates they could have chosen who were not Trump. It hardly mattered ...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/eliot-weinberger/they-could-have-picked

as nuts as each other the whole lot of them.

yes, the split is 4-4 not 2-2 but the result is the same.

Of course Obama has the right to nominate a new judge to the Supreme Court -whatever the GOP may claim. Obama does not do so because the Democrats are in a minority both in the House and the Senate so it would be pointless.

Yes, the appointment will be crucial for the next administration.Assuming Clinton wins then she won't hang about getting a liberal candidate appointed - but not too liberal. Clinton is a long way from Sander's thinking.

In the past the Democrats have succeeded in some measure of gun control on a national basis notably a ban on semi-automatic machine guns which ended 'cos of sunset terms. This time the Democrats are aiming for something tough and very difficult to reverse i.e. a root and branch revision of the 2nd amendment back to what the founding father's intended. The British are hardly a military threat to the White House these days. There are too many Americans who think that "The Stand" and "Mad Max" are for real.

I share a ski house in the Rockies with a leading USA Republican who despairs of Trump. He says that right now most of the Republicans and House Reps. are focussed on saving their seats not the Trump campaign which they have written off. The Democrats will prob. win in the House but the Senate is still up for grabs. Many Rep. Senators have a tough call between placating Trump supporters and not alienating trad. Republicans.

It is too easily forgotten in Europe that POTUS does not run the country in the same way as T May does in the UK, Merkel in Berlin or Holland in Paris. POTUS leads rather than rules through a myriad conduits of politics. Europe also tends to forget that US presidents will always put US interests ahead of even their closest allies.

Most US presidents have been pretty good at this the most notable exception being Nixon. Trump is the ultimate outsider such that even if he won the election his administration would quickly collapse into chaos.

Brexit is not remotely in US interests so T May & BoJo won't get much moe than tea and sympathy plus a much bigger bill for military goodies as the £ sinks beneath the waves.

In the past the GOP has always pulled itself together and got back into power. Right now a party run by a mixed bag of fanatics - NRA, Tea Shop, Trumpeters, Birthers, WASP supremacists has no chance whatsoever. They are the mirror image of the UK labour Party which also has forgotten that in order to rule you first need to be elected.

Your entertaining URL also informs just how empty of talent the GOP barrel is.

The first step in the road for the Republicans will be to stop demonising Hispanics and support the residence regularisation of millions of long term residents. They are a milluion miles from that right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmn7jdbQwA

I <3Monterey

For those of us who have no idea what is meant by GOP - from Wiki
The Republican Party, commonly referred to as the **GOP** (abbreviation for Grand Old Party),.....

Rollo -- Obama does not nominate a judge because the Republicans in Congress have stated, bluntly and clearly, that they will not schedule hearings on his nomination, no matter what. Not that they would not pass his nominee, but that they would not consider her or him at all.

Of course he could go ahead and nominate. It would be a pointless battle to engage.

The present court has interpreted that amendment as prohibiting measures that the court simply did not have to interpret it as prohibiting. That is how changes to gun regulation in the US can be accomplished: by the court finding that restrictions are permissible under the constitution. The Democrats would hope that any legislation sent to the court would pass constitutional muster when examined other than from a doctrinaire right-wing perspective.

The problem is ... so many Democratic members of the House and Senate cannot afford to alienate their own deluded gun-owning constituents. And in fact, actively pander to them in elections. So Clinton would have no guarantee of such legislation even passing.

For those not familiar with the second amendment, but with a rudimentary grasp of grammar, it makes entertaining reading.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's like saying: A well-stocked larder, being necessary to the feeding of a family, the right of the people to keep and bear grocery bags shall not be infringed.

What if you want your bags to carry shoes in? That is the argument of the right wing, that the 'militia' part of the sentence simply doesn't mean anything.

and of course, people in the US have long lost all knowledge of what "free state" means. It isn't a state in which people are gloriously free. It is a state free of rule by a foreign power. As in Orange Free State.

And obviously that is what the second amendment really was all about: freedom from the tyranny of King George. (They actually think that the king had something to do with the colonists' grievances, just as they actually think the present queen plays an operative role in government, the entire history of parliamentary government having sadly passed them by, in their self-satisfied delusion of their exceptionalism.)

They also conveniently forget what their hero Thomas Jefferson said:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

"As we are not to live for ever ourselves, and other generations are to follow us, we have neither the power nor the right to govern them, or to say how they shall govern themselves. . . . [It is] the summit of human vanity . . . to be dictating to the world to come."

But the right wing of the court insists still on literal adherence to the constitution that is now in its third century.

"The right to bear arms" was put in place primarily 'cos of ongoing hostility to the House of Hanover. George III sent over divisions of German troops and Irish mercaneries (aka the 7th div of Foot) who both aquitted themselves badly with what today would be called war crimes.

Moving on I cannot think of another democratic state which permits the citizenry to own weapons of war i.e. heavy duty hand guns and light machine guns so long as they are "semi-automatuic". That these weapons are regarded as opportunities for sport and entertainment is extraordinary.

France is fairly easy going allowing 9mm semi-autmatics and high powered hunting rifles but it is very tough on use, storage and deployment. You cannot go walking down the Champs Elysees with a Glock shoved into yr waist band! The guns used in the recent massacres were smuggled in from Brussels.

As you say attempts by previous administrations at gun control have run into a wall of opposition led by the NRA to any attempt to change the laws (assuming a Democratic admin. )

The problem is that the proliferation of weapons, lack of control and embedded "them and us" / disaster scenarios are leading to serious problems with law enforcement, massacres and heavy financial cost for the govt which now has to shell out for gun victims. Such a scenario threatening anarchy is not long going to be tolerated.

Clinton will not be looking to fight some kind of watered down gun laws through Congress only to see them up rooted / sunsetted a few years later. She will be going for the nub of the matter and a revision to the constitution itself. In order to succeed the Democrats will need control of both Houses of Congress and thanks to Trump might just pull it off.

More than anything what is needed is a ban on concealed weapons. A good part of the Saturday night death toll is from short barrel .38s.

fwiw a decent hunting rifle is of very little use for armed robbery or mass murder. A .38 is of little use in halting felons ( short range, in accurate) while concealing a 9mm automatic or magnum is tricky for the average build. As you say no US admin would ever end gun ownership altogether British style. I exclude shot guns.

It is so much more relaxing to know that you stand a significantly real chance of being shot and killed on the streets of the USA compared to the insignificant chance of being knifed in most of the UK.

It appears to me that Trump is the type who slings mud to see whether and where it sticks. Unsurprisingly, it looks as though Clinton and her friends are giving him just enough rope to hang himself.

Strangely, he appears to have fallen for it lately but as he is continuing in the same vein, has his desire to be President waned somewhat? Perhaps there's not as much money in it as he thought there would be and power does not always bring the money that he's used to.

He seems to appeal to people who still take that amendment literally and who believe that militia means (as it originally did) an armed civilian security force as opposed to a professional military force.

Finally, as we know, he is not so much of a self-made man as he would have us think he is.

The Clinton family has been picked over plenty. Dig deeper Hil. ;-)

It is only because of a spelling mistake that US citizens are allowed to have guns. The 2nd amendment actually says "bare arms" in other words, the right to roll up their sleeves!

That was a joke, by the way.

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Bob made a joke :-D :-D :-D

Is Rollo Amercian? just curious.

He has a French wife.

Just saying.....

:-)

I'm not American :-)

but gun control, especially international efforts to limit the trade in small arms (which is the big contributing factor to so many civil wars and genocides), is a special interest of mine

so I am very familiar with the 'gun culture' of the USA having toyed with its members on the internet for years

I'm sorry, Rollo, but the idea that Clinton is aiming to amend the US Constitution is pie in the sky :-D

It would spell the end of her presidency and the death of the Democratic Party and put Repubicans in the White House for a generation. Not to mention that constitutional amendment there is simply so complex a process that it has seldom been attempted.

A rumour that Clinton is aiming to abolish the second amendment is the sort of thing that would put the NRA, oops I mean the Republican Party, in power overnight.

Attempts to close the gun show loophole (really, it is the loophole that allows people to buy firearms privately without having to pass any kind of background check, and of course there are no such things as licences there) and more sound and fury about mental illness and guns is probably about all that we will see.

Andy's mum posted ...........

Andysmum Report 12 Aug 2016 12:23

Heaven help us if he gets elected!

However ---- I'm not that good at American politics, but doesn't the president have to get everything past Congress before it becomes law?? Like the problems Obama has had with changes to the gun laws and his ideas for a health service?

IF I'm right, hopefully they will keep the Donald in check. %3A-%7C %3A-%7C
%3A-%7C

------------

Rollo gave a fairly European view of American politics, Joonie has corrected him on some aspects .... and I suggest that we who live much closer to America than you in Europe do know more about American politics and how it works.

First ............ the Supreme Court

The president nominates a candidatee for the Supreme Court, BUT that candidate then has to undergo he most rigorous examination by both Congress and Senate before they are approved .......... and the Republicans stated categorically that they would NOT approve any candidate put forward by Obama during his last year in office, as he had no right to do that.

Of course, that is patent nonsense, as Republican Presidents have done precisely that in the past. :-P

Second to answer Andy'smum .........

......... yes, orders have to be passed by the President's advisors, cabinet, etc, and laws have to be passed by the Congress and Senate. EXCEPT when it comes to nuclear warfare.

One of 5 military officers accompanies the President at all times, carrying the case that contains the box to send a message that a nuclear weapon is to be set off. The president carries a "card" at all times (in bed even) that gives him the code to be used.

The President and only the President can push that button, and it is quite possible that a rogue president would do just that ........ the ONLY level of prevention is the military who MUST obey the Commander-in-Chief's orders, ie start the process of sending a nuclear warhead to wherever ............ unless they have every reason to believe that the president is insane. They can then refuse to carry out the order.


Thus ............... in Trump's case, if he decided to push the button, the only thing stopping a nuclear war would be the military rebelling against an order.

Would they do that???


Who knows!!! One would hope so.

Yes, but if they went against what the President said, wouldn't they be tried for treason and then shot?

A European view, a Canadian view all we need now is an American one.

Trump's latest - he has attacked The New York Times saying he would "start thinking about taking their press credentials away from them".

Why?

Basically, he doesn't like what they say about him :-0

diddums :-D :-D :-D

Repeal the 2nd amendment? Of course not the idea is inconceivable.
What is being considered is some kind of deux ex machina so that changes in the law designed to return the 2nd to its original purpose could not very easily be reversed.

The last US const amendment, the 27th, was passed as recently as 1992. It deals with the pay of government workers. True it was originall proposed in 1789 .these things take time (brexiters please note)..

The codes which POTUS carried around do exactly ... nothing.
Whether a minuteman silo or a nuke submarine it is the local commander on the spot who will actually arm and launch the weapons. The poss. of the local commander kicking off OR refusing orders have both been considered. A commander getting an order from Trump might very well refuse to comply while a Trump pres. giving such an order against US policy would be impeached. Other than Trump ( and Goldwater long ago ) no Republican has spoken out in favour of first strike. US nuke research is v much based on defensive neasures regardless of party.

The UK is in the same boat (lit.) . The PM just issues an order the local commander (not necc. the captain) would actually auth. the launch. The UK coujld be fairly sure of landing 8 MIRVs on the enemy ... just poissibly there is a better buy for our defense £.

US land based missile control systems are in a sorry state of repair and those of Russia even worse. That is a good thing 'cos it suggests that the whole M.A.D. idea of armageddon is losing traction ( except with T May ). One reason for this is that MAD is not as mad as it used to be and war gaming suggests that in a US/Russia confrontation the USA could "win".

OTOH Putin is warming to and spending sig cash on tactical nukes and all recent large scale exercises nr E Europe have included them. Nearest base to Berlin: Kalinigrad. Putin is betting that the use of tactical nukes would not kick of ww3. Maybe, but not a bet I'd make.

twilght's last gleaming ?

sometime 2017-2020 Russia will default on its external libilities unless the oil price goes well north of $80. The next US president will need to have an idea about what could become a very ugly situation. The nuances are utterly lost on Trump who is a Putin fanboy.
.

Not that good at American Politics, Sylvia? I think you've given a good account of some of what I studied but I ain't getting my books and papers out nor am I googling to check that my memory serves me right. (Yes, I've kept everything for years!)

The Trump show doesn't really interest me because I think most Americans would not vote for someone with his character and temperament. I could be proved wrong though, as I was with our In/Out Vote.

To me, he seems not to be a quick thinker, he appears to be a mud-chucker to allay any profound questioning and a man too quick to rise. He could make big errors of judgment eg appointing a Middle East Ambassador with a Jewish family background (oops, astonishingly, it's already been done at least twice) guaranteed to get no co-operation from the area's Muslims.

Clinton, on the other hand, has proved herself. In public, she appears cool, calm and collected (no matter what we are told she throws at Bill in private). She has a vast amount of governmental experience and a propensity not to 'mouth off' in the way that T does, ie she knows when to shut up and stop flogging a dead horse. She is no hair-tosser - and I mean that literally without any double entendre.

Go Hil. :-D

JoyL

I'm not sure that I am as convinced that Trump will not get in.

He appeals very much to the currently disaffected lower and lower-middle classes of (mainly) white Americans, those who have lost their well-paid jobs in mining, car manufacture, iron and steel mills etc ................ all of which have gone overseas as labour is much cheaper. On the other hand, labour costs in the US continued to rise, but the labour force never realised what they were doing .......... all they knew was that they could leave school, often without graduating, and walk straight into a well-paying job where they could stay until they retired.

He also appeals to that group we commonly call the "red-necks" ......... those who see nothing good in coloured people, immigrants, anyone who wants to take away their right to defend themselves with guns.

Many in the above groups also have a very derogatory view of women.

Never forget that Trump was one of the leaders among the people who spent years demanding that Obama provide proof that he was indeed born in the US. They are still absolutely convinced he was born in Kenya or somewhere else overseas, and thus was never eligible to run as president..

On the other hand, Hillary is a woman .......... people might overlook some of the things she is accused of by Trump and others IF "she" was a man. A huge group of people, including many women :-0 will not vote for Hillary because she is female.

That's a viewpoint that many of us find very hard to accept, but it is a reality.

Trump vaunts his success as a businessman, and uses this for saying he is the "only" person who can right all the wrongs ............. yet all his supporters very carefully ignore the fact that he has gone bankrupt several times, that many of his businesses have gone under, and the very recent information that much of his monetary backing is coming from, of all places, Russia. Hence, why Putin is supporting him and why Trump is so Putin-friendly.


The winner of this election might well come down to how many voters do not in fact vote ................ and how many defect from the Republicans vs from the Democrats.