Meanwhile, from the UK Guardian's Simon Tisdall's opinion piece today:
Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit. Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown. Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of this gaudy, gormless usurper and dethrone this would-be king – but do it fast. Spike his guns. Shut him down. Lock him up. Exorcise the monster.
Good advice. Can it be followed, please, pretty please?
Why is it “good advice”? It appears to me to be rather uninformed advice.
Even with my very limited knowledge of how things work (or, don't) in US politics and civil society can see massive holes in just that short extract which makes it a long way from "good advice", I'm not even sure it qualifies as "uninformed advice" given it reads like a call to do the impossible. You might as well ask the people of America to make circles square.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
Meanwhile, from the UK Guardian's Simon Tisdall's opinion piece today:
Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit. Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown. Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of this gaudy, gormless usurper and dethrone this would-be king – but do it fast. Spike his guns. Shut him down. Lock him up. Exorcise the monster.
Good advice. Can it be followed, please, pretty please?
Why is it “good advice”? It appears to me to be rather uninformed advice.
Even with my very limited knowledge of how things work (or, don't) in US politics and civil society can see massive holes in just that short extract which makes it a long way from "good advice", I'm not even sure it qualifies as "uninformed advice" given it reads like a call to do the impossible. You might as well ask the people of America to make circles square.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
There is only so much we can do legally or constitutionally. The ACLU and other legal organizations are fighting him in the courts as well as 23 state attorney generals plus several individuals and corporations. But it takes time. And even then, there s always the question what will happen if he refuses to abide by the decisions of the courts?
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years. Even if he gets impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors we would still have to deal with JD Vance and company.
The 25th amendment is very difficult as well. There are two ways the president can be removed. 1)Voluntarily which would likely be a short duration. 2) Involuntary. That is where the VP and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (i.e the Cabinet) send a written declaration to the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. But if the president contests this s/he would send a written declaration saying they are able to serve. If that happens, the VP and Cabinet has four days to reaffirm their clam of disability. If they do, Congress must assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. Congress will have 21 days to vote. It would take a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate to keep the VP as acting president. If that threshold is not met, the president resumes power. It is a very, very high bar.
About the only legal way to control the president is through the power of the purse. While the House has already passed the budget to fund ICE, it can still be jammed up in the Senate. Many Democratic Senators have said they cannot in good consciousness fund ICE. I would hope some Republicans feel the same way. But, then again, what would happen if ICE is defunded? Martial law?
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
I would hope, once this awful nightmare is over, we can pass new laws which will put the executive branch in its place; but, until then, better strap in and hang on to your seats, it is going to be a bumpy ride
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
The call-to-arms reads like a writer trying to make a deadline while on a caffeine buzz, and he thinks he's found some themes and imagery that are really gonna appeal to his target reader, and is just allowing himself to get swept up in his own self-perceived eloquence.
What's particularly odd about it is that normally when I hear George III mentioned by Brits in regards to the Revolutionary War, it's to correct supposedly ignorant Americans who think the king, rather than parliament, was the one making all the contested decisions during the events. But Tisdall splashes around the anti-monarchy stuff like he's writing a third-rate civics textbook for the Boy Scouts Of America.
Yes, I thought that article in the Guardian was a load of rubbish too. It's not just Trump, it's all the people around him who are happily planning to invade an ally's sovereign territory, ignoring the ongoing genocide in Gaza, allowing Putin to pretend he's interested in peace talks while continuing to bombard Ukraine, and kidnapping and murdering their own citizens. And we're not in a position to sneer at the Americans. Half of us voted for Brexit and we have plenty of right-wing nutters over here as well, one of whom may (God forbid) be our next Prime Minister.
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
In turn, the entirety of the Republican Party has rolled over and shown Trump their bellies. Some of them are enthusiastic supporters of everything Trump is doing. Some of them are going along with it because Trump has threatened that his rich friends will fund a primary challenge to anyone who doesn't go along with him. I'm not sure it really matters whether a particular person is evil or just spineless - they still own the responsibility for their actions (and inactions).
So I don't think you can get away with explaining this away with "Trump somehow found a way". Half the people who voted voted for him. Every single one of those people owns the consequences of their choice. And they own the consequences of their continued choice.
You say, correctly, that "there is only so much that we can do legally". This is reasonably true of Democrats. It's not true of Republicans. Every single Republican voter with a Republican Senator or Representative has the opportunity to demand that their elected representatives oppose and reject Trump's fascism. They are, by and large, not taking this opportunity, which means they get to share in the blame.
So I don't think you get to claim that this is "just Trump". This is the Republican Party. They all own it.
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years.
But what the quoted part of the Guardian article said was: “Citizens of the Republic! Impeach Trump. Declare him unfit.”
The “citizens of the Republic” have no ability to impeach Trump; that belongs, as you say, the House of Representatives, and to them alone.
“Declare him unfit”? Many of us citizens have been doing that, but I’m not sure what exactly the writer of the article thinks the citizenry as a whole can do to declare an elected president unfit for office.
Just two examples of what I had in mind when I, with some understatement, said the article gave “rather uninformed advice.”
First, a correction. Roughly half of the voters did NOT say, "This is the man I want for president." Rather, they said, "Given a choice between these two people, I'm choosing this one." Quite different--if, for example, you get a person who simply cannot possibly stomach having a woman run the country, for whatever reasons... you see how this is shaping? That person doesn't have to love Trump. That person may loathe Trump. But something about the other option is pushing them to choose Trump. (And I'll note here that the U.S. has never yet managed to elect a woman president, and only managed a woman vice president on the last term--so there is a huge amount of resistance to overcome, just based on gender. We'll only know just how much when we finally manage to overcome it.
Please let's not turn this into a bunch of tangents on the subject of women in politics. I'm simply pointing out the most obvious reason quite a few voters went for Trump regardless of their feelings about him. There is a major difference between "I want this person for president" and "I feel like I have no choice but to choose this person for president." There's a whole spectrum of feelings between those two positions. And the way those people behave now, when Trump has proven himself even more unfit for office than they knew already--well, you may get a whole spectrum of behaviors, too. They aren't likely to all go the same way.
Another correction. You can't claim "All Republicans" because there are those lone hold-outs who have been fighting against him (many of whom have gone down in flames already). They exist. And I hold a lot of respect for them, as they are risking a great deal.
Third correction--any American can call / contact a senator etc. of any party and express their opinions on what that senator should do. You don't have to be a member of their party. In fact, they won't know if you are a member of their party unless you tell them. It helps to be able to say, "I live in your state," because that makes you a potential voter for them the next time round. But even residency is not required for you to call or email.
And a lot of us (including me) have been doing exactly that. It pains me to have to contact Josh Hawley. I do it anyway.
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place. Of the ones who voted for him the majority were older white people in spite of him making gains in Black, Hispanic and Asian populations. Also, men favored him more than woman by 11 points.
Remember, he is more of a salesman than anything else. He sold those who voted for him a bill of goods which he never intended to deliver. He did not have to convince a majority of people to vote for him, just enough of a minority to buy into what he was selling.
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place.
By that logic, I think most administrations have been “minority administrations.” Since 1980 at least, no winning candidate has received votes equal to more than 34% of the voting eligible population.
There is always the option of not voting if none of the choices fit. Voting in big elections is easier here in the UK but many choose not to vote as a protest. Yes it is not the best idea, but if you truly cannot vote for any candidate then it is an option.
Having just got back from the US, including a trip to hospital, in Orlando at least Trump is not popular or so it seems.
For one thing, Trump is rapidly eroding the US' soft power, while China at least has a consistent foreign policy.
Yes, and it's truly astonishing. The US is the hegemon, and Trump is on his way to reducing us to a regional power. But he's getting unbelievably rich doing it, and so are his buddies.
Recently many of Trump supporters will accuse those who oppose him as having Trump Derangement Synodrome. After seeing three such people say that in the letters to the editor section of the paper, I decided to write a reply. Here it is:
In recent letters, I’ve noticed a troubling trend: when someone raises concerns about President Trump’s actions or rhetoric, the response is not engagement but dismissal. The label “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has become a convenient way to avoid discussing the substance of those concerns. It pathologizes disagreement instead of addressing it.
Reasonable people can differ on policies, leadership style, or the direction of the country. But disagreement is not derangement. Asking questions about the use of power, the treatment of democratic norms, or the consequences of political decisions is not evidence of emotional instability. It is the work of citizenship.
When someone uses a label like “TDS,” the conversation stops before it begins. It shifts attention away from facts and toward the supposed motives or mental state of the person raising the issue. That tactic may score points in an argument, but it does nothing to strengthen our public life. If anything, it weakens it by suggesting that criticism itself is illegitimate.
We can do better. If someone believes my concerns are unfounded, I welcome a discussion about the specifics—what facts are in dispute, what interpretations differ, what evidence they see differently. That is how democratic societies work through disagreement.
We don’t have to share the same conclusions. But we do need to share a commitment to honest conversation. Dismissing fellow citizens with a slogan is no substitute for that.
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Just a short article, more like simple remark. Notably. the study he is citing says conservatism is marked by death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem.
It is like saying liberalism is marked by tolerance of death, ambiguity, open-mindedness, being comfortable with uncertainty, low need for order, structure and closure, high integrative complexity, openness to threat and loss, high self-esteem.
Adler once said we all have our own belief systems which help us interpret a chaotic world. Some belief systems are dysfunctional jn that they produce negative results and are maladaptive to the world. Other belief systems allow for continued growth.
I actually see a continuum of negative belief to positive belief. I do not think one person is totally negative or totally positive. We are all somewhere in between.
To continue what Adler would say, the point of any interaction with another person is to try to understand how that person is experiencing the world and then for me to be able to convey how I am experiencing the same world. The goal is to reach a consensus on what we are experiencing together.
I have a friend who is very Trumpian. While he has yet to say anything about the Pretti incident, he and I have been going back and forth about the Good incident. He wants to put the Trump version of what happened in the best light possible, I have been countering with things like a frame by frame analysis the NY Times done. He knows I am more liberal than he. I know he is more conservative than I. But he has not said I am delusional and I have not called him blind. We continue to argue the different interpretations of what happened, but we can still go out for a beer together.
I did say he has yet to say anything about Pretti. I am thinking this incident has affected him differently. He is very much a gun rights guy. Many gun rights people are struggling with this incident. I am waiting to see what he is thinking now.
I have moved the posts about China and related tangents that may have been started (cough) to their own thread. Please send thoughts on China or the Hanoverian succession over to the new thread.
Comments
I wish there was something we could do to help, from this side of the Pond.
"Rise up, rebel and overthrow him as, 250 years ago, George III was overthrown" is a call to armed uprising; a call to organise people into armed resistance cells, into militia on the streets attacking armed groups loyal to Trump ... chaos and unimaginable suffering for both many of those who join in the uprising or fight for Trump, and for the people unfortunate to be in between armed groups shooting at each other. Is that really "good advice"?
"Do whatever you must to peacefully rid the world of ..." Peacefully? He'd just called for armed uprising and shoot outs in the streets!
There is only so much we can do legally or constitutionally. The ACLU and other legal organizations are fighting him in the courts as well as 23 state attorney generals plus several individuals and corporations. But it takes time. And even then, there s always the question what will happen if he refuses to abide by the decisions of the courts?
Impeach? Trump knows he will be impeached if the Democrats take control of the House, but will the Senate find him guilty? That is a tall order at this time. Probably cannot happen even after the mid-terms. This means we will have to tough it out for another few years. Even if he gets impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors we would still have to deal with JD Vance and company.
The 25th amendment is very difficult as well. There are two ways the president can be removed. 1)Voluntarily which would likely be a short duration. 2) Involuntary. That is where the VP and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (i.e the Cabinet) send a written declaration to the Speaker and the President pro tempore of the Senate stating the president is unable to discharge the duties of the office. But if the president contests this s/he would send a written declaration saying they are able to serve. If that happens, the VP and Cabinet has four days to reaffirm their clam of disability. If they do, Congress must assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. Congress will have 21 days to vote. It would take a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate to keep the VP as acting president. If that threshold is not met, the president resumes power. It is a very, very high bar.
About the only legal way to control the president is through the power of the purse. While the House has already passed the budget to fund ICE, it can still be jammed up in the Senate. Many Democratic Senators have said they cannot in good consciousness fund ICE. I would hope some Republicans feel the same way. But, then again, what would happen if ICE is defunded? Martial law?
I think the writers of our constitution assumed people of government would be people of principle, and by and large, law abiding. But here we have a man who is a convicted felon; and, by Jack Smith's testimony, could, no should, be tried for treason running the government. Trump found a way to avoid all the checks and balances to become president a second time.
I would hope, once this awful nightmare is over, we can pass new laws which will put the executive branch in its place; but, until then, better strap in and hang on to your seats, it is going to be a bumpy ride
The call-to-arms reads like a writer trying to make a deadline while on a caffeine buzz, and he thinks he's found some themes and imagery that are really gonna appeal to his target reader, and is just allowing himself to get swept up in his own self-perceived eloquence.
What's particularly odd about it is that normally when I hear George III mentioned by Brits in regards to the Revolutionary War, it's to correct supposedly ignorant Americans who think the king, rather than parliament, was the one making all the contested decisions during the events. But Tisdall splashes around the anti-monarchy stuff like he's writing a third-rate civics textbook for the Boy Scouts Of America.
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
In turn, the entirety of the Republican Party has rolled over and shown Trump their bellies. Some of them are enthusiastic supporters of everything Trump is doing. Some of them are going along with it because Trump has threatened that his rich friends will fund a primary challenge to anyone who doesn't go along with him. I'm not sure it really matters whether a particular person is evil or just spineless - they still own the responsibility for their actions (and inactions).
So I don't think you can get away with explaining this away with "Trump somehow found a way". Half the people who voted voted for him. Every single one of those people owns the consequences of their choice. And they own the consequences of their continued choice.
You say, correctly, that "there is only so much that we can do legally". This is reasonably true of Democrats. It's not true of Republicans. Every single Republican voter with a Republican Senator or Representative has the opportunity to demand that their elected representatives oppose and reject Trump's fascism. They are, by and large, not taking this opportunity, which means they get to share in the blame.
So I don't think you get to claim that this is "just Trump". This is the Republican Party. They all own it.
The “citizens of the Republic” have no ability to impeach Trump; that belongs, as you say, the House of Representatives, and to them alone.
“Declare him unfit”? Many of us citizens have been doing that, but I’m not sure what exactly the writer of the article thinks the citizenry as a whole can do to declare an elected president unfit for office.
Just two examples of what I had in mind when I, with some understatement, said the article gave “rather uninformed advice.”
Please let's not turn this into a bunch of tangents on the subject of women in politics. I'm simply pointing out the most obvious reason quite a few voters went for Trump regardless of their feelings about him. There is a major difference between "I want this person for president" and "I feel like I have no choice but to choose this person for president." There's a whole spectrum of feelings between those two positions. And the way those people behave now, when Trump has proven himself even more unfit for office than they knew already--well, you may get a whole spectrum of behaviors, too. They aren't likely to all go the same way.
Another correction. You can't claim "All Republicans" because there are those lone hold-outs who have been fighting against him (many of whom have gone down in flames already). They exist. And I hold a lot of respect for them, as they are risking a great deal.
Third correction--any American can call / contact a senator etc. of any party and express their opinions on what that senator should do. You don't have to be a member of their party. In fact, they won't know if you are a member of their party unless you tell them. It helps to be able to say, "I live in your state," because that makes you a potential voter for them the next time round. But even residency is not required for you to call or email.
And a lot of us (including me) have been doing exactly that. It pains me to have to contact Josh Hawley. I do it anyway.
You said,
Trump became President a second time because more people voted for him than voted for Kamala Harris. Regardless of anything else, about half of Americans who voted looked at Donald Trump and said "yes, this is the President I want".
That half of Americans who voted for him does not make the majority of the electorate. Only 63.3% voted in the last election. When you break down the vote only 30.9% of the electorate voted for him. In other words, his is a minority administration in the first place. Of the ones who voted for him the majority were older white people in spite of him making gains in Black, Hispanic and Asian populations. Also, men favored him more than woman by 11 points.
Remember, he is more of a salesman than anything else. He sold those who voted for him a bill of goods which he never intended to deliver. He did not have to convince a majority of people to vote for him, just enough of a minority to buy into what he was selling.
Having just got back from the US, including a trip to hospital, in Orlando at least Trump is not popular or so it seems.
Yes, and it's truly astonishing. The US is the hegemon, and Trump is on his way to reducing us to a regional power. But he's getting unbelievably rich doing it, and so are his buddies.
Psychology Today still has a 2008 article up called "Is political conservatism a mild form of insanity?", answering its own question in the affirmative.
It's about a one or two minute read. If you get a chance, I'd be curious to know if you reject its conclusions in the same way you reject "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
Just a short article, more like simple remark. Notably. the study he is citing says conservatism is marked by death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem.
It is like saying liberalism is marked by tolerance of death, ambiguity, open-mindedness, being comfortable with uncertainty, low need for order, structure and closure, high integrative complexity, openness to threat and loss, high self-esteem.
Adler once said we all have our own belief systems which help us interpret a chaotic world. Some belief systems are dysfunctional jn that they produce negative results and are maladaptive to the world. Other belief systems allow for continued growth.
I actually see a continuum of negative belief to positive belief. I do not think one person is totally negative or totally positive. We are all somewhere in between.
To continue what Adler would say, the point of any interaction with another person is to try to understand how that person is experiencing the world and then for me to be able to convey how I am experiencing the same world. The goal is to reach a consensus on what we are experiencing together.
I have a friend who is very Trumpian. While he has yet to say anything about the Pretti incident, he and I have been going back and forth about the Good incident. He wants to put the Trump version of what happened in the best light possible, I have been countering with things like a frame by frame analysis the NY Times done. He knows I am more liberal than he. I know he is more conservative than I. But he has not said I am delusional and I have not called him blind. We continue to argue the different interpretations of what happened, but we can still go out for a beer together.
I did say he has yet to say anything about Pretti. I am thinking this incident has affected him differently. He is very much a gun rights guy. Many gun rights people are struggling with this incident. I am waiting to see what he is thinking now.
Dafyd Hell Host