Trump thread 6

[amispartacus]

And it's only been a day since no 5

Thought link, which I've lost, from yesterday was significant. US police and military unhappy about enforcing unconstitutional and illegal refugee ban, not least because many from (like most humans) immigrant stock.
The NY taxi drivers' strike will not be the last.

Thank you badger.

I think we need to think not about what we want to say to Trump supporter but about what we want them to hear.

If we communicate with them in a "what the fuck were you thinking" type of way, they won't hear us. I am 100% sure of that.

It's the fragility of US system which places so much power with POTUS, and has been used by several presidents to their own advantage. brasty
However, this man is still ill and controlled by the immoral.

Those checks and balances sure aren't working here

I've often argued for a Head of State - and people keep saying 'What about President Blair'. Now it will be 'President Trump'.

There are countries who have a Head of State who is elected but is duty bound to uphold the constitution and to ensure the Leglisature sticks to it. They have no executive powers - a bit like Ireland.

One thing for sure, people are getting a crash course in politics and history this week.

I saw a thought provoking post on Facebook last night which went something like this:

When looking at historical events we often think "What would I have done? I would have stood up and said "No! Not in my name.""

It's happening now. This is history. Time to prove that you are one of those who will stand up and say "Not in my name!"

Sally Yates was sacked, not because she challenged the Consitutionality of the EO, which was within her remit as AG and upholder of the Constitution, but instead she ORDERED the Justice Department not to defend the executive order because it was not “wise or just".

Big difference there and she exceeded her role. IMV

Upholding the constitution is beyond the remit of the AG?

Just saw this, in the Express of all places.Owen Jones confronts Piers Morgan on Good Morning! Bloody love Owen, he's really got his head screwed on about all this and isn't afraid to speak out.

www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/761029/Owen-Jones-Piers-Morgan-Donald-Trump-clash-Good-Morning-Britain-ITV

This is actually what Yates said

"I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Yates wrote in a letter to justice department lawyers. “At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

think we need to think not about what we want to say to Trump supporter but about what we want them to hear

I often ask "Why do you think that? How do you know that?'

This video is about the LGBT shooting in Orlando - it's a Republican response. It's about hate and working together

So now we find ourselves at a crossroads. A crossroads of hate and terror. How do we respond? How do you respond? Do we lash out with anger, hate and mistrust. Or do we, as Lincoln begged, appeal to the “better angels of our nature?”

Usually when tragedy occurs, we see our nation come together. I was saddened, yesterday to see far too many retreating to their over-worn policy corners and demagoguery. Let me be clear, there are no simple policy answers to this tragedy. Beware of anyone who tells you that they have the easy solution. It doesn’t exist. And I can assure you this — that calling people idiots, communists, fascists or bigots on Facebook is not going to change any hearts or minds. Today we need fewer Republicans and fewer Democrats. Today we need more Americans.

But just because an easy solution doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. The greatest generations in the history of the world were never innately great. They became great because of how they responded in the face of evil. Their humanity is measured by their response to hate and terror.

I truly believe that this is the defining issue of our generation. Can we be brave? Can we be strong? Can we be kind and, perhaps, even happy, in the face of atrocious acts of hate and terrorism? Do we find a way to unite? Or do these atrocities further corrode and divide our torn nation? Can we, the citizens of the great state of Utah, lead the nation with love in the face of adversity? Can WE become a greatest generation?

I promise we can. But I also promise it will never happen if we leave it to the politicians. Ultimately, there is only one way for us to come together. It must happen at a personal level. We must learn to truly love one another.

Sally Yates did not exceed her role. She was fulfilling her role. Trump did not like the opposition.

And look who was the last leader to over rule judiciary?
(Hint, not May)

Sorry, but I think people being critical of the US system and saying that's the fault of the system are wrong.

The problem is when someone comes along and acts in a brash way that ignores those cheques and balances as irrelevant anyway that the problem occurs.

With the best will in the world, once Trump started on the Campaign trail and got support behind him all 'norms' went out the window.

It is the norms that keep people restrained, not the institutions.

In redrawing the norms, Trump has a free hand. He can act outside norms, and anyone using the norms against him is instantly painted as the traitor rather than him.

Do not think it won't happen here. It has been stopped once by Gina Miller, but the attack is on going and not going away.

Its the norms and accepted views and behaviour within society that are the important thing that are the constraint not the institutions.

In the intervening period of transition from democracy to dictatorship the trick is to create confusion so institutions are slow to act, confused and toothless. That's what is happening. The institutions actually mean that people put their trust where they shouldn't because they have false notions of security and protection from tyranny.

Once those norms are broken you can use the institutions AGAINST the people through fear. Hence 'national security'.

Trump says what needs to be true to justify what happens next. That's the language of fascism.

A language that is spoken widely in the UK by media and respected individuals who hold office.

It WILL happen here. Do not assume it won't.

Do not assume Gina Miller has saved us. She merely put the brakes on.

It has been stopped once by Gina Miller, but the attack is on going and not going away

It is. And that's what MPs were saying yesterday. Did May defend this?

Any one noticed that legal aid here is cut to the bone?

Family court defendants are having to defend themselves, courts are moving at snail speed as judges are having to teach defendants law.

Attack the legal structures and judges and ,you attack all we have to defend 'the people's' justice.

Thank you.

So Yates presumably also felt this was "road to tyranny" stuff and decided to take a bullet?

But Trump could replace her any day anyway?

So both are "right" IYSWIM

"This is actually what Yates said

"I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Yates wrote in a letter to justice department lawyers. “At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”"

As I posted earlier, there is some debate among people who oppose the ban over whether Sally Yates took the best course of action.

lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

I think she was probably damned if she carried it out, damned if she didn't and damned if she resigned. Certainly the announcement of her sacking was appalling and looked as though it was written by 10 year old dictator. Which probably isn't far from the truth.

Alan Dershowitz (leading Law prof) said on Radio 4 this morning was a shame AG didn't resign rather than get sacked. He feels it will play further into Trump's hands. "Look, they're all out to get me, but I'm tough guy, I'm draining the swamp."

Agree Red. We're all hoping for an intervention but will it come, will they be able to get him on anything? Probably not....

Red, I agree completely with your post at 10:47:09.

To clarify in case anyone misunderstands, what Gina Miller did was force Theresa May to act constitutionally. (It happened to be about Brexit, but that's not the main point here.)

Ah, now, you missed the bit about:

“At present I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities* nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

• "the solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right", so that'd be the "wise & just" bit you're talking about yes?

And, er, as AG her role her remit included assessing whether EOs could be considered "wise & just". While "Life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" are guaranteed in America by the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution, the fact the Declaration says governments are bound to uphold those rights has traditionally been considered to, you know, matter.

"will it come, will they be able to get him on anything? Probably not....

So not yet?

Do you think some people are planning the long game against him?

meltownmary the AG swears allegiance and loyalty to the constitution not the President in the US, unlike the oath made to the Queen in the UK.

She stayed true to that.

Trump is trying to make patriotism about him personally. That's a personality cult. That's the foundation of a dictatorship. He is trying to put himself above the law.

You are quite simple COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG.

Do you think some people are planning the long game against him?

I bloody hope they are!

This is the US Military Oath

"I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

What happens if the President does not support or defend the Constitution?

antispartacus, is that essentially the same thing as the Yates dilemma?

She was supposed both to support the Constitution and the President?