Do we now live in "interesting times"?

[7_Sorrows]

The statement made by Ridgerunner
is anything, but hogwash.

 

[Economist]

First of all, welcome to CAF.

Thank you very much.

I am a small government type of person.

So am I. There is a need for some some government, that is a given. But only to provide a healthy framework to allow everyone to become as successful and they can. Of course, there are people who have some serious disadvantage, either mentally or physically. Fortunately we have enough resources to give them help.

Here is my motto: “Whoever wants to have power, should be immediately disqualified from getting it. The only person who would be fit to rule would be the one, who needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, who would then do an excellent job, so he could get time off for good behavior!”

Trump will go down as one of the greatest presidents, the gripers I have no time for.

I seriously doubt it. But the fact that you immediately tried to change the subject makes me skeptical that we can have a mutually beneficial conversation. I don’t like the attempts to derail the topic.

Lies? Who hasn’t told lies?

I don’t accept that all “lies” are equal. To say a “white lie” to spare someone some unnecessary anguish is not the same as the one that a crook utters to bamboozle some elderly couple and get their last pennies. And of course the “defense” of “but Johnny does it, too!” is not accepted even in the kindergarten.

And here I thought you weren’t much
older than a teenager!

I accept your remark as a praise. Thank you.

Mentally, having a very good and positive attitude, I am still a young’un. And will stay that way. Why get old? What is the point? The only problem is that my body is unable to stay as young as my mind. But that cannot be helped.

I love your second sentence, how true. He will run the country like he ran his business he said, scary thought…Lets believe him.

Before the last election I was mildly optimistic. I was taken in by the lies that he was successful. self-made businessman, and we can rely on his acumen to be a good leader. Nothing could have been further from the truth. He is a vain, narcissistic person, who demands “loyalty”, not competence from his chosen subordinates. All of them were excellent, superb, wonderful people - as long as they supported him. As soon as they stopped, they became the worst scum of the Earth.

Remember, his cabinet is half empty. There are only deputies, who are not subject to Senate confirmation or oversight.

Continued below…

 

[Economist]

Continued from above…

The question is an interesting one, @Economist, but the answer is, I think, we simply don’t know what happens in a democracy if the Executive declines to follow a decision of the Judiciary.

You are right. We don’t know, that is why I ask the question. We can hypothesize some solution. The fact is that Trump tries to circumvent the legislative branch, and perform his own “coup”. His disregard for the Constitutional checks and balances is in plain sight. Ordering people not to follow the Congressional subpoena? We have never heard such nonsense.

Considering the power of Congress, there can be some attempts. Hold the executive branch (and/or its members) in contempt, even in “inherent contempt” and fine them some serious amount. There is a talk of 25 thousand dollars a day per person. That might grab their attention. But what if they refuse? There is the power of using the inherent contempt and throw them into jail. I wonder what would happen if the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives would attempt to throw the Attorney General into prison? Would we get into a civil war? I would hope not.

There is also an interesting question about those people whose argument for the Second Amendment is to protect the people from a tyrannical government. What about the current not-yet-a-crisis but we are getting there? Would they support Trump or the Congress? I would love to hear from them!

The statement made by Ridgerunner
is anything, but hogwash.

Sorry, leave out the “anything, but”, and you will be correct. Most of the upper echelons were selected by Trump, and they were considered the cream of the crop as long as they supported him. And then they turned into the scum of the Earth. Remember the name of John Kelly, the chief of Staff?

 

[grotto]

Twenty-two hours ago, Economist entered the CAF. Religion: rational

Having read the ranting, and the doubtful claim of history, plus the “scum of the Earth” label, plus being reminded of John Kelly (who served as Chief of Staff and has no claim against him) thereby suggesting he was an example of the label; its more than enough red flags for my $$.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I agree it would be impossible to have a mutually beneficial conversation -
with you.
The bias and vitriol for our president is glaring. It gets so tiresome reading
these types of posts.
Have a nice day and welcome to America.

 

[Annie]

Let’s think about the possible future.

Let’s not and say we did.

You know, they found that athletes can improve by imagining practicing.

And people’s thinking is also changed by their imaginations.

That means that our imaginations can cause change us both physically and mentally.

In short, the suspension of disbelief only goes so far in protecting us.

So I suggest the you and many others have been reading articles that start, “What if Trump…” or “Trump is on the way to doing…” or “Trump may…”

And this proposed topic is more of the same.

And not only does it cause unsettlement, but it puts the blame on Trump.

What if we had an article titled, "What if Congress forces a Constitutional crisis?

Although the one I would really like to read would be titled, “Congress returns from altitudinal equestrian vacation and actually starts doing its job.”

 

[dvdjs]

The statement made by Ridgerunner
is anything, but hogwash.

The issue at hand is reminiscent of the third article of impeachment against Richard Nixon::

Article 3​

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

What weget here from Trump supporters are inventive off-topic stories that deflect…

 

[PickyPicky]

The only person who would be fit to rule would be the one, who needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the White House

Doesn’t always work, I’m afraid. The Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK has to be grabbed and dragged, literally, to the Chair on being elected. If you believe he/she really didn’t want the job, you’d be misleading yourself.

 

[Cathoholic]

Economist . . .

I don’t accept that all “lies” are equal.

I don’t either.

“Abortion” is the biggest lie. (Outside of denying God, etc)

Socially speaking premeditated murder of known innocent people, and its OK by that society, is the pinnacle of incremental self-destruction for a society.

 

[Victoria33]

What’s gone on against Trump in my opinion is totally an attempted coup, to try to deny the results of an election.

 

[dvdjs]

totally an attempted coup

Congratulations. Now, the word coup has no meaning.

 

[Victoria33]

That’s a clever way to make a point. I commend you.

 

[Economist]

The bias and vitriol for our president is glaring.

I did not just give the benefit of doubt, I was actually mildly optimistic about Trump’s presidency. I changed mind only as the facts piled up and refuted my original assessment. It is a fact that Trump was and is a con man. It is a fact that his “morality” is in the gutter. It is a fact that he has a disdain for the legislative branch, and as such against the Constitution. It is a fact that he likes the most bloody despots, like Putin and Kim. (“And then we fell in love”… he said about Kim Jong Un.)

I did not need any commentator to reach these conclusions. All I had to do is listen to his own words, coming from his mouth. And when the words could not be denied any more, some people tried to whitewash them as “jokes”. When Chinese leader was given lifelong power, he said: “We should try it sometime”. That is not a joke. Grabbing women by their private parts is not a joke.

Have a nice day and welcome to America.

Thank you. I hated the lies and the hypocrisy in the communist regimes (that is why I escaped), and I hate them here and now.

Doesn’t always work, I’m afraid.

Maybe not. As the old saying goes, in life there are only two certainties; death and taxes, but they are mutually exclusive - at least for the time being.

“Abortion” is the biggest lie.

Sorry, abortion might be a horrible and reprehensible act, but it is not a “lie”. But it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Let’s stay with the topic.

What’s gone on against Trump in my opinion is totally an attempted coup, to try to deny the results of an election.

Your opinion is noted. But to enforce the Constitution’s checks and balances, the oversight authority of the House, the power of the purse is NOT a coup. It is what the framers intended, so a rouge president cannot ruin the Republic, even if he is legally elected. There are two ways to get rid of such presidents, the impeachment and the ballot box. The ballot box is preferable, but in this case, it might not work.

The Constitution is clear: the House can demand all the financial records of anyone, and does not have to give any special reasons. Mnuchin obviously should know that, and the lawyers as well. I am pretty sure they are aware of it, but they just want to drag their feet.

As for the meaning of the word “coup”, it is an illegal way to oust a legally elected leader. There is nothing illegal about investigating someone, whose behavior makes him unfit for the office, even if the election was legitimate itself.

It is pretty sad to see the incredible hostility coming from some of the posters here. Why can’t we discuss the original problem in a civilized manner?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Why are you asking questions on something you make obvious after a few posts you have alreacy made your mind up on?

Just tell us upfront about your hyperbolic notions if what is befalling us rather than ask in a disingenuous way as though you haven’t already made up your mind.

 

[Economist]

Why are you asking questions on something you make obvious after a few posts you have alreacy made your mind up on?

Should be obvious. Because I am interested in your opinion. And why is “disingenuous” to ask a question? Looking at the Republicans in general, there is a sizable percentage of them (not large enough in my opinion) who are against Trump’s obstructionism. Not all Catholics share the same opinion.

And I am interested in civilized discussions about questions where we might disagree. For the time being I am rather discouraged. Almost no response can be described as constructive and/or “charitable”.

 

[Victoria33]

One of the articles you posted has this:

But the Trump Administration is likely to fight all subpoenas in court and wait for resolution there; only then will it be possible to say whether the resistance to all subpoenas is “without lawful cause.”

The Constitutional System Is Not Built to Resist Trump’s Defiance of Congress

Trump is leading a political campaign against the legislative branch, and it calls for a political, not just judicial, response.

www.newyorker.com

So, this is not a closed matter. Perhaps, Trump is doing more for the Constitution by not giving in.

The coup has already been underway with the Russia hoax.

To many people, this just looks like they are harassing the president, so it should go to the courts if need be.

 

[grotto]

Sure sounds like a wannabe trouble maker or most likely a leftist infiltrator.

 

[Victoria33]

The nice thing about growing older is that you’ve ‘seen it all.’

If I were a student, I might pick the 1950s, say about 1952-1964; there were so many developments. I don’t know about how far one is talking about going back.

The Cold War, the McCarthy era, the Korean War, this closing of the Suez canal, there really were some fascinating events at this time and then, 1964 comes, the war in Vietnam (yes, I know, some action in Vietnam with US involvement was already happening before '64) and now, it seems another era has begun.

I definitely feel like every era has its unique challenges.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s a clever way to make a point. I commend you.

Thanks for the commendation.

 

[Cathoholic]

Economist . . .

Let’s stay with the topic.

Hold it.

The “topic” of this thread is what make this “interesting times”.

I’m glad you get to say what YOU think makes this “interesting times” (“Trump” naturally) . . .
. . . . But you do NOT get to tell ME what I think makes this “interesting times”.

I get to say what I think makes this “interesting times” too.

So we have women helped by men are murdering their innocent babies at dizzying proportions . . . like never before in the history of mankind.

And you don’t want to believe that makes for “interesting times” huh?

I think premeditatedly murdering innocent babies by the millions is having enormous proverbial societal “nuclear fallout”.

So you think murdering babies is somehow consistent with “truth” huh? (“Sorry, abortion might be a horrible and reprehensible act, but it is not a “lie”.”)

Abortion is not a mere “might” be horrible and reprehensible.
Murdering your own children IS horrible and reprehensible.

And people cannot do this en mass without rationalizing away from truth.
Roe was based on a lie.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I am just as entitled to mine.

I stand by what I said.