Listening to creepy Kevin Hassett on Face the Nation. He looks and sounds like a kid gleefully pulling the wings off butterflies. The great dealmaker and negotiator Trump is doing nothing to open the government, but we are supposed to trust him on this.
When none of the primary parties in Gaza, Israeli leadership, Hamas and Trump have an honest bone in their body, how can you expect this ceasefire to hold? You need honest brokers, and NONE of the parties are that!
How long do Republicans think it will take for them to recover from this fiasco, and what will history say about their legacy? Once your fingerprints are all over a crime scene, it is very difficult to say "I was not there" or "I didn't know".
Always good to remember that what Republicans are universally best at is complicity, cowardice, collaboration, and corruption. Well and child molesting.
Somewhat of a tangent, but part of a messaging/impact issue in the US re: communication by the media and parties other than GOP/MAGA when discussing current events. It would be some kind of wonderful if bright minds in media and non-MAGA aligned on communication principles and messaging to ensure news 'lands' with the greatest number of people. For instance, refer to the healthcare legislation that enables millions to have health insurance by its correct name: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You want to call it Obamacare? Fine. But there are lots of people out there (maybe not reading Bulwark, but who knows) who do not realize Obamacare and ACA are one and the same (e.g. they like/need ACA, vote(d) red and/but would 'never' support Obamacare).
Can one of the Con Law specialists help me understand exactly what the 22nd Amendment means? The wording is "no person shall be elected to the office of the Presidency...".
Would this Supreme Court interpret that to mean "cannot serve as President"?
Would this Court view being elected VP as being identical to being elected President? If so, is that because of the succession possiblity?
How about being elected Speaker of the House?
Another way of asking the question is, when he says "can't run, won't run" is it the DJT version of "I did not have sex with that woman" or is he saying that all thoughts of continuing as leader probably involve force majeur?
Just, I get that he cannot be ELECTED President, but he could still be ELIGIBLE, if he could get there some way other than being "elected to the office of the Presidency". You know, over 35, born in the US, etc etc.
For the VP route he would not have been "elected to the office of the Presidency." but not being elected to that office does not mean he is inelibible.
I was thinking the only disqualification (ie, not eligible) would be impeachment and conviction. (Possibly to be convicted of treason in a non-Congressional court, after his term was over, and presumably not for anything protected by in-office immunity).
This really stinks. Didn't they have any lawyers capable of drafting a good ammendment back in the 1940s?
The twelfth has this clause at the end: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
This, in combination with 22, should stop the VP path, but with our current SCOTUS who knows.
Thanks, Chad -- I'm feeling dense, but to me not being able to achieve an office via election is not the same as being ineligible for that office.
I thought eligibility meant proper age, natural born US citizen, etc. So if you are proper age and all, and if you run for VP and win, you are still elibible and you have not "been elected to the office of the Presidency".
If the President above you dies or whatever, you are still eligible (age, citizenship), and you still have not been elected to the office, you have been constitutionally appointed. And you are now President.
We know what the 22nd means, but what it means is not what the actual words say. Or, not trained in Con Law, am I just missing something?
IMHO it's pretty clear that a sizable chunk still do, despite some unsupported wishcasting among some that "this will finally break the MAGA fever" as unlawful act after unlawful act continues.
"A remarkable thing occurred yesterday: Someone apparently prevailed upon the president to admit out loud that there’s something he’s not allowed by law to do."
Oh come on. Just because he said he isn't allowed to run means nothing. If he's still alive in 2028, he'll run no matter what he says now. Remember when he said he had never heard of Project 2025? and yet he's implementing it? don't believe what he says.
I am to the point that you just have to let the Republicans shoot the proverbial hostage. Giving into gets you nothing. It shows that you can stand up to Trump and MAGA, that at the moment things get real you get cowardly. This is going to hurt and people are going to suffer. However giving into gets Democrats nothing. Rural voters who rely on SNAP won’t thank you. Trump and his administration are already decimating SNAP under the BBB.
By folding you give the administration a win. This is a siege and the Democrats need to realize the game they are playing. If you are going to go tit for tat you can’t forgive till the Republicans return to the rules. We all need to be prepared for pain and sacrifice because beating neo-fascism doesn’t come without it.
Democrats surrender at this point means Trump wins. It’s proof of things get tough they go home. If you are gonna fight the bully you have to fight the bully.
Seems like a good time to note that the “policy” of not releasing BLS statistics during a shutdown…ever-so-conveniently means that we’re not seeing jobs numbers that reflect the September effectiveness of DOGE layoffs.
We wouldn't be seeing them anyways. It gets back to the ultimate point of this shutdown, that allowing the government to conduct business at this point means allowing Trumps corruption to continue. Once we admit that we admit that the entire federal government is dysfunctional and should be put out of its misery. Then the state governments (the ones that are solvent) can figure out what happens next.
Are there any realistic ways for blue states to withhold federal taxes? I have to ask this now, since it's likely to become an illegal question in 10 days.
There is, but the instant it happens the insurrection act becomes legitimate and Civil War 2.0 has started. Right now Civil War 2.0 already has started, but just like in 1859 and 1860 both sides are waiting for someone to be the one to fire the first shot. Right now Blue state governments think they are giving Trump rope to hang himself with, while Trump knows he's putting troops loyal to him on the streets to overthrow democratic governments and impose martial law.
It remains to be seen who's right, but anyone knows its far better to try to fight off your attacker BEFORE your on the ground with your hands behind your back.
WRT Hertling's article about the Ford redeployment:
Having a strategy requires having a clear idea of who your enemies actually are, their capabilities, what your capabilities actually are, and what your actual interests are (and their relative importance).
IOW, it requires competence, knowledge, and analytic capability.
These are all things in VERY short supply in the current Administration.
1) Confusion between personal goals and national security;
2) Confusion between domestic political goals and national security;
3)Confusion over what constitutes effective "warfighting" and what that requires (strongly related back to 1) and 2) ).
The Administration regularly confuses the personal with the national. This happens when the controlling authority does not recognize the difference between the personal and national--a regular feature of monarchies (and of dynastic wars). Historically tempered in the US by either reliance on competent professional military advisors or by the actual military experience of the CinC (President). Neither of which exists in the current situation. One cannot help but be reminded of Loius XIV and "I am the state." (likely not actually said by him, but indicative).
The confusion of the domestic political and national is an implicit (and inevitable) follow on from the confusion of the personal and national. The goal of strategy is not to improve or mantain national security and interests, but to advance the interests/power of the Administration. What is good for the monarch must be, ipso facto, good for the nation because they are one and the same.
Military and geopolitical strategy is not usually something that falls within the expertise or purview of junior officers or TV commentators. Nor is, in reality, the complexity of actual military operations at large (world wide) scale or things such as large scale logistics, R&D priorities, operational and strategic planning/operations.
The reality is that no one person is capable of that, but there is a requirement for some capability in those areas or the ability and willingness to listen to those with expertise. What that generally requires is high level and extended experience in areas similar to what is needed or the equivalent of working all the way up through the system (an extended apprenticeship).
IOW, the current DoD leadership is manifestly unfit. Chosen for loyalty rather than capability. This is another inevitable follow on from the confusion of the personal and national. It also has the issue of creating a force modeled on ideas of what what is culturally "military" rather than what is actually militarily effective.
This leads to problems within the actual structure and operation of the military. The current Administration seemingly delights in displays of male dominance and so the military spends a lot of time doing the equivalent of waggling it's penis in the face of, well, pretty much everyone?
Force capacity and capability are distorted in favor of display and of addressing the requirements and predilictions of the monarch. This can lead to large scale leadership failures, strategic failures, collapse of morale and recurring legal and discipline problems.
It ultimately creates a structure/institution/force that is based upon loyalty to the monarch, serving the interests of the monarch (and not the state). One that can be readily directed AGAINST the state,if required (except, not really, because the monarch is the state? That is the excuse anyway).
This is all shit that should have died out a few centuries ago, but because we are human, it hasn't--and it won't ever. Which is why you need to guard against it.
Listening to creepy Kevin Hassett on Face the Nation. He looks and sounds like a kid gleefully pulling the wings off butterflies. The great dealmaker and negotiator Trump is doing nothing to open the government, but we are supposed to trust him on this.
The $37 trillion deficit does not bring good to anyone.
When none of the primary parties in Gaza, Israeli leadership, Hamas and Trump have an honest bone in their body, how can you expect this ceasefire to hold? You need honest brokers, and NONE of the parties are that!
How long do Republicans think it will take for them to recover from this fiasco, and what will history say about their legacy? Once your fingerprints are all over a crime scene, it is very difficult to say "I was not there" or "I didn't know".
Always good to remember that what Republicans are universally best at is complicity, cowardice, collaboration, and corruption. Well and child molesting.
Somewhat of a tangent, but part of a messaging/impact issue in the US re: communication by the media and parties other than GOP/MAGA when discussing current events. It would be some kind of wonderful if bright minds in media and non-MAGA aligned on communication principles and messaging to ensure news 'lands' with the greatest number of people. For instance, refer to the healthcare legislation that enables millions to have health insurance by its correct name: the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You want to call it Obamacare? Fine. But there are lots of people out there (maybe not reading Bulwark, but who knows) who do not realize Obamacare and ACA are one and the same (e.g. they like/need ACA, vote(d) red and/but would 'never' support Obamacare).
That is certainly implied. He will loudly deny it (methinks he protests too much) but at some level he knows it.
Can one of the Con Law specialists help me understand exactly what the 22nd Amendment means? The wording is "no person shall be elected to the office of the Presidency...".
Would this Supreme Court interpret that to mean "cannot serve as President"?
Would this Court view being elected VP as being identical to being elected President? If so, is that because of the succession possiblity?
How about being elected Speaker of the House?
Another way of asking the question is, when he says "can't run, won't run" is it the DJT version of "I did not have sex with that woman" or is he saying that all thoughts of continuing as leader probably involve force majeur?
The twelfth restricts the VP from being someone ineligible to be president, so 12+22 *probably* closes that path.
Being elected Speaker of the House, on the other hand…
Just, I get that he cannot be ELECTED President, but he could still be ELIGIBLE, if he could get there some way other than being "elected to the office of the Presidency". You know, over 35, born in the US, etc etc.
For the VP route he would not have been "elected to the office of the Presidency." but not being elected to that office does not mean he is inelibible.
I was thinking the only disqualification (ie, not eligible) would be impeachment and conviction. (Possibly to be convicted of treason in a non-Congressional court, after his term was over, and presumably not for anything protected by in-office immunity).
This really stinks. Didn't they have any lawyers capable of drafting a good ammendment back in the 1940s?
The twelfth has this clause at the end: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
This, in combination with 22, should stop the VP path, but with our current SCOTUS who knows.
Thanks, Chad -- I'm feeling dense, but to me not being able to achieve an office via election is not the same as being ineligible for that office.
I thought eligibility meant proper age, natural born US citizen, etc. So if you are proper age and all, and if you run for VP and win, you are still elibible and you have not "been elected to the office of the Presidency".
If the President above you dies or whatever, you are still eligible (age, citizenship), and you still have not been elected to the office, you have been constitutionally appointed. And you are now President.
We know what the 22nd means, but what it means is not what the actual words say. Or, not trained in Con Law, am I just missing something?
Andrew Egger, only 1 side has refused to negotiate. You know that.
Trump and his malignant offspring have made over $800 Million on cryptocurrency ventures so far this year!
42 Million Americans (12% of the population) are about to lose the SNAP benefits they rely on to feed themselves and their children!
Trump cares about Money and doesn’t give a crap about poor people!
Question…why do poor people who make up the MAGA base still support him?
Because grievances (justified or not) and biases are more powerful than logic and economic self-interest in MAGAworld.
Do they still support the Felonious Oath-Breaker and his Project 2025 fascists?
I wonder...
IMHO it's pretty clear that a sizable chunk still do, despite some unsupported wishcasting among some that "this will finally break the MAGA fever" as unlawful act after unlawful act continues.
"A remarkable thing occurred yesterday: Someone apparently prevailed upon the president to admit out loud that there’s something he’s not allowed by law to do."
Oh come on. Just because he said he isn't allowed to run means nothing. If he's still alive in 2028, he'll run no matter what he says now. Remember when he said he had never heard of Project 2025? and yet he's implementing it? don't believe what he says.
I am to the point that you just have to let the Republicans shoot the proverbial hostage. Giving into gets you nothing. It shows that you can stand up to Trump and MAGA, that at the moment things get real you get cowardly. This is going to hurt and people are going to suffer. However giving into gets Democrats nothing. Rural voters who rely on SNAP won’t thank you. Trump and his administration are already decimating SNAP under the BBB.
By folding you give the administration a win. This is a siege and the Democrats need to realize the game they are playing. If you are going to go tit for tat you can’t forgive till the Republicans return to the rules. We all need to be prepared for pain and sacrifice because beating neo-fascism doesn’t come without it.
Democrats surrender at this point means Trump wins. It’s proof of things get tough they go home. If you are gonna fight the bully you have to fight the bully.
“a waste of our time.”
Because we are so busy hiding from the Epstein Files.”
Seems like a good time to note that the “policy” of not releasing BLS statistics during a shutdown…ever-so-conveniently means that we’re not seeing jobs numbers that reflect the September effectiveness of DOGE layoffs.
We wouldn't be seeing them anyways. It gets back to the ultimate point of this shutdown, that allowing the government to conduct business at this point means allowing Trumps corruption to continue. Once we admit that we admit that the entire federal government is dysfunctional and should be put out of its misery. Then the state governments (the ones that are solvent) can figure out what happens next.
Are there any realistic ways for blue states to withhold federal taxes? I have to ask this now, since it's likely to become an illegal question in 10 days.
There is, but the instant it happens the insurrection act becomes legitimate and Civil War 2.0 has started. Right now Civil War 2.0 already has started, but just like in 1859 and 1860 both sides are waiting for someone to be the one to fire the first shot. Right now Blue state governments think they are giving Trump rope to hang himself with, while Trump knows he's putting troops loyal to him on the streets to overthrow democratic governments and impose martial law.
It remains to be seen who's right, but anyone knows its far better to try to fight off your attacker BEFORE your on the ground with your hands behind your back.
WRT Hertling's article about the Ford redeployment:
Having a strategy requires having a clear idea of who your enemies actually are, their capabilities, what your capabilities actually are, and what your actual interests are (and their relative importance).
IOW, it requires competence, knowledge, and analytic capability.
These are all things in VERY short supply in the current Administration.
1) Confusion between personal goals and national security;
2) Confusion between domestic political goals and national security;
3)Confusion over what constitutes effective "warfighting" and what that requires (strongly related back to 1) and 2) ).
The Administration regularly confuses the personal with the national. This happens when the controlling authority does not recognize the difference between the personal and national--a regular feature of monarchies (and of dynastic wars). Historically tempered in the US by either reliance on competent professional military advisors or by the actual military experience of the CinC (President). Neither of which exists in the current situation. One cannot help but be reminded of Loius XIV and "I am the state." (likely not actually said by him, but indicative).
The confusion of the domestic political and national is an implicit (and inevitable) follow on from the confusion of the personal and national. The goal of strategy is not to improve or mantain national security and interests, but to advance the interests/power of the Administration. What is good for the monarch must be, ipso facto, good for the nation because they are one and the same.
Military and geopolitical strategy is not usually something that falls within the expertise or purview of junior officers or TV commentators. Nor is, in reality, the complexity of actual military operations at large (world wide) scale or things such as large scale logistics, R&D priorities, operational and strategic planning/operations.
The reality is that no one person is capable of that, but there is a requirement for some capability in those areas or the ability and willingness to listen to those with expertise. What that generally requires is high level and extended experience in areas similar to what is needed or the equivalent of working all the way up through the system (an extended apprenticeship).
IOW, the current DoD leadership is manifestly unfit. Chosen for loyalty rather than capability. This is another inevitable follow on from the confusion of the personal and national. It also has the issue of creating a force modeled on ideas of what what is culturally "military" rather than what is actually militarily effective.
This leads to problems within the actual structure and operation of the military. The current Administration seemingly delights in displays of male dominance and so the military spends a lot of time doing the equivalent of waggling it's penis in the face of, well, pretty much everyone?
Force capacity and capability are distorted in favor of display and of addressing the requirements and predilictions of the monarch. This can lead to large scale leadership failures, strategic failures, collapse of morale and recurring legal and discipline problems.
It ultimately creates a structure/institution/force that is based upon loyalty to the monarch, serving the interests of the monarch (and not the state). One that can be readily directed AGAINST the state,if required (except, not really, because the monarch is the state? That is the excuse anyway).
This is all shit that should have died out a few centuries ago, but because we are human, it hasn't--and it won't ever. Which is why you need to guard against it.