The deranged tweets from Trump supporters with blue ticks that follow his are even scarier.
Whilst I don't like Trump and can certainly see merit in say the courts originally striking down his Muslim travel ban as racist there could be said to be a crossover at some point between doing the right thing and actively undermining a democratically elected president.
Filling in for laziness or stupidity is one thing but if it came to the president's staff actively working against decisions taken by a president then it gets into murkier waters if we are looking at the principle rather than just Trump himself.
Aside from anything else it won't help Trump supporters to come to a different opinion of Trump but give them a betrayal narrative.
Quite right. If your conscience says that you cannot do what the democratically elected leader requires you should resign. That said there is a fine line between that and doing what you can to implement things in a way which makes sense. I think most of us have had experience of loopy bosses you have to work around.
BTW the travel ban was ultimately upheld by the courts.
Wasn't the travel ban revised and revised and then (finally) upheld by the courts.
Some of you may remember the MP for Christchurch, Christopher Chope. He insisted on blocking the upskirting law because of a deeply-held lifelong belief that backbench legislation be opposed.
(Seriously: is he mental? Not in the insulty way, but is-there-something-actually-wrong-with-him ? This isn't the actions of a coherent individual)
You weren't paying attention. He wasn't blocking the bill because he disagreed with the basic concept behind it, but because he thought it was being rushed through without enough scrutiny.
The deranged tweets from Trump supporters with blue ticks that follow his are even scarier.
Whilst I don't like Trump and can certainly see merit in say the courts originally striking down his Muslim travel ban as racist there could be said to be a crossover at some point between doing the right thing and actively undermining a democratically elected president.
Filling in for laziness or stupidity is one thing but if it came to the president's staff actively working against decisions taken by a president then it gets into murkier waters if we are looking at the principle rather than just Trump himself.
Aside from anything else it won't help Trump supporters to come to a different opinion of Trump but give them a betrayal narrative.
Quite right. If your conscience says that you cannot do what the democratically elected leader requires you should resign. That said there is a fine line between that and doing what you can to implement things in a way which makes sense. I think most of us have had experience of loopy bosses you have to work around.
BTW the travel ban was ultimately upheld by the courts.
Wasn't the travel ban revised and revised and then (finally) upheld by the courts.
If I remember rightly they added a (less sure here) South American country. I think the Supreme Court then passed it on the basis that whilst the original intention may have been racist the rewritten (with added non Muslim country) legislation was not racist.
Which is lovely, they could at least force the whole thing to be scrapped and force the administration to maintain some kind of facade whilst constructing their racist legislation.
Also feel some pity for the country added simply to make it not racist.
The deranged tweets from Trump supporters with blue ticks that follow his are even scarier.
Whilst I don't like Trump and can certainly see merit in say the courts originally striking down his Muslim travel ban as racist there could be said to be a crossover at some point between doing the right thing and actively undermining a democratically elected president.
Filling in for laziness or stupidity is one thing but if it came to the president's staff actively working against decisions taken by a president then it gets into murkier waters if we are looking at the principle rather than just Trump himself.
Aside from anything else it won't help Trump supporters to come to a different opinion of Trump but give them a betrayal narrative.
When Nixon wanted to nuke North Korea, do you think Kissinger was wrong to stand down the joint chiefs until he sobered up?
This is a bit different in that Nixon was sober in the morning whereas Trump will still be an idiot, but if he seriously wanted to do something that he ordered while in one of his moods there's nothing to stop him bringing it up again.
Trump supporters will no doubt have their betrayal narrative but the poorly-maintained US constitution gives the individual president all kinds of unchecked powers to do horrific damage, and it's the responsibility of the people around him to do whatever they can to mitigate it.
As an aside - check out the rather flattering photos of Vernon & partner - compare them with other photos in the media - one of the big hits in Asia are handphones that take flattering 'selfies' - the Chinese (Oppo) leading the way - so while Apple & Samsung focus on megapixels and accuracy Oppo is focussing on flattery - who needs to see in excruciating detail every line and wrinkle in a selfie.....
The deranged tweets from Trump supporters with blue ticks that follow his are even scarier.
Whilst I don't like Trump and can certainly see merit in say the courts originally striking down his Muslim travel ban as racist there could be said to be a crossover at some point between doing the right thing and actively undermining a democratically elected president.
Filling in for laziness or stupidity is one thing but if it came to the president's staff actively working against decisions taken by a president then it gets into murkier waters if we are looking at the principle rather than just Trump himself.
Aside from anything else it won't help Trump supporters to come to a different opinion of Trump but give them a betrayal narrative.
When Nixon wanted to nuke North Korea, do you think Kissinger was wrong to stand down the joint chiefs until he sobered up?
This is a bit different in that Nixon was sober in the morning whereas Trump will still be an idiot, but if he seriously wanted to do something that he ordered while in one of his moods there's nothing to stop him bringing it up again.
Trump supporters will no doubt have their betrayal narrative but the poorly-maintained US constitution gives the individual president all kinds of unchecked powers to do horrific damage, and it's the responsibility of the people around him to do whatever they can to mitigate it.
There would appear to be a difference between putting off a drunk president temporarily or delaying one in a particular mood to being some kind of unofficial resistance within. There is a line somewhere but either he is mentally deranged, incompetent or in some way illegitimate or he is simply a bad (or very bad) president chosen by people in a free vote.
You can strike him down where he goes outside the law and he has to get certain legislation through the houses. You can pick up slack or make up the difference where laziness or stupidity are a factor. There is a line somewhere. There is a good example from the 1930's that justifies messing with it but Trump is not an accurate comparison there.
Comments
Asking for a friend.
Which is lovely, they could at least force the whole thing to be scrapped and force the administration to maintain some kind of facade whilst constructing their racist legislation.
Also feel some pity for the country added simply to make it not racist.
This is a bit different in that Nixon was sober in the morning whereas Trump will still be an idiot, but if he seriously wanted to do something that he ordered while in one of his moods there's nothing to stop him bringing it up again.
Trump supporters will no doubt have their betrayal narrative but the poorly-maintained US constitution gives the individual president all kinds of unchecked powers to do horrific damage, and it's the responsibility of the people around him to do whatever they can to mitigate it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lodestar-mike-pence-anonymous-new-york-times_us_5b905dd5e4b0511db3dec1e1?section=politics&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&__twitter_impression=true
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7182963/thai-girlfriend-vernon-unsworth-elon-musk-child-bride/
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/dating/people-are-losing-it-over-photo-of-elon-musk-his-girlfriend-and-his-son/news-story/6416088b2b7476ccf0bc0c24a2f93f21
You can strike him down where he goes outside the law and he has to get certain legislation through the houses. You can pick up slack or make up the difference where laziness or stupidity are a factor. There is a line somewhere. There is a good example from the 1930's that justifies messing with it but Trump is not an accurate comparison there.