Trump firing everyone

[doodle]

I am a little worried [Trump] will just continue to make the transition as difficult as possible. No law against that, but continues the un-presidentialness.

You mean like how the outgoing Obama administration made the transition as difficult as possible for Trump by spying on his campaign and initiating the Russian collusion hoax?

Hoax? Not quite

[glennds]

If Trump is acting within the law and is not overstepping his authority within the executive branch, it's just plain silly to claim that he's an authoritarian with murderous intent.

Sure. But I do think it is relevant, maybe not to the level doodle is implying, but it is just another datapoint for those of us that dislike him, and our (my) dislike of his style that winning only matters if everyone else loses. And loses bigly.

I am a little worried he will just continue to make the transition as difficult as possible. No law against that, but continues the un-presidentialness.

Last night I caught a short interview with Professor Laurence Tribe, senior Constitutional law scholar at Harvard. Basically what he said is as a nation we will probably be undertaking a period of review and enactment of legislation to address the many things that we've learned in the Trump chapter of American presidency.
Specifically this has revealed just how much of our Executive branch relies on tradition and convention. Compliance with the transition of power is the most compelling example of the moment, but there are many more.
Donald Trump comes from a business ethic that basically operates on the credo that if an act (or requirement) is not specifically prohibited in the contract documents or in law, then you can do it (or ignore it). Clearly a person who has been in an estimated 3500 career lawsuits cannot be a person who is averse to conflict.
The way Tribe put it, we've simply relied on non-written principles like courtesy, good faith, fair dealing, basic professionalism, the golden rule, duty to the public over self interest. But these things have not been specific laws or legal requirements. And the Constitution is (ahem) sparse on such detail to say the least.
Anyway, my point is that Trump stands alone in many of these respects and has prompted this conversation like no other president in modern times has prompted it.

If your sole prism of evaluation is whether what he does or does not do is legal or constitutional, then you can conclude one thing. If convention, tradition, or any of the other values I mention are important, expected or implicit to the office, then it's another thing.

Whether you like Trump or not, I think we can agree that his presidency has been and continues to be an eye opener, and if Tribe's prediction is correct, we'll be looking at new laws for sake of national interest, at least with regard to transition of power.

[Tortoise]

Do we need a new law that says the current President must begin the transition of power before the electors meet in mid-December to officially designate the President-elect?

Maybe that law needs to say that when the mainstream media designates someone as President-elect, even before the electors meet and cast their votes, it becomes official?

[glennds]

Do we need a new law that says the current President must begin the transition of power before the electors meet in mid-December to officially designate the President-elect?

Maybe that law needs to say that when the mainstream media designates someone as President-elect, even before the electors meet and cast their votes, it becomes official?

Okay I get it. We're back to that very linear and literal reading of the constitutional process. One shared by others on the forum. I can't say it's incorrect. But I will say there are two factors to consider.
One is that indeed the constitution says that (barring state statute to the contrary) state legislatures may select the electors in any way they wish. However as a matter of practice, for about two hundred years, all states have held a popular vote and selected electors from the party that won the popular vote. Following that convention is why there has been a general acceptance of Biden as President-elect by all except Trump personally and his most ardent supporters.

Second, and back to the literal constitution reading. If states, despite having already held a popular vote, choose electors in defiance, I think we will have a shock to our democracy followed by big problems. But theoretically it could happen.
So I gather your point is that transition should wait until the reading of the elector votes and official announcement. Doing so would allow for only one month's transition, if there is a transition. And in the middle of a national pandemic crisis, I just wonder if we're being sensible.
Did you know the 9/11 commission determined that the shortened Bush transition had negative consequences?

And if we're going to hold state popular vote elections, we should use them. If we're not going to use them and the states are going to appoint electors as they wish, then let's do that, not hold popular votes, and leave citizens out of the choice of President.
I just don't see the point of holding a popular vote and then making it meaningful only if legislators like the outcome.

By the way, the swing states have clearly stated that they have no intention of attempting to appoint electors inconsistently with the popular vote. This week AP published an article about it. Although some might consider it fake news so who knows.

[Tortoise]

I wasn't even necessarily referring to the possibility that state electors could potentially vote against their states' popular votes.

You do realize that many states haven't even officially certified their election results yet, right? That has to take place even before the electors meet in mid-December.

You do also realize that there are still ongoing lawsuits involving the election results in several states, so that declaring anything requiring official results from those states would potentially be premature, right?

Are we really suggesting some kind of new law that would make the transition start happening even before all states that could impact the national election result haven't officially certified their election results at the state level?

[Mountaineer]

I think it is very judicious of President Trump not to allow a whole scale transition to get underway. Two reasons, aside from the fact election results are not final: why give secrets to a person who probably won’t remember them anyway, and why divulge information to people who may not be involved with our government at all? There might be evil spies amongst them too, and how long does it take for a politician to learn how to speak new BS anyway, 5 minutes? And, he might give the info to Hunter so he can sell it or trade it for coke.

[Tortoise]

I think it is very judicious of President Trump not to allow a whole scale transition to get underway. Two reasons, aside from the fact election results are not final: why give secrets to a person who probably won’t remember them anyway, and why divulge information to people who may not be involved with our government at all? There might be evil spies amongst them too, and how long does it take for a politician to learn how to speak new BS anyway, 5 minutes? And, he might give the info to Hunter so he can sell it or trade it for coke.

That's a very good point. Based on the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, Biden is very likely a national security risk due to potential blackmail, etc. Why would Trump willingly invite a potential national security risk into national security briefings and other sensitive White House meetings before he's legally obligated to do so?

[Tortoise]

I am a little worried [Trump] will just continue to make the transition as difficult as possible. No law against that, but continues the un-presidentialness.

You mean like how the outgoing Obama administration made the transition as difficult as possible for Trump by spying on his campaign and initiating the Russian collusion hoax?

Hoax? Not quite

My mistake. I forgot that Trump was convicted and removed from office due to the overwhelming evidence of Russian collusion.

[doodle]

Mueller did find evidence of Russian interference and numerous links and meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals. Trump's campaign welcomed foreign interference into our election...that is fact.

[yankees60]

I think it’s necessary Trump act unlike any other President in US history because he’s such a classy guy and deeply cares about America.

If A) you actually care about the United States and B) you think this guy does I assert C) you are incapable of thinking independently for yourself.

I didn’t really care for the guy as a politician from day 1, but I did then, and still do think he’s at his core a narcissist. To me it explains everything about how he behaves. Never been a TDS person, but getting their rapidly.

In American history, losing as a single termer like he did gets you firmly placed in the big loser category of all US Presidents.

So here’s a nice bipartisan parting shot...right up there with Jimmy and GW Bush but with none of the class or personal dignity.

And, with that I pronounce you THIS forum's Walter Cronkite!

Vinny



“‘Remember what L.B.J. said, “When you lose Walter Cronkite, you’ve lost the war”?’ said Matthew Dowd, a campaign adviser to George W. Bush, recalling the oft-cited if disputed story that President Lyndon B. Johnson said he lost ‘middle America’ when Cronkite turned against the Vietnam War.

[pmward]

I think it’s necessary Trump act unlike any other President in US history because he’s such a classy guy and deeply cares about America.

If A) you actually care about the United States and B) you think this guy does I assert C) you are incapable of thinking independently for yourself.

I didn’t really care for the guy as a politician from day 1, but I did then, and still do think he’s at his core a narcissist. To me it explains everything about how he behaves. Never been a TDS person, but getting their rapidly.

In American history, losing as a single termer like he did gets you firmly placed in the big loser category of all US Presidents.

So here’s a nice bipartisan parting shot...right up there with Jimmy and GW Bush but with none of the class or personal dignity.

Yeah, I agree with this. Trumps biggest issues, and the one's that have rubbed me the wrong way, are almost all character and personality issues. I don't see the same character and leadership that I've seen in past Republican presidents like Bush (x2) and Reagan. It feels like Trump puts his own ego first 100% of the time. I've never seen him show any sign of humility or compassion, not even for a moment. I truly think he exhibits sociopathic behaviors. I'm not anti-Republican (I'm an independent that has voted for plenty of Republicans in the past), I'm not anti-conservative, I'm anti-Trump.

[yankees60]

I think it’s necessary Trump act unlike any other President in US history because he’s such a classy guy and deeply cares about America.

If A) you actually care about the United States and B) you think this guy does I assert C) you are incapable of thinking independently for yourself.

I didn’t really care for the guy as a politician from day 1, but I did then, and still do think he’s at his core a narcissist. To me it explains everything about how he behaves. Never been a TDS person, but getting their rapidly.

In American history, losing as a single termer like he did gets you firmly placed in the big loser category of all US Presidents.

So here’s a nice bipartisan parting shot...right up there with Jimmy and GW Bush but with none of the class or personal dignity.

Yeah, I agree with this. Trumps biggest issues, and the one's that have rubbed me the wrong way, are almost all character and personality issues. I don't see the same character and leadership that I've seen in past Republican presidents like Bush (x2) and Reagan. It feels like Trump puts his own ego first 100% of the time. I've never seen him show any sign of humility or compassion, not even for a moment. I truly think he exhibits sociopathic behaviors. I'm not anti-Republican (I'm an independent that has voted for plenty of Republicans in the past), I'm not anti-conservative, I'm anti-Trump.

For me the biggest character failure he has is that is a proven liar and thus demms him to be untrustworthy.

I've yet to get one response from anyone here when I ask the question, in your regular life, do you place any faith in or do any business with people who are proven liars and not someone you cannot trust?

I suspect the answer is no. Which then brings into question why you'd ever support anyone like that to be in charge of your country.

We talk about all these basic rights people are supposed to have. How about basic character traits we expect and demand our leaders to have - like not being a liar and being someone you can trust?

Vinny