Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Mr. Trump could be booted out quickly without impeachment
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Mr. Trump could be booted out quickly without impeachment
So far quite a few bookies have got markets up on which year Trump will cease to be President. The options range from this year, 2017, until January 2025 which is when he would leave the White House after securing and serviing a second full term.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2025 would be a decent bet if you could get it on credit, mind.
This 25th amendment stuff is (Yet more NeverTrump) pure fantasy.
How would effectively declaring that they'd enabled a maniac for the previous couple of years do anything to save their electoral prospect ? As Pulpstar says, this is fantasy - theoretically possible, but fantasy nonetheless.
That's usually a sign of a POTUS not going to win/run again, cf Carter in 1980, Ford in 1976, LBJ in 1968
Taking the realistic alternatives into account if Japan did not surrender, a truly massive and prolonged hard-fought invasion, the air raids and atomic bombings are defensible as terrible as they were in that they did end the war.
Of course, we need to see how he actually works with the two houses in practice; that will be fascinating. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to predict what will happen, I'd guess that he'll become bored quite quickly, and will achieve far less (for good or ill) than people currently think.
Whether he does a second term will depend how the US economy performs under his very different regime.
Fortunately there's constitutional protections in place against that happening.
"Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Barnesian, disagree. There isn't a binary choice between being pro-torture or being a pacifist. There's been war throughout history but the treatment of captives has varied widely."
I agree. I said IF you are against torture in principle (or bombing civilians) etc, THEN ...binary choice.
But I am not principled. I am a pragmatist. I judge each case on its merits - cost/benefit. So I am not against bombing civilians in principle. Nor am I against torture in principle. My objections would be practical (EDIT and emotional) and there may be cases when I would be in favour.
Did Ike really face a challenge in 1956?
https://twitter.com/sluggahjells/status/824466850851524608
I'd expect a Trump challenger to do better than Bricker/LaRouche simply because Trump is alot more divisive. Trump to win comfortably though (65-75%) - which would be low by historical standards.
By which time famine and bombing raids might well have killed tens of millions.
How did the Soviets get on in the battles for Kurile Islands?
On-topic: why would Pence do this? Would Pence be seen as better by those who dislike Trump? And why would a majority of Republicans in Congress support this?
Vanity Fair on Steve Bannon (Trump's Alistair Campbell) running the show.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/is-donald-trump-a-pawn-in-steve-bannons-game
The shopkeeper turns to him and says: “Fuck you, you fucking asshole. Get the fuck out of here.”
The man says, “Yeah, that’s the one. You got it in paperback?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wb-IRgqXMI
Abraham Lincoln was an invader from space
Abraham Lincoln did not belong to our race
Fire from the sky fell upon the obstinate South
Fire from the sky issued forth from Lincoln's own mouth
Theodore Roosevelt could not die if he tried
Theodore Roosevelt kissed his immortal bride
Hunting the humans to live the vigorous life
Hunting the humans to please his undying wife
President Wilson emerged from one of the pods
President Wilson brought with him alien gods
Children were sacrificed to the idols of wood
Children were sacrificed it was for our own good
Warren G. Harding could travel backwards in time
Warren G. Harding commanded clocks when to chime
Watching the slow counter-clockwise turn of the hands
Watching the slow upward trickling hourglass' sands
Richard M. Nixon: a robot wearing a mask
Richard M. Nixon drank engine oil from a flask
Odd how his eyes were attached with thin copper wire
Odd how his eyes sometimes glowed with St. Elmo's fire
According to a survey by Odoxa January 26, that is to say after the publication of the article of the satirical newspaper controversy, François Fillon has lost 16 points of popularity in public opinion since his resounding victory against Alain Juppé during The primary on the right.
38% of respondents now have a good opinion of him, compared with 42% in December and 54% in November. If the French judge the former prime minister courageous (54%), they do not find him honest (67%), neither close to their concerns (68%) nor convincing (61%).
If your analysis is "Trump will fail because he's Trump" then that's the wrong analysis, his crazy behaviour simply does not damage him. It's all about the economy as always.
I can imagine Trump becoming a figure of fun and not liking it.
And the incredible humanity bursting out of that young girl's face is painful.
Will he, for example, try to lock her up?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/whatinformationisthereonbritishmigrantslivingineurope/jan2017
This is relevant to this thread because I believe that Trump is also an emotional pragmatist. He is not an idealist or wedded to any ideology. He is focused on what works and will change tack and even contradict himself to achieve his ends. He is an anti-Kantian. Hence his views on torture.
Because he can shape-shift and is very sensitive to feedback and public mood, I think he is here for the duration. We saw his skills in working the crowds in his primaries. He'll continue to do that. His approval ratings will continue to rise. He'll win again in 2020 if he still has his health and the ambition. I suspect he will have had enough by then, but it will be his choice.
"Last year, Shomrim were in attendance when a man allegedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" "F***ing Jews" "Kill the Jews" was arrested"
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/londoners-must-challenge-antisemitism-after-hate-crime-rise-since-brexit-vote-a3451181.html
Conservative, Unionist, Eurosceptics by and large. We have listened to them, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP want to ignore them
Approval ratings going up after election and inauguration are nothing new; what is new is that his approval ratings are so low in absolute terms. True, they set record lows for a successful candidate too but he was up against Hillary and surely the Democrats can't put forward someone that bad again?
It's quite an interesting scenario, as it might suit Trump better to have the title and the big house while still being able to play the victim and blame everything that goes wrong on somebody else. He might even run again...
This is not about Brexit.
This is not about Brexit.
Neither NATO nor the Russian Federation has the logistical or production tail to support anything more than a brushfire war. Sure, we could sustain a light infantry/insurgency style conflict (a la Ukraine), but that's of a completely different order to the slaughters of the 20th century.
I'd argue that the reasons for warfare have changed; it used to be fought over land and resources; national virility was measured in steel and coal production. It's hard to see what would be gained by a European war. It would wreck delicate, intertwined economies - and to what end? Europe is not particularly religious, the Russians not particularly ideological.
Interesting comment
Who, in the past, has tried to inject stimulus into an economy (from a tax and spending perspective) that was already near capacity?
And what is the consequence, based on experience, of a government that implements widespread restrictions (or additional tariffs) on imports?
Regarding the first, I think it's easy to look at Reagan (and Trump does), as an example. But I don't think that's a good example. In 1980, taxes were high and the US economy was running well below capacity. There was therefore plenty of room for the economy to meet increased demand. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
How about Anthony Barber? His cut taxes and increased spending (by rather less than the 4% of GDP that is proposed by Donald Trump) when the UK economy was running near capacity. The consequence was that the UK sucked in more imports, there was a housing bubble, and then inflation shot up.
Thinking about tariffs on imported goods. They will clearly mess up supply chains and raise consumer prices.
Could American be in for a bout of inflation? (Something that would be very good for people with billions of dollars of fixed interest long-term debt, like property developers.)
In that scenario, what would Rex Tillerson's position be? Before playing Brutus, he'd want to be sure he stayed out of the doo-doo. In fact, he'd want to make billions out of the upheaval, but that requires staying out of the doo-doo.
A 25th amendment job could happen, but it isn't around the corner. If Trump's removal is imminent, it will be because he gets whacked. With the assistance of elements in the CIA who aren't with The Project. No man, no problem.
Trump will upset some in the CIA. Things definitely can't stay the same. He needs to reorganise the FBI, CIA and DHS. He needs an SS. Hitler relied a lot on Himmler and the SS. Ivan the Terrible needed the Oprichnina. Increasing the powers of immigration officers, not just at the border but including in the interior of the country, sounds like the opener. There will be more, and soon.
Trump can't quietly consolidate.
Meanwhile in France, Fillon is drifting because of "Penelopegate", thanks partly to Vladimir Putin's man Edward Snowden helping out from Moscow.
Marine Le Pen has a soft image, so I doubt she is going to start snarling "Crooked François, I'm going to put you in jail". She's also unlikely to tell obvious lies, as Trump did about Hillary Clinton, e.g. saying that it was Clinton who started birtherism. The French market isn't quite as pigshit stupid as much of the one in the US that contains millions of people who think a photograph shows a huge crowd when it obviously doesn't but Der Trumpenfuhrer tells them it does.
She will get the message across in a more feminine way, or others will do it for her.
It takes a brave person to bet on Fillon now. "Rather vote for a crook than a fascist" isn't going to apply in this election.
After Fillon, Macron will be targeted. His spending of ministerial funds on wining and dining to assist his presidential campaign is already an issue, "Macrongate".
In March and April there are also likely to be continuing news stories not just about Brexit but also about a political impasse in the Netherlands after Wilders wins a plurality.
"Protocol" is that the Dutch monarch asks the leader of the largest party to try to form a government. That will be Wilders.
Those who want rid of the US dictator but who don't fancy offering themselves as patsies or waiting around for a faction of the CIA to help them, and who'd rather contribute from their armchairs, should get a load of this:
President for four terms, interning those Americans who he considers fifth columnists, put in place changes that changed America. a New Deal for America.
I've often wrote FDR was the most duplicitous bastard to have ever occupied the White House, an official policy of neutrality whilst pretty much doing as much as he could do back the UK.
Although FDR made Germany First a priority rather than America First (or indeed Japan First) which made winning WWII easier.
The question of how the next four years will play out is really a question of how far Republicans in Congress will go along with the Trump agenda. That is very unclear at the moment: they are still punch-drunk. The most likely outcome is that much of what Trump wants to do will get bogged down in political and legal quagmires.
As regards re-election for a second term, I think it's rather unlikely to be honest. It's all very well saying Trump might be successful in re-shoring US manufacturing; he may well be, and in fact the process has already been underway for some time. The problem, though, is that modern factories are never going to employ the kinds of numbers Trump's supporters have been led to expect, for the reasons laid out here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/jobs-for-all-tested-to-destruction-trump-full-employment
It was Jonathan that tried to co-opt the tragedies of the 20th century to make a political argument first, not Isam.
And that was in an age without mechanised warfare. The slaughter at Cannae wasn't replicated* until World War One, in Europe.
*Could make a case for Arausio, although that was self-inflicted as a heavily outnumbered Roman force was also riven with hatred between commanders. Teutoberg was an opportunistic ambush rather than a battle.
Further, there is no ability to go and borrow four trillion dollars at negative interest rates to rebuild America. You can try it if you like but it simply doesn't exist. A price is a snapshot based on demand or supply of one.